The Department of Defense (DOD, or the Department) has played a prominent role in the Trump Administration's border security strategy because of controversies related to $13.3 billion in defense funding it has sought to use for border barrier construction projects not otherwise authorized by Congress. These defense funds would comprise a complex mix of DOD program savings and unobligated military construction funds from past years ($6.1 billion), as well as a request for new appropriations in FY2020 ($7.2 billion). An additional $2 billion in non-DOD appropriations are often cited as part of the Administration's overall border funding plan. These include $1.375 billion in previously enacted FY2019 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations, and $601 million in contributions from a Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF) that manages seized assets. Altogether, these defense and non-defense funds would total $15.3 billion, of which 87% would be DOD funds. President Donald Trump has consistently declared the deployment of fencing, walls, and other barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border a high priority, however, he has been unable to fully secure from Congress the total amount of funding he deems necessary for that purpose. On February 15, 2019, in part to gain access to such funding, the President declared a national emergency at the southern border that required use of the Armed Forces, an act that triggered statutes allowing the President to redirect national resourcesâincluding unobligated military construction fundsâfor purposes for which they were not originally appropriated by Congress. Concurrent with the declaration, the Administration released a fact sheet entitled, President Donald J. Trump's Border Security Victory ( hereafter referred to as the border security factsheet ) that described a plan for redirecting $6.1 billion in DOD funds to border barrier construction projects not authorized by Congress. An additional $601 million was included using TFFs. The plan invoked a mixture of emergency and nonemergency authorities that included: $2.5 billion in defense funds authorized by the (nonemergency) statute 10 U.S.C. 284 Support for counterdrug activities and activities to counter transnational organized crime; $3.6 billion in defense funds authorized by the emergency statute Title 10 U.S.C. 2808 Construction authority in the event of a declaration of war or national emergency; and $601 million in nondefense, nonemergency TFFs. Shortly after the release of the border security fact sheet , the DHS requested that DOD undertake 11 construction projects along the Southwest U.S.-Mexico border for execution under 10 U.S.C. 284 authority. Typically, such construction would be funded using congressionally provided appropriations from DHS's own budget. Nevertheless, citing the ongoing state of emergency, DOD agreed to undertake seven of the projects and, between March and May 2019, reprogrammed $2.5 billion in defense program savings over the objections of House congressional defense committees, a deviation from the Department's own regulations. Subsequent court injunctions temporarily prevented approximately half ($1.2 billion) of these appropriations from being fully obligated, and resulted in the suspension of contracts that had been quickly awarded following DOD's reprogramming actions. The U.S. Supreme Court lifted these injunctions on July 26, 2019, but there has been no final ruling in the case ( Sierra Club v. Tru mp) . It remains unclear how a potentially unfavorable ruling might affect construction completed during the ongoing litigation. In September, DOD officials stated that $1.9 billion of the 10 U.S.C. 284 funds have been obligated, with the remainder to be obligated by the end of the month. On September 3, 2019, the Secretary of Defense exercised his authority under the emergency statute 10 U.S.C. 2808 to defer approximately 127 authorized military construction projects ($3.6 billion) and redirect the funds to 11 border barrier projects identified by the DHS. Deferred military construction projects would be halted indefinitely (or terminated) unless Congress were to provide replenishing appropriations. Congressional critics of the Administration's border barrier funding plans have hesitated to reimburse DOD for transfer actions they opposed or expressly prohibited. Furthermore, in March 2019, as part of its annual budget submission to Congress, the Administration also requested an additional $7.2 billion in defense appropriations (not described by the February 2019 border security factsheet plan). DOD officials stated that half this amount ($3.6 billion) would be used to support new DHS border barrier projects which the Administration has not yet described. The other half ($3.6 billion) would replenish military construction projects deferred by DOD's earlier 10 U.S.C. 2808 transfer actions. There has been considerable congressional concern over the Administration's efforts to fund the construction of border barriers outside of the regular budgetary process. In broad terms, these concerns are related to the novel and unorthodox use of emergency authorities, and the possibility that the Administration's actions jeopardize congressional control of appropriations, thereby potentially violating the Constitution's separation of powers. At the interagency level, DOD's break from comity-based agreements with congressional defense committees on reprogramming actions has generated new legislative interest in limiting the Department's budgetary flexibility and applying sharper oversight. More narrowly, individual Members have voiced apprehensions that military construction projects in their states and districts have been jeopardized by DOD's emergency transfers. FY2020 defense authorization and appropriation bills currently under consideration (as of September 2019) include provisions that would constrain the Administration from fully executing its plan, though final versions have not yet been passed. In late July 2019, news outlets reported congressional leadership had come to an informal understanding as part of a settlement of the annual budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 that would specifically prohibit legislative provisions limiting the use of transfer authorityâa key part of the President's Border security factsheet planâunless such language was adopted on a bipartisan basis. Ongoing litigation has generally slowed the execution of border barrier construction and imperiled large portions of the President's plan. Of the $6.7 billion in future DOD and Treasury Funds included in the border security factsheet , $2.1 billion (32%) has been obligated as of September 13, 2019. This includes $242 million in TFFs and $1.9 billion transferred from the defense Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities account.


The Department of Defense spends tens of billions of dollars annually to sustain military assets including aircraft, ships, and missiles. In support of this effort, DLA strives to maintain a competitive supplier base through reverse engineering—the process of examining an item, such as a spare part, with the intent of replicating its design. Contractors consider intellectual property, such as their technical data and patented material, essential to their success. DLA also takes steps to safeguard contractors' intellectual property during reverse engineering. The Senate Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act included a provision for GAO to review DLA's reverse engineering efforts, including the protection of small businesses' intellectual property. This report describes (1) DLA's reverse engineering programs and the extent to which small businesses participated in these programs from fiscal years 2015 through 2018; and (2) how DLA safeguards certain intellectual property within its reverse engineering efforts. GAO analyzed data from three DLA commands—Aviation, Land and Maritime, and Troop Support, those that conduct reverse engineering—from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. GAO reviewed a nongeneralizable sample of 19 reverse engineering projects involving 13 parts, selected to include a variety of characteristics, such as the size of the contractors involved. GAO reviewed DLA's guidance and interviewed DLA officials and representatives from small businesses about safeguarding intellectual property as part of reverse engineering. The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) is responsible for providing logistics support to the warfighter, including spare parts for military assets. From fiscal years 2015 through 2018, DLA initiated over 1,600 reverse engineering projects for spare parts at three of its commands—Aviation, Land and Maritime, and Troop Support. DLA uses reverse engineering to identify potential new sources for spare parts that are available from only one source and to achieve savings. DLA funded about 1,000 of the reverse engineering projects, while contractors funded the remaining 600 projects. Nearly two-thirds of all reverse engineering projects involved parts in five categories, with examples of the three largest categories illustrated in the figure. GAO found that the majority of contractors conducting reverse engineering for DLA were small businesses. Specifically, DLA identified 124 contractors that conducted reverse engineering projects from fiscal year 2015 through 2018, 103 of which GAO determined were small businesses. According to small business representatives and DLA officials, reverse engineering is beneficial for small businesses and can help provide opportunities for additional business with DLA. GAO found that the three DLA commands had processes to safeguard certain intellectual property in their reverse engineering efforts. Specifically: Officials from all three commands stated they do not release drawings with limited data rights to contractors interested in reverse engineering parts. Aviation and Land and Maritime officials stated that they check for patent markings on parts to ensure patented parts are not reverse engineered. Troop Support officials stated they do not check for patent marks because the parts they supply are often too old to have valid patents. The small businesses GAO met with did not identify concerns with how DLA handles intellectual property. Further, DLA officials stated that they had not received any complaints from small businesses about their intellectual property being used inappropriately.


The Department of Energy's (DOE's) nonproliferation and national security programs provide technical capabilities to support U.S. efforts to "prevent, counter, respond" to the proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide, including by both states and non-state actors. These programs are administered by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency established within DOE in 2000. NNSA is responsible for maintaining the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, providing nuclear fuel to the Navy, nuclear and radiological emergency response, and nonproliferation. NNSA recently reorganized the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, which is funded under the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) account. This report addresses the programs in the NNSA's DNN account, appropriated by the Energy and Water appropriations bill. The FY2020 Consolidated Appropriations bill ( P.L. 116-94) funded the NNSA DNN accounts at $2.164 billion. The FY2021 request for DNN appropriations was $2.031 billion. The proposal would include unobligated prior year balances. The reduction continues an earlier trend to reduce prior-year carryover balances. According to the budget justi fication, the decrease of 6.2% from the FY2020-enacted level is due to "completion of funding for contractual termination" of the mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) project at the Savannah River Site.


The Department of Energy's NNSA relies on federal employees and contractor personnel to carry out its mission. SSCs fill essential needs, and their use requires special diligence to ensure applicable statutes, regulations, and management practices are followed. The House report on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision for GAO to report on NNSA's use of SSCs. This report examines the extent to which: (1) NNSA used SSCs for professional support in fiscal years 2010 through 2018; (2) the information about SSCs in NNSA's annual congressional budget justification materials for fiscal years 2017 through 2020 is complete and useful to support congressional decision-making; and (3) NNSA manages the potential risks of SSCs that it determines are at high risk for providing inherently governmental functions. GAO analyzed agency data; reviewed documentation; and interviewed federal and contractor officials representing a non-generalizable sample of 12 SSCs out of 407, selected to represent a range of years and contract obligations. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) obligated about $193 million in fiscal year 2018 for support service contracts (SSC), an increase of nearly 40 percent since 2010. These contracts provide a variety of professional support services, such as program management support. Officials attribute the increased use of SSCs to increases in appropriations and workload for the modernization of nuclear weapons and related infrastructure and decreases in the number of authorized federal staff due to the decrease in the statutory cap from fiscal year 2014 to 2015. Information on SSCs in NNSA's congressional budget justification materials is not complete or fully useful for congressional decision-making because, among other things, NNSA did not include information on all of its professional SSCs. NNSA is required to report annually certain information about SSCs, including the number and cost of SSCs, in its materials. NNSA reported information on its SSCs in its materials for fiscal years 2017 through 2020. However, NNSA's reporting was not complete because NNSA excluded information on 31 to 42 contracts each year (see fig. for fiscal year 2020). According to officials, they excluded contracts that expired during the fiscal year. By reporting information on all professional SSCs to which funds were obligated during the fiscal year, NNSA could provide more complete information to Congress that it could use to make better informed decisions about NNSA's annual appropriations levels. NNSA may not be effectively managing the potential risks of contractors performing inherently governmental functions—those that must be performed by a government employee—for contracts NNSA identifies as having the potential for providing such functions. NNSA identifies such SSCs through required assessments. However, contracting officers are not required to document planned steps to oversee these contracts, and the agency does not verify that planned oversight is performed. Contracting officers who oversee SSCs can change during the life of a contract. By documenting steps that contracting officers plan to take to oversee contracts with a high risk of including inherently governmental functions—and verifying that the planned oversight occurs—NNSA can better ensure over the life of the contract that the functions contractors are performing do not evolve into inherently governmental functions and that planned oversight is completed.


The Department of Health and Human Services declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in October 2017. DOL has awarded grants to help address this crisis. GAO was asked to examine how WIOA-funded programs are addressing the employment and training needs of those affected by SUD. This report examines (1) how workforce agencies in selected states are using WIOA funding to address employment and training needs, (2) challenges agencies face in addressing employment and training needs, and (3) how DOL is supporting communities affected by SUD. GAO interviewed officials in four of the 10 states that received DOL grants in the early award rounds (as of March 2019)—Maryland, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Washington—and two that did not—Alabama and Arizona; reviewed related documentation and relevant federal laws and regulations; and interviewed DOL officials and researchers, selected for their knowledge about these issues. Workforce officials GAO interviewed in four of the 10 states receiving targeted Department of Labor (DOL) grants as of March 2019 said they were using Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) funding to help meet the unique needs of those affected by substance use disorder (SUD). These officials, who said they had limited experience serving those affected by SUD, worked with required organizational partners and hired specialists to assist job seekers and to provide intensive job readiness services. However, these efforts are relatively new and outcomes are not yet known. Workforce officials GAO interviewed in two selected states without targeted grants said they had viewed SUD primarily as a public health issue, but had recently taken some steps to address it. For example, one state added a workforce subcommittee to an existing opioid task force. State and local workforce officials in all six states identified a range of challenges they face in addressing the needs of SUD-affected job seekers. For example, criminal history or a lack of transportation may make it difficult for these job seekers to obtain and maintain employment. Officials said another challenge is finding employers who are willing to hire those in recovery. They stated that employers are concerned about the risks to their businesses, such as potential employee relapse and possible negative reaction from customers. Officials were seeking more information and assistance to help address such concerns. DOL officials said they support SUD-affected communities mainly by providing information to states that apply for and receive targeted grants. However, officials in two selected states expressed uncertainty about DOL's expectations of states in serving the needs of SUD-affected job seekers and potential employers. Officials in another state said they were unclear on whether they could use non-targeted funds to continue targeted grant activities. GAO's review of related DOL guidance found that it does not provide specific information on expectations of states or the use of WIOA funds outside of targeted grants to address this issue. Further, while DOL has disseminated some information on serving job seekers with SUD (such as in quarterly calls with grant recipients), it does not plan to share information that grantees submit to the agency, such as lessons learned and successes, with all states. Doing so could help states meet the training and employment needs of those in recovery, and the needs of potential employers.


The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The department carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing disability compensation, pensions, and education assistance. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. With a vast integrated health care delivery system spread across the United States, VHA is also statutorily required to serve as a contingency backup to the Department of Defense (DOD) medical system during a national security emergency and to provide support to the National Disaster Medical System and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as necessary, in support of national emergencies (also referred to as the "Fourth Mission" of the VHA). Based on limited information from VA, this report provides an overview of VA's response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that is affecting communities throughout the United States. It also discusses recent congressional action as it pertains to the veterans' benefits and services, as well as the supplemental appropriations for the department.


The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides a range of benefits to eligible veterans and their dependents. The department carries out its programs nationwide through three administrations and the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA). The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is responsible for health care services and medical and prosthetic research programs. The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is responsible for, among other things, providing disability compensation, pensions, and education assistance. The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is responsible for maintaining national veterans cemeteries; providing grants to states for establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans cemeteries; and providing headstones and markers for the graves of eligible persons, among other things. With a vast integrated health care delivery system spread across the United States, the VHA is statutorily required to serve as a contingency backup to the Department of Defense (DOD) medical system during a national security emergency and to provide support to the National Disaster Medical System and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as necessary, in support of national emergencies. These functions are known as VA's "Fourth Mission." Since the onset of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, Congress has passed a number of relief measures affecting the VA and its Fourth Mission. T he Families First Coronavirus Response Act ( P.L. 116-127 ), enacted on March 18, 2020, provides $60 million for the VHA in emergency supplemental appropriations. Among other things, the act also prohibits the VA from charging any copayment or other cost-sharing payments for COVID-19 testing or medical visits during any period of this public health emergency. P.L. 116-128 , enacted on March 21, allows the VA to continue to provide GI Bill benefits from March 1, 2020, through December 21, 2020, for courses at educational institutions that are converted from in-residence to distance learning by reason of an emergency or health-related situation. T he Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) ( P.L. 116-136 ), enacted on March 27, provides a total of $19.6 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2020 for certain VA accounts, as well as temporary statutory relief for various VA programs and services during the COVID-19 public health emergency. The Student Veteran Coronavirus Response Act of 2020 ( P.L. 116-140 ), enacted on April 28, 2020, is intended to mitigate the disruption to VA educational benefits, including Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E), when schools, programs of education, and work are suspended or closed from March 1, 2020, to December 21, 2020.


As of the end of 2018, roughly 4.4 million low-income households were served by HUD's three largest rental assistance programs. HUD has responsibilities for ensuring that housing units provided under these programs are decent, safe, sanitary, and in good repair, as well as for identifying and addressing lead paint hazards in these units. GAO issued reports in March 2019 ( GAO-19-254 ) on HUD's physical inspections of HUD-assisted properties and in June 2018 on lead paint hazards in the public housing and voucher programs ( GAO-18-394 ). This statement is based on these two reports and discusses prior GAO findings on (1) REAC inspections and inspector oversight and (2) lead paint hazards. For the March 2019 report, GAO reviewed HUD documents and data related to REAC's physical inspection process. For the June 2018 report, GAO reviewed HUD documents and information related to its compliance efforts, performance measures, and reporting. In March 2019, GAO made 14 recommendations to HUD to improve the physical inspections process and oversight of inspectors. In June 2018, GAO made six recommendations to HUD to improve compliance monitoring processes, inspection standards, and performance assessment and reporting on lead reduction efforts in federally assisted properties. HUD generally agreed with these recommendations. As of November 2019, HUD officials had identified planned steps to implement most of these recommendations but had not fully addressed them. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) plays an important role in providing decent and safe housing for households receiving federal rental assistance. However, HUD needs to improve its physical inspection program and its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards in federally assisted housing. To that end, GAO made 20 recommendations on these issues in its March 2019 and June 2018 reports. Physical inspections of properties. HUD's Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) is responsible for conducting physical inspections of HUD-assisted properties. Despite longstanding processes to inspect properties and take action against owners who do not address physical deficiencies, HUD continues to find some properties in poor physical condition and with life-threatening health and safety issues. In a March 2019 report, GAO identified a number of areas in which HUD needed to improve its physical inspection process and oversight of inspectors, which could help ensure the health and safety of those who live in HUD-assisted properties. For example, REAC had not conducted a comprehensive review of its inspection process since 2001, although new risks to the process have emerged since then. A comprehensive review could help REAC identify risks and ensure it meets the goal of producing reliable inspections. In addition, REAC uses contractors to inspect properties; these contract inspectors are trained and overseen by HUD staff known as quality assurance inspectors. However, GAO found REAC lacked formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program for contractor inspectors and for HUD employees responsible for monitoring and overseeing contract inspectors. And, unlike professional inspection organizations, REAC does not have continuing education requirements. Formal mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of its training program and requirements for continuing education could help REAC ensure its program supports development needs of inspectors and that inspectors are current on any changes in policy or industry standards. Lead paint hazards. GAO also identified a number of areas in which HUD could improve its efforts to identify and address lead paint hazards to protect children from lifelong health problems. Lead paint hazards (such as dust containing lead and chips from deteriorated lead-based paint) are the most common source of lead exposure for U.S. children. In a June 2018 report, GAO identified shortcomings in HUD's compliance monitoring and enforcement, inspection standards, and performance assessment and reporting for lead-reduction efforts. For example, HUD's monitoring efforts relied in part on public housing agencies to self-certify compliance with lead paint regulations. Additionally, the lead inspection standard for the voucher program is less strict than that for the public housing program. As a result, children living in voucher units may receive less protection from lead paint hazards than children living in public housing. Furthermore, GAO found that HUD did not track the number of lead-safe housing units in the voucher or public housing programs. Therefore, HUD may not be fully aware of the extent to which children have been living in unsafe units.


The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides or purchases long-term care for eligible veterans through 14 long-term care programs in institutional settings like nursing homes and noninstitutional settings like veterans' homes. From fiscal years 2014 through 2018, VA data show that the number of veterans receiving long-term care in these programs increased 14 percent (from 464,071 to 530,327 veterans), and obligations for the programs increased 33 percent (from $6.8 to $9.1 billion). VA projects demand for long-term care will continue to increase, driven in part by growing numbers of aging veterans and veterans with service-connected disabilities. Expenditures for long-term care are projected to double by 2037, as shown below. According to VA officials, VA plans to expand veterans' access to noninstitutional programs, when appropriate, to prevent or delay nursing home care and to reduce costs. VA currently faces three key challenges meeting the growing demand for long-term care: workforce shortages, geographic alignment of care (particularly for veterans in rural areas), and difficulty meeting veterans' needs for specialty care. VA's Geriatrics and Extended Care office (GEC) recognizes these challenges and has developed some plans to address them. However, GEC has not established measurable goals for these efforts, such as specific staffing targets for programs with waitlists or specific targets for providing telehealth to veterans in rural areas. Without measurable goals, VA is limited in its ability to address the challenges it faces meeting veterans' long-term care needs.


The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA, Division D of P.L. 115-254 ) was enacted on October 5, 2018. DRRA is the most comprehensive reform of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) disaster assistance programs since the passage of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA, Division B of P.L. 113-2 ) and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA, P.L. 109-295 ). DRRA focuses on improving pre-disaster planning and mitigation, response, and recovery, and increasing FEMA accountability. As such, it amends many sections of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288 , as amended; 42 U.S.C. Â§Â§5121 et seq.) and also includes new standalone authorities. In addition, DRRA requires reports to Congress, rulemaking, and other actions. This report provides an overview of selected sections of DRRA that significantly change the provision of services or authorities under the Stafford Act, and includes: an overview of programs as they existed prior to DRRA's enactment, and how they were modified following DRRA; the context or rationale for program modifications or changes to disaster assistance policies following DRRA's enactment; potential considerations and issues for Congress; a table of amendments to the Stafford Act following DRRA's enactment; and tables of deadlines associated with DRRA's reporting, rulemaking and regulations, and other implementation actions and requirements. This report does not specifically address every section included in DRRA, nor does it address every subsection or paragraph of those DRRA sections which are addressed herein.


The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act contains a provision for GAO to report triennially on SEC's personnel management. GAO's first two reports ( GAO-13-621 and GAO-17-65 ) identified a number of challenges and included nine recommendations. This report examines (1) employees' views on SEC's personnel management, (2) SEC's performance management system, (3) SEC's steps to improve its workforce planning processes, and (4) SEC's efforts to improve communication and collaboration. GAO surveyed a representative sample of nonexecutive SEC employees in key occupations and all senior officers in nine key divisions and offices (with response rates of 64 and 63 percent, respectively). The results of the nonexecutive employee survey are generalizable to SEC's mission-critical employees. GAO also followed up on prior recommendations, reviewed SEC documents and personnel management practices, analyzed SEC workforce data, and interviewed SEC officials. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) employees in the five divisions and four offices GAO surveyed expressed positive views on some aspects of SEC's personnel management but reported concerns in other areas. For example, employees GAO surveyed generally had positive views on their direct supervisors and colleagues—81 percent of nonexecutive employees agreed that their direct supervisors had the skills and expertise to be effective managers. However, more than one-third of employees expressed concerns in areas such as performance management and favoritism. For example, 48 percent of nonexecutives disagreed that the performance management system in place at the time of GAO's review created meaningful distinctions in performance. SEC has implemented eight of GAO's nine recommendations related to personnel management. However, SEC has not yet implemented a 2013 GAO recommendation to validate its performance management system—that is, to obtain staff input and agreement on the competencies, rating procedures, and other key aspects of the system. SEC plans to implement a new system in 2020, and validating this system would help ensure that it achieves its goals and identify changes needed to address employee dissatisfaction with performance management. In addition, a key feature of SEC's new performance management system will be a bonus program through which supervisors can nominate high-performing employees for a bonus of up to $10,000 once per fiscal year. However, SEC has not yet developed mechanisms for transparency and fairness for this new bonus program. GAO has previously highlighted the need for safeguards to better ensure fairness and transparency in performance management, particularly around systems affecting pay. Incorporating safeguards into the new bonus program—such as including multiple levels of review and publishing aggregate data on award decisions—would promote transparency and could increase employee confidence in the program. Since GAO's most recent review in 2016, SEC has taken actions to implement a more comprehensive workforce planning process and strengthen intra-agency communication and collaboration. For example, SEC conducted a comprehensive analysis to identify skills gaps in its workforce. It also improved the link between its budget formulation process and annual meetings in which the Office of Human Resources consults with each division and office on its workforce needs and priorities. Additionally, to strengthen communication and collaboration, SEC commissioned a study to identify relevant best practices and created formal mechanisms, such as working groups, to enhance collaboration across divisions and offices. For example, in 2018, SEC created its Operations Steering Committee through which senior operational leaders throughout the agency periodically meet to coordinate on cross-agency operational issues, including those related to human capital.


The EPSDT benefit is key to ensuring that Medicaid beneficiaries aged 20 and under receive periodic screening services, such as well-child screenings, and diagnostic and treatment services, such as physical therapy and eyeglasses, to correct or ameliorate conditions discovered during a screening. GAO was asked to examine the extent to which Medicaid beneficiaries aged 20 and under receive health care services under the EPSDT benefit. Among other things, GAO examined (1) what is known about the provision of EPSDT services based on CMS-required annual state reporting, and (2) CMS oversight of the EPSDT benefit. To do this, GAO analyzed annual state reporting data from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, the most current year data were available; CMS documentation; and federal internal control standards. GAO also interviewed CMS officials and Medicaid officials from 16 states selected, in part, on the variation in number of beneficiaries and geographic diversity. Approximately half of all Medicaid beneficiaries aged 20 and under received screenings and services recommended under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) benefit in fiscal year 2017, but nearly as many did not. For example, GAO's analysis of state-reported data found that about 59 percent of all beneficiaries (20.2 million) who should have received at least one recommended well-child screening received one. About 48 percent of beneficiaries aged 1 to 20 (18.3 million) received a preventive dental service in fiscal year 2017. Older beneficiaries tended to have lower rates of screening. Number of Medicaid Beneficiaries Receiving and Not Receiving Well-Child Screenings in Fiscal Year 2017, by Age Group The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that oversees Medicaid, including EPSDT, has taken steps to improve the quality of information that states report about the provision of EPSDT services. CMS has also set some EPSDT performance measure targets for states; yet, the agency has not taken other steps to oversee the EPSDT benefit, such as collecting the data necessary to evaluate whether states are complying with CMS's policy for beneficiaries to receive a blood lead screening; taking action, as needed, based on assessments of the appropriateness of some performance measures, such as well-child screening measures; and using state-reported information to regularly evaluate states against CMS's EPSDT targets, or assisting states in planning improvements to meet the targets. Absent these steps, CMS's oversight is limited and beneficiaries may not be receiving appropriate EPSDT services when they need them.


The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) that began in August 2018 has eluded international containment efforts and posed significant challenges to local and international policymakers. The current outbreak is the 10 th and largest on record in DRC, and the world's second largest ever (after the 2014-2016 West Africa outbreak). On July 17, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the current DRC outbreak to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) and called for increased donor funding. To date, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has announced nearly $158 million to support the response to the outbreak in DRC and neighboring countries, most of which has been funded through USAID-administered International Disaster Assistance (IDA) funds appropriated by Congress in FY2015. Challenges Broad challenges in DRCâincluding unresolved armed conflicts, shortfalls in the local health care system, political tensions, community grievances, and criminal activitiesâhave hindered outbreak control. The main outbreak zone is an area of eastern DRC where long-running conflicts had already caused a protracted humanitarian crisis. In addition, the outbreak has coincided with a fraught political transition process in DRC, where a former opposition figure, Felix Tshisekedi, was inaugurated president in January 2019. The electoral process and tense negotiations over a coalition government have complicated Ebola response efforts, as well as coordination between national and provincial officials. Ebola and related response efforts have also diverted or interrupted already limited local health resources in affected areas. This phenomenon, in turn, has been linked to interruptions in routine immunization campaigns. Inadequate measles vaccine supplies have limited capacity to control a measles outbreak in DRC that began in January 2019 and has claimed more than 3,000 lives. Since June 2019, a handful of Ebola-infected individuals have been identified in the large city of Goma in eastern DRC (a staging area for humanitarian operations and U.N. peacekeeping activities in the country), in the city of Bukavu (south of the main outbreak zone), and in Uganda. Suspected cases were reported, but not confirmed, in Tanzania in mid-September 2019. Transmission outside the outbreak zone has been limited to date, which may be attributable to internationally supported surveillance and prevention efforts, as well as the use of an investigational vaccine. Concerns nevertheless persist that cases could spread to new areas and/or countries. Uganda (which borders the most affected areas in DRC) has prior experience in Ebola control, but Rwanda, Tanzania, and Burundi do not. Minimal state capacity and protracted conflict in South Sudan and the Central African Republic suggest that a coordinated disease control response in either setting could be highly challenging. Issue s for Congress A potential issue for Congress is the level of funding allocated for global health security and pandemic preparedness versus outbreak response, with funding for outbreak response to date outweighing support for global outbreak prevention. Separately, the State Department's designation of DRC as a "Tier III" (worst-performing) country under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA, Division A of P.L. 106-386 , as amended) triggers restrictions on certain types of U.S. aid (not including IDA-funded activities). Several bills would authorize U.S. funding for programs intended to lower community resistance and otherwise support Ebola control in DRC and neighboring states, "notwithstanding" the TVPA restrictions. These include S. 1340 , the Ebola Eradication Act of 2019, which passed the Senate in September 2019; H.R. 3085 , a House companion bill; and a Senate committee draft of the FY2020 Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriations bill circulated on September 18, 2019. Some Members of Congress have also monitored State Department security policies that have restricted U.S. government experts' travel to and within the outbreak zone.


The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act enabled lenders to offer a rehabilitation program to private student loan borrowers who have a reported default on their credit report. The lender may remove the reported default from credit reports if the borrower meets certain conditions. Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to review the implementation and effects of these programs. This report examines (1) the factors affecting financial institutions' participation in private student loan rehabilitation programs, (2) the risks the programs may pose to financial institutions, and (3) the effects the programs may have on student loan borrowers' access to credit. GAO reviewed applicable statutes and agency guidance. GAO also asked a credit scoring firm to simulate the effect on borrowers' credit scores of removing student loan defaults. GAO also interviewed representatives of regulators, some of the largest private student loan lenders, other credit providers, credit bureaus, credit scoring firms, and industry and consumer advocacy organizations. The five largest banks that provide private student loans—student loans that are not guaranteed by the federal government—told GAO that they do not offer private student loan rehabilitation programs because few private student loan borrowers are in default, and because they already offer existing repayment programs to assist distressed borrowers. (Loan rehabilitation programs described in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) enable financial institutions to remove reported defaults from credit reports after borrowers make a number of consecutive, on-time payments.) Some nonbank private student loan lenders offer rehabilitation programs, but others do not, because they believe the Act does not authorize them to do so. Clarification of this matter by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—which oversees credit reporting and nonbank lenders—could enable more borrowers to participate in these programs or ensure that only eligible entities offer them. Private student loan rehabilitation programs are expected to pose minimal additional risks to financial institutions. Private student loans compose a small portion of most banks' portfolios and have consistently low default rates. Banks mitigate credit risks by requiring cosigners for almost all private student loans. Rehabilitation programs are also unlikely to affect financial institutions' ability to make sound lending decisions, in part because the programs leave some derogatory credit information—such as delinquencies leading to the default—in the credit reports. Borrowers completing private student loan rehabilitation programs would likely experience minimal improvement in their access to credit. Removing a student loan default from a credit profile would increase the borrower's credit score by only about 8 points, on average, according to a simulation that a credit scoring firm conducted for GAO. The effect of removing the default was greater for borrowers with lower credit scores and smaller for borrowers with higher credit scores (see figure). Reasons that removing a student loan default could have little effect on a credit score include that the delinquencies leading to that default—which also negatively affect credit scores—remain in the credit report and borrowers in default may already have poor credit.


The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ), provides federal aid for elementary and secondary education. The largest ESEA program is Title I-A, Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged. As a condition of receiving Title I-A funds, states and local educational agencies (LEAs) must meet requirements related to academic standards, assessments, accountability, and reporting. Academic Standards Each state must adopt (1) challenging academic content standards in reading/language arts (RLA), mathematics, and science; and (2) achievement standards representing three levels of achievement. States must also adopt English language proficiency standards for English Learners (ELs), covering four domains: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. States may adopt alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Academic Assessments Each state must administer academic assessments in RLA, mathematics, and science. The state is required to administer RLA and mathematics assessments in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school, and it is required to administer science assessments once in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-8, and 10-12). Each state may assess a certain percentage of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. Each state must administer an annual assessment of English proficiency to all ELs. Accountability Systems Each state must submit a plan that describes its accountability system. Accountability systems must establish long-term goals and include indicators based on these long-term goals. The indicators must include (1) student performance on RLA and mathematics assessments in all public schools and may include a measure of student growth for public high schools, (2) a measure of student growth or another indicator that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance for all public elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools, (3) graduation rates for public high schools, (4) progress in English language proficiency by English learners in all public schools, and (5) at least one indicator of student school quality or student success that allows for meaningful differentiation in all public schools. The accountability systems must provide data for all students and allow for the disaggregation of student performance by subgroups: (1) economically disadvantaged students, (2) students from major ethnic/racial groups, (3) children with disabilities, and (4) ELs. States must establish a system of meaningfully differentiating among all public schools in the state based on established indicators. The differentiation among schools must include any school in which any subgroup is consistently underperforming. Using the system of meaningful differentiation, a state must identify schools that require comprehensive support and improvement (CSI), including (1) the lowest performing 5% of all schools receiving Title I-A funds, (2) all public high schools failing to graduate 67% or more of their students, (3) schools required to implement additional targeted support and improvement that have not improved in a state-determined number of years, and (4) additional statewide categories of schools (at the state's discretion). Additionally, states are required to identify schools for targeted support and improvement (TSI), which includes any school in which a subgroup of students is consistently underperforming. Schools may also be identified for additional targeted support and improvement (ATSI), which includes any school in which one or more subgroups performs at a level that, if reflective of an entire school's performance, would result in its identification for CSI. Report Cards Each state is required to prepare and disseminate an annual r eport card . The report card must include (1) information about the s tate's accountability system; (2) schools identified for CSI or schools implementing TSI; (3) information on student performance dis aggregated by various subgroups; (4) teacher qualifications; (5) LEA- and school-level per pupil expenditures of federal, state, and local funds; and (5) additional information related to student assessments. Each LEA that receives Title I-A funds is required to prepare and disseminate an an nual LEA report card that includ es information on the LEA and each public school served by the LEA .


The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ), is the primary source of federal aid to K-12 education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $15.9 billion for FY2019. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2019 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2019 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.52% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2019 Title I-A grant amount ($36.9 million, or 0.24% of total Title I-A grants).


The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95 ) amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to add the "Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil Spending" authority as Title I, Part E. Under Title I-E, the Secretary of Education (the Secretary) has authority to provide local educational agencies (LEAs) with flexibility to consolidate eligible federal funds with state and local funding to create a "single school funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students." The Title I-E authority is applicable to LEAs that are implementing "weighted student funding" systems to establish budgets for, and allocate funds to, individual public schools. In general, weighted student funding systems base school funding on the number of pupils in each school in specified categories. Under these funding systems, weights are assigned to pupil characteristics that are deemed to be related to the costs of educating such pupilsâsuch as being from a low-income family, being an English Learner (EL), or having a disabilityâand their educational program (such as grade level or career-technical education). Eligible federal funds that may be consolidated in an LEA's weighted student funding system include those available under ESEA Title I-A (Education for the Disadvantaged), Supporting Effective Instruction (Title II-A), English Language Acquisition (Title III-A), and Student Support and Academic Enrichment (Title IV-A). No non-ESEA funds (e.g., funds available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or the Perkins Career and Technical Education (Perkins) Act) may be consolidated. Once eligible federal funds are consolidated in a participating LEA's weighted student funding system, these funds are treated the same way as the state and local funds. LEAs participating in Title I-E must have a funding system that uses weights or allocation amounts that provide "substantially more funding" than is allocated to other students to ELs, students from low-income families, and students with any other characteristic related to educational disadvantage that is selected by the LEA. The system must also ensure that each high-poverty school receives in the first year of the local flexibility demonstration agreement more per-pupil funding for low-income students than was received for low-income students from federal, state, and local sources in the year prior to entering into the agreement and at least as much per-pupil funding for ELs as was received for ELs from federal, state, and local sources in the prior year. The weighted student funding system must include all school-level actual personnel expenditures for instructional staff, including staff salary differentials for years of employment, and actual nonpersonnel expenditures in the LEA's calculation of eligible federal funds and state and local funds to be allocated to the school level. The Title I-E authority is limited to 50 LEAs in school years preceding 2019-2020, but could be offered to any LEA from that year onward, if a "substantial majority" of the LEAs participating in previous years have met program requirements. In February 2018, the Secretary announced that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) would begin accepting applications from LEAs to enter into agreements under the Student-Centered Funding Pilot, which is how ED refers to the Title I-E authority. To date, only six LEAs have applied for the Title I-E authority, and only Puerto Rico has been approved to enter into an agreement. Puerto Rico will begin implementing the Title I-E flexibility authority during the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, no LEAs will have implemented weighted student funding systems under Title I-E prior to the 2019-2020 school year. While it is unclear why relatively few LEAs have expressed interest in participating in the Title I-E authority, there are several possible explanations, some of which are summarized below: ED did not act to implement the Title I-E authority until February 2018, more than two years after the enactment of the ESSA. Local flexibility demonstration agreements are for a three-year period with a possible renewal. LEAs may not feel that the changes needed to implement the required weighted student funding system are worthwhile for a three-year period without knowing for certain if the authority would be extended. States and LEAs that currently have weighted student funding systems often include funds for students with disabilities and career and technical education in their systems. However, LEAs would be prohibited from consolidating IDEA or Perkins funds under the Title I-E authority. Public schools that operate schoolwide programs under Title I-A already have the authority to consolidate state, local, and certain federal funds, including those available under IDEA or Perkins. There may be concerns that some public schools may lose funds by switching to a weighted student funding system. As the Title I-E authority does not include any funding to ease the transition to the new funding system for schools that may be negatively affected, LEAs may be hesitant to participate. Under the ESEA Title I-A program, which accounts for over 76% of the eligible federal funds under Title I-E, funds have historically been provided to public schools with the highest concentrations of low-income students. Under the Title I-E authority, if an LEA chooses to consolidate its Title I-A funds it is likely that the distribution of Title I-A funds would be more diffuse. It is possible that some LEAs may view the consolidation of federal funds and the resulting redistribution of funds among public schools in the LEA as a step toward the portability of federal funds, whereby funds would be associated with individual students rather than schools and could ultimately follow them to any school of their choosing, including a private school.


The F-35 is DOD's most ambitious and costly weapon system in history, with U.S. sustainment costs estimated at about $1.2 trillion over a 66-year life cycle. Central to the F-35 is ALIS—a complex system that supports operations, mission planning, supply-chain management, maintenance, and other processes. A fully functional ALIS is critical to the F-35's operational success. However, over the past 5 years GAO has reported on key risks associated with the system, such as challenges deploying the F-35 with ALIS, inaccurate data that reside in ALIS, and ineffective training for personnel who need to use ALIS. GAO was asked to review DOD's efforts to improve ALIS. This report assesses the extent to which (1) improvements have been made over the past 5 years and challenges remain for ALIS users, and (2) DOD is taking actions to enhance the long-term viability of the system. GAO reviewed F-35 and ALIS program documentation and data, interviewed DOD officials and contractor employees, and visited five U.S. F-35 sites. The Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) is integral to supporting the F-35 fighter jet's operations and maintenance. F-35 personnel at 5 locations GAO visited agreed that ALIS is performing better in some aspects, such as faster processing speeds for some tasks. However, problems with ALIS continue to pose significant challenges for F-35 personnel (see figure). The Department of Defense (DOD) has not (1) developed a performance measurement process for ALIS, which GAO recommended in 2014, or (2) determined how ALIS issues affect F-35 fleet readiness. Without efforts in these areas, DOD will be hindered in addressing ALIS challenges and improving aircraft readiness. DOD and the prime contractor have a variety of initiatives underway for re-designing ALIS. However, these initiatives involve differing approaches and technical and programmatic uncertainties are hindering the re-design effort (see figure). DOD has not developed a strategy for the future of ALIS that includes goals of the re-design, an assessment of key risks, or costs. Without this, DOD may not be able to coordinate various ALIS design-improvement initiatives that are under way or meaningfully enhance the system over the long term.


As the export credit agency of the United States, EXIM's mission is to help support U.S. jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services through direct loans, loan guarantees, working capital guarantees, and credit insurance. In September 2018, the total outstanding and undisbursed amount of these products and unrecovered default claims was about $60.5 billion, according to EXIM. The Export-Import Bank Reform Reauthorization Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review EXIM's antifraud controls. This report (1) describes key antifraud controls EXIM says it has for mitigating fraud risks identified by GAO, and describes EXIM's efforts to perform a fraud risk assessment that considers these fraud risks; and (2) identifies EXIM's procedures to detect delinquent federal debt owed by applicants and participants, and assesses additional opportunities to use readily available data to do so. GAO analyzed 44 EXIM-associated court cases of fraud adjudicated from calendar years 2012 through 2017, examined EXIM transaction data, and interviewed EXIM and GSA officials. GAO also analyzed data identifying delinquent federal debt as well as EXIM's procedures for doing so. The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) reported having antifraud controls in place for mitigating the fraud risks that GAO identified and communicated to EXIM officials. GAO reviewed 44 EXIM-associated court cases involving fraud and identified fraud risks involving the four fraud risk factors illustrated in the figure below. GAO communicated these fraud risks to EXIM officials, and they provided examples of antifraud controls they use to help mitigate these fraud risks for their major financing products. In February 2019, EXIM also provided documentation reflecting its efforts to conduct a fraud risk assessment that considered various fraud risks affecting its major financing product lines, including fraud risks GAO identified during this review. EXIM has procedures to identify applicants and participants with delinquent federal debt, such as obtaining applicants' credit reports that may indicate these debts when they apply to EXIM's financing programs. However, EXIM is missing additional opportunities to use readily available data containing delinquent federal debt indicators from the General Services Administration's (GSA) System for Award Management (SAM) to detect applicants and participants that may have delinquent federal debt. Federal law states that applicants who are delinquent on federal nontax debts may not receive federal direct loans, loan guarantees, or loan insurance until the delinquent debt is satisfactorily resolved. Using data from SAM, GAO found that, from calendar years 2014 through 2016, EXIM authorized transactions that had an aggregate authorization value of about $1.7 billion and were associated with 32 U.S.-based companies that had a delinquent federal debt indicator in SAM in the same month EXIM authorized these transactions . While these results alone do not mean EXIM should have suspended these transactions, they do indicate that there is a practical opportunity to use SAM data to help determine applicants' eligibility. Without assessing the practicality of pursuing such readily available data, EXIM is potentially forgoing opportunities to perform additional due diligence that would help inform its decisions about applicants' and participants' program eligibility and fraud risks.


The FFG(X) program is a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates (FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X) in FY2020, the next 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2021-FY2029, and the 20th in FY2030. The Navy's proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,281.2 million for the procurement of the first FFG(X). The Navy's FY2020 budget submission shows that subsequent ships in the class are estimated by the Navy to cost roughly $900 million each in then-year dollars. The Navy intends to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design. At least four industry teams are reportedly competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of the teams are reportedly proposing to build their FFG(X) designs at the two shipyards that have been building Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs) for the Navy—Austal USA of Mobile, AL, and Fincantieri/Marinette Marine (F/MM) of Marinette, WI. The other two teams are reportedly proposing to build their FFG(X) designs at General Dynamics/Bath Iron Works, of Bath, ME, and Huntington Ingalls Industries/Ingalls Shipbuilding of Pascagoula, MS. On May 28, 2019, it was reported that a fifth industry team that had been interested in the FFG(X) program had informed the Navy on May 23, 2019, that it had decided to not submit a bid for the program. This fifth industry team, like one of the other four, reportedly had proposed building its FFG(X) design at F/MM. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in July 2020. The FFG(X) program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy's FY2020 funding request for the program; whether the Navy has appropriately defined the cost, capabilities, and growth margin of the FFG(X); the Navy's intent to use a parent-design approach for the FFG(X) program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship; cost, schedule, and technical risk in the FFG(X) program; whether any additional LCSs should be procured in FY2020 as a hedge against potential delays in the FFG(X) program; the potential industrial-base impacts of the FFG(X) for shipyards and supplier firms; whether to build FFG(X)s at a single shipyard, as the Navy's baseline plan calls for, or at two or three shipyards; and the potential impact on required numbers of FFG(X)s of a possible change in the Navy's surface force architecture.


The FHLBank System consists of 11 regionally based banks cooperatively owned by member institutions. In 2018, each FHLBank had a board of 14–24 directors. Member directors are nominated from member institutions and independent directors from outside the system. Member institutions vote on all directors. At least two independent directors on a board must represent consumer or community interests. FHFA is the regulator of the FHLBanks. GAO was asked to review FHLBanks' implementation of board diversity and inclusion matters. This report examines (1) steps FHFA took to encourage board diversity at FHLBanks; (2) trends in gender, race, and ethnicity on FHLBank boards; and (3) challenges FHLBanks face and practices they use to recruit and maintain diverse boards. GAO analyzed FHLBank data on board demographics, reviewed policies and regulations, and reviewed previous GAO work on diversity at FHLBanks and the financial services industry. GAO interviewed FHFA and FHLBank staff and a nongeneralizable sample of FHLBank board directors and external stakeholders knowledgeable about board diversity. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has taken formal and informal steps to encourage board diversity at Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBank) since 2015. For example, FHFA required FHLBanks to add board demographic data to their annual reports; clarified how banks can conduct outreach to diverse board candidates; and allowed some banks to add an independent director. Since 2015, the share of women and minority directors on the boards of FHLBanks increased (see figure). The number of women directors increased from 34 in 2015 to 44 in October 2018, and the number of minority directors increased from 20 in 2015 to 30 in 2017, based on most recently available data. Trends for minority directors were less clear, because the banks' varying data collections processes did not always allow them to determine the extent to which directors opted out or forgot to answer data collection forms. FHFA stated that it planned to use board data to establish a baseline to analyze diversity trends. A review of the banks' data collection processes would help identify whether practices exist that could help improve the completeness of the data. FHLBanks reported they continued to face some challenges to their efforts to promote board diversity, especially among member director seats. The challenges include (1) balancing the addition of new women or minority directors with retaining the institutional knowledge of existing directors; and (2) competing with other organizations for qualified female and minority board candidates. Despite reported challenges, FHLBanks have taken measures to promote board diversity, such as establishing a task force to promote board diversity through information sharing and training. Individually, the FHLBanks emphasized the importance of diversity in election materials, built pools of diverse candidates, and conducted outreach to industry and trade groups. They also took actions to increase diversity specifically among member directors, including filling interim board seats with women and minority candidates and encouraging directors to personally reach out to potential women and minority candidates.


The FHLBank System consists of 11 regionally based banks that are cooperatively owned by member institutions (such as community banks and credit unions) and of the Office of Finance. The banks, which are regulated by FHFA, provide liquidity for their member institutions to use in support of housing finance and community lending. GAO was asked to review FHLBanks' implementation of diversity and inclusion matters in workforce and business activities (including the use of suppliers and broker-dealers). This report examines (1) trends in gender, race, and ethnicity in FHLBank workforces, and challenges faced and practices used to maintain and increase a diverse workforce; (2) use of minority- and women-owned suppliers and broker-dealers in 2018, and challenges faced and practices used to increase and maintain their use; and (3) FHFA oversight of FHLBank diversity and inclusion efforts. GAO analyzed FHLBank and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data on the banks' workforce, suppliers, and broker-dealers. GAO also reviewed FHFA and FHLBank policies and regulations and previous GAO work on these issues. GAO interviewed FHFA and FHLBank staff and a nongeneralizable sample of external stakeholders knowledgeable about supplier and broker-dealer diversity. From 2011 to 2017, the share of women in senior management in Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBank) increased from about 21 percent (35 individuals) to 28 percent (47 individuals). The share of minority senior management remained the same at about 14 percent (23 individuals). The overall share of women employees slightly decreased and minority employees slightly increased during this period, but gender and minority representation varied by individual bank. FHLBanks identified challenges to maintaining and increasing workforce diversity, such as limited hiring opportunities due to low turnover. FHLBanks have been taking steps to promote workforce diversity, such as outreach to organizations that represent women or minorities and incorporation of diversity and inclusion in incentive compensation goals or performance competencies. In 2018, use of minority- and women-owned suppliers (for goods and services) and broker-dealers varied among individual FHLBanks. Overall, minority- and women-owned suppliers accounted for 8 percent and 13 percent of procurement expenditures, respectively. Minority- and women-owned broker-dealers accounted for about 3 percent and less than 1 percent of the debt issuance amount, respectively. FHLBanks and the Office of Finance (which issues debts on behalf of the banks) have been taking steps to increase diversity in these business activities, such as conducting outreach to diverse entities. However, external stakeholders said such suppliers and broker-dealers may continue to face some barriers—for example, capital requirements that limit participation by diverse broker-dealers, which generally have fewer resources. In 2017, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) started reviewing the diversity and inclusion efforts of FHLBanks in its annual bank examinations. In the 2017 and 2018 examinations, FHFA found the banks generally took steps to promote diversity and inclusion but also identified areas for improvement, such as improving goals for workforce and supplier diversity. In 2018, FHFA issued a manual and templates for reporting of quarterly and annual diversity data to help ensure consistent reporting of the data. FHFA also began using the quarterly data for ongoing monitoring of the banks' diversity and inclusion efforts.


The FMS program is one of the primary ways the U.S. government supports its foreign partners, by annually selling them billions of dollars of items and services. According to DOD, the FMS program is intended to operate on a “no profit, no loss” basis, with purchasers not charged excessive fees and fee revenue covering operating costs. Foreign partners can arrange for their own transportation of FMS items or pay DOD a transportation fee to cover the costs of DOD transporting them. The fees are collected into transportation accounts in the FMS Trust Fund. House Report 114-537 and Senate Report 114-255 included provisions that GAO review DSCA's management of FMS fees. This report examines (1) the balances of the FMS transportation accounts for fiscal years 2007 through 2018, (2) DSCA's management oversight of the accounts, and (3) DSCA's processes for setting transportation fees. GAO analyzed DOD data and documents, and interviewed DOD officials. Fees charged by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the transportation of defense items sold through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program are intended to approximate DOD's transportation costs over time. However, GAO found that the FMS transportation accounts accrued a combined balance of $680 million by the end of fiscal year 2018. Much of the growth occurred from the end of fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2018, when the account grew by approximately $630 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) has developed limited management oversight guidance for the FMS transportation accounts, which has contributed to the substantial balance growth. DSCA internal guidance requires daily and annual reviews of the accounts to monitor for significant changes in account balances and to ensure the accounts maintain a “healthy” level. However, internal guidance does not define a significant change or “healthy” level, such as a target range for the account balances. This has led to inconsistent reviews and limited oversight of the recent balance growth. DSCA also has no internal guidance on how to perform certain aspects of its annual reviews or what information to include in the resulting reports. As a result, DSCA officials have produced reports with incomplete information, such as on the causes for trends in the account balances, undermining DSCA management's ability to make informed decisions about the accounts. DSCA's processes for setting the FMS transportation fee do not ensure that aggregate fees approximate aggregate costs. For its transportation fee rate reviews, DSCA sends requests to the military departments for historical cost and fee data that lack specificity, such as on timeframes, sampling methodology, and data sources. As a result, DSCA has analyzed data that are not timely or systematically sampled. In addition, military department officials reported difficulty providing the requested data in part because DSCA's guidance did not specify data sources. Consequently, for the most recent review, Air Force and Navy were unable to find sufficient matching cost and fee data for DSCA to consider them usable. Further, DSCA has established no goals for rate reviews and has no written procedures to follow in performing them. These factors together contributed to recent growth in the FMS transportation account balances and will continue to hinder DSCA's ability to make appropriate rate-setting decisions moving forward.


The FY2020 Defense Appropriations Act, enacted as Division A of H.R. 1158 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2020, provides a total of $687.8 billion in discretionary budget authority, all to fund activities of the Department of Defense (DOD), except for $1.1 billion for certain activities of the intelligence community. As enacted, the bill provides 99.6% of the funding requested by President Trump requested for programs falling within the scope of this bill. To comply with the FY2020 cap on DOD base budget funding that was in effect at the time the FY2020 budget request was submitted, the Administration included in its request $97.9 billion intended for DOD base budget activities, but which was designated as part of the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) request and thus was exempt from the cap for all practical purposes. The Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate treated these funds as part of the base budget request. Activities funded by the annual defense appropriations act accounted for more than 90% of the budget authority included in the Trump Administration's $761.8 billion budget request for national defense-related activities in FY2020. The balance of the request consisted of activities funded by other appropriations bills (e.g., DOD's military construction program and defense-related nuclear energy work of the Energy Department) and certain amounts appropriated automatically as a result of permanent law.


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) administers a computer system of systems that is used to query federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial criminal history record information (CHRI) and other records to determine an individual's firearms transfer/receipt and possession eligibility. This FBI-administered system is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS, or parallel state systems, must be checked and the pending transfer approved by the FBI or state point of contact before a federally licensed gun dealer may transfer a firearm to any customer who is not also a federally licensed gun dealer. Current federal law does not require background checks for intrastate (same state), private-party firearms transactions between nondealers, though such checks are required under several state laws. In the 116 th Congress, the House of Representatives passed three bills that would expand federal firearms background check requirements and firearms transfer/receipt and possession ineligibility criteria related to domestic violence. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 ( H.R. 8 ), a "universal" background check bill, would make nearly all intrastate, private-party firearms transactions subject to the recordkeeping and NICS background check requirements of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). For the past two decades, many gun control advocates have viewed the legal circumstances that allow individuals to transfer firearms intrastate among themselves without being subject to the licensing, recordkeeping, and background check requirements of the GCA as a "loophole" in the law, particularly within the context of gun shows. Gun rights supporters often oppose such measures, underscoring that it is already unlawful to knowingly transfer a firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person. In addition, some observers object to these circumstances being characterized as a loophole, in that the effects of the underlying provisions of current law are not unintended or inadvertent. The Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019 ( H.R. 1112 ) would lengthen the amount of time firearms transactions could be delayed pending a completed NICS background check from three business days under current law to several weeks. The timeliness and accuracy of FBI-administered firearms background checks through NICSâparticularly with regard to "delayed proceeds"âbecame a matter of controversy following the June 17, 2015, Charleston, SC, mass shooting at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. The assailant in this incident had acquired a pistol following a three-business-day-delayed sale under current law and an unresolved background check. While it has never been definitely determined whether the assailant's arrest record would have prohibited the firearms transfer, this incident prompted gun control advocates to label the three-business-day delayed transfer provision of current law as the "Charleston loophole." Gun rights supporters counter that firearms background checks should be made more accurate and timely, so that otherwise eligible customers are not wrongly denied a firearms transfer, and ineligible persons are not allowed to acquire a firearm. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2019 ( H.R. 1585 ) would expand federal firearms ineligibility provisions related to domestic violence to include former dating partners under court-ordered restraints or protective orders and persons convicted of misdemeanor stalking offenses. Gun control advocates see this proposal as closing off the "boyfriend loophole." Gun rights supporters are wary about certain provisions of this proposal that would allow a court to issue a restraining order ex parte ; that is, without the respondent/defendant having the opportunity for a hearing before a judge or magistrate. This report provides an overview of federal firearms background check procedures, analysis of recent legislative action, discussion about possible issues for Congress, and related materials.


The Federal Records Act , a subsequent directive, and NARA regulations establish requirements for agencies to ensure the transparency, efficiency, and accountability of federal records, including those in electronic form. In addition, NARA plays an important role in overseeing and assisting agencies' records management efforts. GAO was asked to evaluate federal agencies' implementation of the aforementioned requirements related to electronic records. The objectives were to determine the extent to which (1) selected agencies' policies and procedures address the electronic recordkeeping requirements in the Managing Government Records Directive and the Presidential and FRA Amendments of 2014 and (2) NARA assisted selected agencies in managing their electronic records. To do so, GAO selected 17 agencies and reviewed their records management policies and procedures. GAO also reviewed laws and requirements pertaining to NARA's roles and responsibilities for assisting agencies in managing their electronic records. Further, GAO analyzed NARA guidance and other documents that discussed NARA's efforts in carrying out these responsibilities. Seventeen agencies GAO selected for review varied in the extent to which their policies and procedures addressed the electronic recordkeeping requirements in the Managing Government Records Directive and the Federal Records Act ( FRA ) and its amendments. More specifically, 14 of the 17 agencies established records management programs, while three agencies did not. Of those 14 agencies with established records management programs, almost all addressed requirements related to incorporating electronic records into their existing programs, but many did not have policies and procedures to fully incorporate recordkeeping functionalities into electronic systems, establish controls and preservation considerations for systems, and issue instructions on email requirements (see table). NARA provided guidance and assistance to the selected agencies, including guidance on electronic records management and training. All of the agencies stated that the assistance was generally helpful and that they relied on it to some extent for implementing the key requirements discussed in this report. Further, NARA oversaw the selected agencies' implementation of federal records management regulations through their self-assessment progam. However, NARA had not ensured that the selected small or micro agencies that self-assessed to be at high risk of improper records management in calendar year 2017 were taking appropriate actions to make improvements to their records management programs. NARA officials stated they conduct follow-up with the agencies that report poor scores, but they do not proactively require the agencies to address their weaknesses. Until NARA requires these agencies to develop plans to make necessary improvements, these agencies will likely miss important opportunities to improve their record management practices.


The Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill includes funding for more than two dozen independent agencies. Among them are the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Election Commission (FEC), Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), General Services Administration (GSA), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Selective Service System (SSS), Small Business Administration (SBA), and United States Postal Service (USPS). President Trump's FY2019 budget request included a total of $3 billion for the independent agencies funded through the FSGG appropriations bill, including $282 million for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) (which is considered through the Agriculture appropriations bill in the House and the FSGG bill in the Senate). In the 115th Congress, the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations reported FSGG appropriations bills (H.R. 6258, H.Rept. 115-792 and S. 3107, S.Rept. 115-281) and both houses passed different versions of a broader bill (H.R. 6147) that would have provided FY2019 appropriations. The House-passed H.R. 6147 would have provided a combined total of $1.4 billion for the FSGG agencies, while the Senate-passed H.R. 6147 would have provided $2.3 billion. In both cases, the largest differences compared to the President's request were in the funding for the General Services Administration (GSA). No full-year FY2019 FSGG bill was enacted prior to the end of FY2018. The FSGG agencies were provided continuing appropriations through December 7, 2018, in P.L. 115-245 and through December 21, 2018, in P.L. 115-298. No final bill, however, was enacted and funding for FSGG agencies along with much of the rest of the government lapsed on December 22, 2018. No further FY2019 appropriations occurred prior to the 116th Congress. In the 116th Congress, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 21 and H.R. 648, both containing six full FY2019 appropriations bills, including FSGG provisions. H.R. 21 was identical to the Senate-passed H.R. 6147, while H.R. 648 was based on a prospective conference report from the 115th Congress and contained $2.5 billion for the FSGG independent agencies. The Senate did not act on either of these bills. On February 14, 2019, both the House and the Senate agreed to a conference report (H.Rept. 116-9) for H.J.Res. 31, containing seven appropriations bills providing full FY2019 funding for the government's operations that had not been previously funded. This included FSGG provisions nearly identical to H.R. 648. The President signed the resolution on February 15, 2019, enacting it into law as P.L. 116-6. P.L. 116-6 provides a total of $1.9 billion in appropriations for FSGG independent agencies.


The Framers checked congressional legislative power by providing the President the power to veto legislation and, in turn, checked the President's veto power by providing Congress a means to override that veto. Over time, it has become clear that the presidential veto power, even if not formally exercised, provides the President some degree of influence over the legislative process. Most Presidents have exercised their veto power as a means to influence legislative outcomes. Of 45 Presidents, 37 have exercised their veto power. This report begins with a brief discussion of the ways Presidents communicate their intention to veto, oppose, or support a bill. It then examines the veto power and Congress's role in the veto process. The report then provides analysis of the use of veto threats and vetoes and the passage of legislation during the George W. Bush Administration (2001-2009) and the Obama Administration (2009-2017) with some observations of the potential influence of such actions on legislation. As specified by the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 7), the President has 10 days, Sundays excepted, to act once he has been presented with legislation that has passed both houses of Congress and either reject or accept the bill into law. The President has three general courses of action during the 10-day presentment period: The President may sign the legislation into law, take no action, or reject the legislation by exercising the office's veto authority. A President's return veto may be overridden, or invalidated, by a process also provided for in Article 1, Section 7, of the U.S. Constitution. Because Congress faces a two-thirds majority threshold to override a President's veto, veto threats may deter Congress from passing legislation that the President opposes. By going public with a veto threat, the President may leverage public pressure upon Congress to support his agenda. For purposes of this report, which focuses on the use of veto threats, the unit of analysis throughout is a veto (or a threatened veto), and the report does not distinguish between regular and pocket vetoes. Formal, written Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs, pronounced "saps") are frequently used to express the President's support for or opposition to particular pieces of legislation and may include statements threatening to use the veto power. Among the Bush and Obama Administrations' SAPs examined later in this report, for example, 24% and 48%, respectively, contained a veto threat. Although the relationship between Congress and a President may change every two years with each new Congress, the relationship between an Administration and its President may also change by presidential term. For example, while the number of veto threats in SAPs slowly increased during the first three Congresses of the Bush Administration, the number of veto threats grew sharply in the 110 th Congress. In comparison to the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration steadily increased its use of veto threats issued in SAPs in every subsequent Congress. President George W. Bush exercised the veto power 12 times during his presidency. Congress attempted to override six of President Bush's 12 vetoes and succeeded four times. President Barack Obama similarly exercised the veto power 12 times during his presidency. Congress also attempted to override six of President Obama's 12 vetoes and succeeded once. During the Bush and Obama Administrations, enrolled bills that passed both chambers and were met with a statement indicating that the President intended to veto the bill (a presidential veto threat SAP) were vetoed more often than were those that were met with a statement that agencies or senior advisors would recommend that the President veto the bill (a senior advisors threat SAP).


The General Mining Act of 1872 allowed individuals to obtain exclusive rights to valuable hardrock mineral deposits on land belonging to the United States. Miners explored, mined, and processed valuable minerals, but many did not reclaim the land after their operations ended. Unsecured mine tunnels, toxic waste piles, and other hazards—known as mine features—are found at abandoned hardrock mines across federal and nonfederal lands. The Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, EPA, and OSMRE—as well as state agencies—administer programs that identify and address hazardous features at abandoned hardrock mines. Addressing features could include, for example, sealing mine tunnels or treating contaminated water. GAO was asked to provide information about abandoned hardrock mines. This report describes (1) what is known about the number of abandoned hardrock mines in the United States; (2) agency spending to address abandoned hardrock mines from fiscal years 2008 through 2017 and estimated future costs; and (3) factors that limit federal and state agencies' and stakeholders' efforts to address abandoned mines. GAO obtained and summarized information from agency databases about the number of abandoned mines, features, and hazards as of 2019; summarized agency spending data from fiscal years 2008 through 2017, the most currently available; and interviewed federal and state agency officials and stakeholders, selected to provide diverse perspectives. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and National Park Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified at least 140,000 abandoned hardrock mine features, such as a tunnel, on lands under their jurisdictions. Of these, about 67,000 pose or may pose physical safety hazards—danger of injury or death—and about 22,500 pose or may pose environmental hazards—risks to human health or wildlife from long-term exposure to harmful substances. Agency officials also estimated there could be more than 390,000 abandoned hardrock mine features on federal land they have not captured in their databases, and agencies are developing more comprehensive information about these mines. Forest Service, BLM, National Park Service, EPA, and Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) spent, on average, about $287 million annually to address physical safety and environmental hazards at abandoned hardrock mines from fiscal years 2008 through 2017, for a total of about $2.9 billion (see figure). Of this total, the agencies spent about 88 percent ($2.5 billion) addressing environmental hazards, and about $1 billion was reimbursed by private parties, such as former mine owners. Federal officials also estimated that it would cost billions more to address these mines in the future. Nearly all of the federal and state agency officials and stakeholders GAO interviewed cited availability of resources and legal liability concerns as factors that limit efforts to address hazards at abandoned hardrock mines. Federal and state officials said their backlog of work is greater than what can be done with available staff and budgets, but they have taken steps to collaborate to help leverage resources. State officials and stakeholders, such as conservation groups, said they want to help address environmental hazards that they did not cause at abandoned hardrock mines. However, they generally do not do so because they are concerned about becoming legally responsible for the entire cost of addressing contamination at an abandoned mine if they attempt partial cleanup. EPA officials said they are considering new ways to encourage volunteer participation, in addition to existing administrative tools.


As the federal government's landlord, GSA is authorized to lease property to accommodate federal agencies. It can also delegate this authority to other agencies, though GSA is still responsible for overseeing the delegated leasing program. However, prior audits found problems with delegated leasing, including excessive rental rates and insufficient documentation to support that the government received a fair and reasonable price for the lease. GAO was asked to review GSA's delegated leasing program. This report examines: 1) GSA's efforts to reform its delegated leasing program; 2) the extent to which GSA assesses agencies' policies, procedures, and performance in managing their delegated leasing activities; and 3) the extent to which GSA ensures delegated leases meet requirements. GAO reviewed federal statutes and regulations, and GSA's guidance and data on delegated leases. To illustrate how GSA approves and oversees delegated leases, GAO judgmentally reviewed 17 delegated leases selected to include lease contract value, type of lease, and agencies with high number of delegated leases. GAO interviewed officials from GSA and the four agencies associated with GAO's selected delegated leases. The General Services Administration (GSA) has taken steps to reform its delegated leasing program, but data reliability issues remain. For example, GSA created GSA's Real Estate Exchange (G-REX) to centralize delegated lease requests and approvals, but GAO found G-REX had incorrect information on lease rental values and rates—reporting rates 12 times higher than they actually were. Moreover, GAO found that GSA was not annually reconciling data between G-REX and the government-wide real property database, per GSA's own procedures. GSA officials said that their past efforts to fully reconcile the data were unsuccessful but acknowledged there may be ways to compare the data to improve the reliability of both datasets. Until GSA clarifies what it can do to partially reconcile the data sets, it is not obtaining the intended benefits of this data validation exercise. GSA does not know if agencies have the ability to manage their delegated leasing activities because it does not regularly assess their policies and procedures, or their performance in meeting GSA's management goals, such as avoiding extensions. GSA procedures state that GSA will consider the agency's organizational structure and ability to meet certain GSA performance measures prior to granting requests for delegated leasing authority. Moreover, federal internal control standards call for agencies to design control activities to better manage the program. However, GSA officials said that GSA relies on the agencies to oversee their own delegated leases. Nevertheless, GAO found instances of inadequate policies and procedures at one agency in managing its delegated leasing activities. Further, all 4 agencies had delegated leases that were in holdover status (occupying a space beyond the expiration of the lease term), which violates program requirements. Because GSA does not regularly assess agencies' procedures or performance, it cannot ensure that agencies are effectively managing their delegated leasing activities. GSA cannot ensure that the leases agencies execute under delegated authority meet program requirements and are within the authority granted because it lacks key procedures to do so. GAO found that GSA had only reviewed 1 percent of the post lease award documents agencies had submitted, and in some cases, agencies had not submitted required documentation. GSA officials said the agencies are responsible for ensuring that documents are submitted and requirements are met. However, a risk-based assessment of a selection of delegated leases' post award documents can provide assurances that agencies comply with existing regulations and prevent potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Because GSA did not have a process to systematically review these documents, GSA is unable to ensure that delegated leases meet requirements and that agencies are positioned to prevent fraud, waste, or abuse.