Overview On March 11, 2019, the Trump Administration proposed its FY2020 budget for the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) accounts, which fund U.S. diplomatic activities, cultural exchanges, development and security assistance, and U.S. participation in multilateral organizations, among other international activities. The SFOPS budget includes most international affairs (function 150) funding, as well as funding for international commissions in the function 300 budget. Additional emergency funds were requested by the Administration on March 17, 2020, to respond to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The total request, including these emergency supplemental funds, was $42.94 billion in discretionary funds ($43.10 billion when $158.9 million in mandatory retirement funds are included), which was 3% higher than the FY2019 request but 21% below the FY2019 enacted SFOPS funding level (after rescissions). It was lower than any SFOPS funding level in the last decade ( Figure 1 ), and represented about 3% of the total discretionary budget authority (an estimated $1.313 trillion) requested for federal programs in FY2020. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-94 ), signed into law on December 20, 2019, included $54.84 billion for SFOPS accounts in FY2020, a nearly 1% increase from the FY2019-enacted level and approximately 28% more than the Administration's request. Supplemental funds to address the COVID-19 outbreak, requested and enacted in March 2020, added $2.37 billion to SFOPS accounts, bringing the FY2020 total to $57.21 billion. Of that enacted total, $8.0 billion was designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and $2.37 billion (the COVID-19 funds) was designated as emergency funding. In SFOPS, there is often disparity between requested and enacted appropriations. During the Obama Administration, Congress typically provided less SFOPS funding than was requested, though the gap narrowed over time. Thus far in the Trump Administration, Congress has enacted significantly more SFOPS funding than the amount requested, both because the requested amounts have represented large cuts and because enacted funding levels have been high relative to most recent years ( Table 1 ). The FY2020 budget request continued this pattern. The Budget Control Act and Overseas Contingency Operations Since FY2012, the appropriations process has been shaped by the discretionary spending caps put in place by the Budget Control Act of FY2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-25 ). Congress has repeatedly amended the BCA to raise the caps, most recently by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 (BBA 2019; P.L. 116-37 ). The BBA 2019 raised discretionary spending limits set by the BCA for FY2020 and FY2021, the final two years the caps are in effect. In addition to raising the caps, another way that Congress has managed the constraints imposed by the BCA budget caps is through the use of Overseas Contingency Operations funding, which is excluded from the BCA discretionary budget caps. Congress began appropriating OCO in the SFOPS budget in FY2012, having previously provided OCO funds for the Department of Defense. Originally used to support shorter-term, temporary contingency-related programming in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan that was not part of the "base" or "core" budget, the use of OCO has expanded considerably over the years. In FY2019, OCO funds were used to support 11 different SFOPS accounts, from USAID operating expenses and the Office of Inspector General to International Disaster Assistance and Foreign Military Financing. When Congress raised the BCA caps for FY2019, the Administration chose not to request OCO funding for FY2019 SFOPS. Congress nevertheless designated $8 billion of FY2019 SFOPS funding as OCO, a 33% reduction in OCO spending compared to FY2018 and the second year in a row that SFOPS OCO levels declined significantly. While the FY2020 SFOPS request did not include OCO funding, the Administration's FY2020 defense budget request included an unprecedented amount of OCO funding, widely viewed as a means of increasing defense spending without amending the BCA's defense discretionary spending cap. Through BBA 2019, Congress established OCO funding targets for both defense and nondefense discretionary spending. For foreign affairs OCO, Congress designated $8 billion for FY2020 and FY2021, indicating its intent to continue to use OCO in SFOPS appropriation measures for the next two fiscal years. Congress adhered to that target, and remained consistent with FY2019 funding, in the final FY2020 SFOPS appropriation, providing $8 billion in OCO, representing nearly 14% of the total SFOPS funding ( Figure 2 ). Congressional Action House SFOPS Legislation. On May 16, 2019, FY2020 SFOPS legislation ( H.R. 2839 , with accompanying report H.Rept. 116-78 ) was introduced and approved by the full House Appropriations Committee. The legislation included total SFOPS funding of $56.54 billion, 0.4% higher than FY2019 enacted funding and 32% more than requested. Of that total, $48.54 billion was base fundingâthe 302(b) allocation level approved by the House committeeâand $8 billion was designated as OCO. On June 19, 2019, the House passed the FY2020 SFOPS legislation in a "minibus" measure that included three other appropriations billsâLabor, Health and Human Services, Education; Defense; and Energy and Water Development ( H.R. 2740 ). While the topline funding level remained the same, some monies were shifted among the various accounts due to adopted amendments. Senate SFOPS Legislation . On September 26, 2019, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an SFOPS measure for FY2020, S. 2583 (with accompanying report S.Rept. 116-126 ), that would have provided $55.16 billion in total new funding. This represented an increase of 0.1% from FY2019-enacted funding and a 27% increase from the requested level. Of that total, $47.16 was base funding and $8 billion was designated as OCO. The measure did not reach the Senate floor for consideration. Continuing Resolutio ns . On September 26, 2019, the Senate approved H.R. 4378 , the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020 (approved by the House on September 19 th ), which continued funding for most federal agencies and accounts at the FY2019 funding level through November 21, 2019. The legislation was signed by the President on September 27. On November 21, 2019, the Senate approved a second continuing resolutionâ H.R. 3055 , the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2020, and Further Health Extenders Act of 2019 (approved by the House on November 19 th ). The legislation, which funded federal operations at the FY2019 funding level through December 20, 2019, was signed by the President on November 21, 2019. Enacted Legislation. On December 20, 2019, the President signed into law P.L. 116-94 , a full-year appropriation that included $54.84 billion in total SFOPS funding (Division G). This enacted level represented a nearly 1% increase from the FY2019-enacted funding level and was approximately 28% more than the Administration's FY2020 request. Of that total, $16.72 billion was for State Department and related agencies operations, and $38.70 billion was for foreign operations accounts. Nearly 15%, or $8.0 billion of the total SFOPS appropriation was designated as OCO. COVID- 19 Supplemental s . On March 17, the Trump Administration requested $220 million in supplemental SFOPS funds as part of a larger supplemental FY2020 appropriations request to address the COVID-19 pandemic. Also in March 2020, Congress enacted multiple supplemental appropriations, including the Coronavirus Preparedness and Response Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2020 ( P.L. 116-123 , signed into law March 6) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act ( P.L. 116-136 , signed into law March 27). P.L. 116-123 included $1.25 billion for SFOPS accounts, including Diplomatic Programs ($264 million), USAID Inspector General ($1 million), Global Health Programs-USAID ($435 million), International Disaster Assistance ($300 million), and Economic Support Fund ($250 million). P.L. 116-136 included $1.115 billion for SFOPS accounts, including Diplomatic Programs ($324 million), USAID Operating Expenses ($95 million), International Disaster Assistance ($258 million), Migration and Refugee Assistance ($350 million), and the Peace Corps ($88 million).With these supplemental funds, enacted SFOPS funding for FY2020 totaled $57.208 billion, a 5.2% increase over the FY2019-enacted level and about 33% more than the Administration's request. State Department Operations and Related AgencyÂ Highlights For FY2020, the Administration sought to cut funding for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts from the $16.46 billion Congress enacted for FY2019 to $13.98 billion (including the supplemental request), a 15% reduction. The Administration's FY2020 request exceeded its FY2019 request for these accounts, which totaled $13.26 billion, by around 5.4%. The Administration's priorities to be funded through Department of State and Related Agency accounts included sustaining the global diplomatic workforce and operations; protecting U.S. government personnel and overseas missions; and preserving strategic participation in international organizations to achieve outcomes favorable to the United States and its allies. Conversely, the House bill and the Senate committee bill both sought to increase funding for these accounts. The House bill would have raised funding to $17.35 billion, or 5.4% above the FY2019 funding level. The Senate committee bill, if enacted, would have boosted funding to $16.53 billion, or 0.4% more than the FY2019 funding level. The FY2020 initial enacted appropriation ( P.L. 116-94 ) provided $16.72 billion for the Department of State and Related Agency accounts, which is about 1.6% above the FY2019-enacted level. This funding level exceeded that of the Senate committee bill by 1.1% and was approximately 3.6% less than the amount included in the House bill. The Administration requested an additional $115 million in the Diplomatic Programs account for COVID-19 response activities in March 2020. P.L. 116-123 , the COVID-19 supplemental appropriation, provided an additional $264 million for the Diplomatic Programs account, and P.L. 116-136 provided an addition $324 million for Diplomatic Programs, bringing the total enacted funding for Department of State and Related Agency accounts to $17.31 billion, or 5.2% more than the FY2019 funding level. Table 3 provides detailed information regarding the extent of the Administration's proposed cuts to these accounts, the House and Senate committee bill funding levels, and the appropriations provided in P.L. 116-94 and P.L. 116-123 . Proposed New Account The Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) sub-account within the Diplomatic Programs account has been used to fund programs that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) and other bureaus implement to protect the department's staff, property, and information. As part of its FY2020 request, the Administration asked Congress to create a new WSP standalone account and authorize the transfer of all unobligated WSP funds into this account by no later than the onset of FY2021 (October 1, 2020). The Administration maintained that creating this account would increase the transparency of WSP expenditures through more clearly indicating distinctions between funding for diplomatic programs and security-related activities. For its FY2021 budget request, the State Department reportedly intends to request WSP funding in this new account. To date, no legislation has been introduced in Congress that would create a new WSP account. Selected Key Programs and Priorities As in previous years, the majority of both the funding the Administration requested and the budget authority Congress provided for the Department of State and Related Agency appropriations accounts was for diplomatic programs, diplomatic security and embassy construction, and contributions to international organizations and international peacekeeping activities. For FY2020, such programs accounted for approximately 88% of the Administration's request and 84% of the funds Congress appropriated for these accounts. Some of the Administration's priorities within these areas, as identified by the Department of State in its Congressional Budget Justification and other materials provided to Congress, are detailed below. Diplomatic Programs The Diplomatic Programs account is the State Department's principal operating appropriation and serves as the source of funding for several key functions. These include domestic and overseas State Department personnel salaries; the operations of the department's strategic and managerial units, such as the Office of the Secretary and the Bureaus of Administration, Budget and Planning, Information Resource Management, and Legislative Affairs; and foreign policy programs administered by the Bureaus of African Affairs, Conflict and Stabilization Operations, and others. The Administration's initial FY2020 request for Diplomatic Programs totaled $8.42 billion, an 8% reduction from the $9.17 billion Congress enacted for this account in FY2019. The House bill and Senate committee bill would have appropriated $9.25 billion and $8.89 billion, respectively, for this account. P.L. 116-94 , the FY2020-enacted appropriation, provided $9.13 billion for Diplomatic Programs, or 0.5% less than the FY2019 funding level and 8% more than the Administration's request The Administration maintained that its request was consistent with past congressional guidance regarding appropriate State Department on-board personnel volumes and would sustain the Foreign Service and Civil Service workforces at their end-of-2017 levels. Both the House bill and Senate committee bill included oversight provisions pertaining to Foreign Service and Civil Service personnel levels. The enacted legislation provided funding for not less than 12,870 permanent Civil Service staff and 13,031 permanent Foreign Service Officers, which the joint explanatory statement accompanying the law maintained was consistent with the State Department's current hiring targets and would restore State Department personnel to pre-hiring-freeze levels in place during FY2016. Among other priorities funded by the Diplomatic Programs account, the joint explanatory statement provided an additional $500,000 apiece to the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs for implementation of the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (Subtitle F, Title XII, Division A of P.L. 114-328 ). The Senate committee report accompanying its bill, which also sought to provide this increased funding, stated that it was necessary for the hiring of additional staff to strengthen implementation of the law. The Senate committee report also expressed concern with what it characterized as the lack of information sharing between the Departments of State and the Treasury necessary for sanctioning foreign individuals for direct or indirect involvement in significant corruption or gross violations of human rights under this law. The committee report included a reporting requirement, which was made part of the enacted appropriations law, requiring the Secretary of State to submit a plan to Congress aimed at improving coordination with the Department of the Treasury on such efforts. An additional $115 million was requested for Diplomatic Programs in March 2020 to help the State Department prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus epidemic, including maintaining consular operations, reimbursement of evacuation expenses, and emergency preparedness. Congress appropriated an additional $588 million in FY2020 supplemental Diplomatic Programs funds for this purpose, including $264 million in P.L. 116-123 and $324 million in P.L. 116-136 . These supplemental funds brought FY2020-enacted funding for this account to a total of $9.71 billion, or 5.9% above the FY2019-enacted level. Diplomatic Security The Administration's FY2020 budget request sought to provide approximately $5.41 billion for the department's key diplomatic security accounts: $3.78 billion for the Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) allocation within the Diplomatic Programs account and $1.63 billion for the Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance (ESCM) account. The WSP allocation supports the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which is responsible for implementing security programs to protect U.S. embassies and other overseas posts, diplomatic residences, and domestic State Department offices. The ESCM account supports the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO); provides the State Department's share of costs involved with the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of U.S. overseas posts around the world; and funds "brick and mortar" security measures at these posts. As illustrated in Table 4 , enactment of the Administration's request would have marked a decline of 8% for WSP and 18% for ESCM relative to the FY2019 enacted figures. Among the priorities the Administration sought to fund through its request were the construction of new embassy compounds in Qatar, Brazil, and Malawi and new U.S. consulates in Italy and Indonesia. Proposed cuts included a $50 million reduction in DS operations in Iraq due to the suspension of operations at the U.S. Consulate General in Basrah. The enacted legislation, P.L. 116-94 , appropriated $4.10 billion for WSP and $1.98 billion for ESCM, for a total of approximately $6.08 billion in diplomatic security funding. This funding totals around 12% more than the Administration's request, 7% more than the Senate committee bill would have provided, and 0.2% less than the appropriated funds included in the House bill. The aggregate appropriation for diplomatic security is nearly identical to that provided in FY2019. However, P.L. 116-94 appropriated around $7.4 million more for Worldwide Security Upgrades, a sub-item within ESCM that includes the State Department's share of the costs to plan, design, and build new embassies and other facilities abroad, while providing an equivalent lesser amount for the operations and repair and construction programs funded through ESCM. The enacted appropriations law also carried over notification requirements from previous years that Congress applies to conduct oversight of diplomatic construction projects abroad, including ongoing embassy construction projects in Lebanon, Indonesia, Mexico, and India. With respect to the U.S. Consulate General in Basrah, the law requires that any change to the status of operations there is subject to consultation with and notification to Congress. Over the past several years, Congress provided no-year appropriations for both WSP and ESCM, thereby authorizing the State Department to indefinitely retain appropriated funds beyond the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. As a result, the department has carried over large balances of unexpired, unobligated WSP and ESCM funds each year that it is authorized to obligate for purposes including multiyear construction projects and unexpected security contingencies. For example, for FY2019, the State Department carried over more than $7.2 billion in previously appropriated funds for ESCM. In this context, P.L. 116-94 included a rescission of $242.5 million in unobligated ESCM funds previously appropriated pursuant to the Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017 (division B of P.L. 114-254 ) for embassy construction projects in high-threat countries that were subsequently postponed indefinitely. Assessments to International Organizations and Peacekeeping Missions Through the Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) account, the United States pays its assessed contributions (membership dues) to the United Nations (U.N.), the U.N. system of organizations (including, for example, the International Atomic Energy Agency), inter-American organizations such as the Organization of American States, and other international organizations. Additional funding is provided to international organizations through the various multilateral assistance accounts, as described in the Foreign Operations section of this report. Separately, the United States pays its assessed contributions to U.N. peacekeeping missions through the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Operations (CIPA) account. Recent funding levels for both accounts are detailed in Table 5 . The Administration's CIO account request noted that it prioritized funding for international organizations "whose missions substantially advance U.S. foreign policy interests" while cutting contributions to organizations whose work either does not directly affect U.S. national security interests or renders unclear results. While the request sought to fund the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the International Atomic Energy Agency near recent levels, it looked to cut funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) by approximately 50% each. The Administration's request specifically noted that these cuts owed to "these entities' less direct linkages to U.S. national security and economic prosperity." With regard to CIPA, the Administration's request assumed that the State Department would make progress in efforts to negotiate reductions in the overall budgets of peacekeeping missions or the closure of certain missions altogether. The U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping (last negotiated in 2018) is 27.89%; however, Congress has capped the U.S. contribution at 25%. If the Administration's request was enacted, it would have provided 58% of total U.S. assessed dues owed for FY2020. The remainder of these dues would have been compounded into arrears. The State Department estimated that the United States accumulated about $725 million in peacekeeping arrears from FY2017 to FY2019 as a result of the U.S. cap. The FY2020 appropriations law provided a combined total of $3 billion for CIO and CIPA, which marked an increase of 40% relative to the Administration's request, and was 17% and 2% less, respectively, than the House and Senate committee funding levels. The joint explanatory statement explicitly provided that not less than $67.4 million of the CIO appropriation was for the FY2020 U.S. contribution to NATO, which totaled approximately 9% more than the U.S. contribution to the alliance in FY2018. The joint explanatory statement further noted that no funds were included in the law to withdraw the United States from NATO. Information provided to Congress by the Department of State indicates that the department intends to fund the WHO and FAO through this account near recent-year levels. With regard to CIPA, the joint explanatory statement maintained that sufficient funds were appropriated for the United States to continue providing contributions at the statutory level of 25% rather than the assessed rate of 27.89%. Both the House and Senate committee reports made note of compounding U.S. peacekeeping arrears. The House committee report recommended applying a share of the FY2020 CIPA appropriation for the payment of arrears accumulated in FY2017 and FY2018âhowever, this may not be possible as the final FY2020 CIPA appropriation provided in P.L. 116-94 was around $600 million less than the level included in the House bill. The Senate committee report encouraged the State Department to alleviate the issue of compounding arrears through reviewing peacekeeping missions for potential cost savings while ensuring mission effectiveness. Foreign Operations Highlights The foreign operations accounts in the SFOPS appropriation, together with the Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole food aid programs funded through the agriculture appropriation, comprise the foreign assistance component of the international affairs budget. The Administration's initial FY2020 foreign operations request totaled $29.01 billion, about 1.5% more than the Administration requested for these accounts for FY2019 and 23% less than Congress enacted for FY2019. Total foreign aid, including the food aid programs in the agriculture appropriation, would have been cut by 27%. The foreign aid request outlined four general priorities: Supporting U.S. friends and allies Winning the great power competition Promoting a "journey to self-reliance" for developing countries Sharing the burden of international security and development with more partners Under the President's proposal, assistance levels would have been cut across all aid types and sectors. The House legislation, H.R. 2740 , included $39.2 billion for foreign operations, a slight increase compared to FY2019, and about 34% more than the Administration requested. The Senate committee bill, S. 2583 , included $38.95 billion for foreign operations accounts, almost level with the House recommendation. The omnibus appropriation, P.L. 116-94 , included $38.70 billion for foreign operations accounts, a 1.2% increase over FY2019 funding and 33% more than requested. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Administration requested an additional $105 million in the USAID Operating Expenses and Peace Corps accounts for FY2020. Congress in turn enacted $1.777 billion in additional foreign operations funds in COVID-19 supplemental appropriations legislation, primarily in the Global Health Programs, International Disaster Assistance, Migration and Refugee Assistance, and Economic Support Fund accounts, bringing total enacted foreign operations funding to $40.48 billion ( Table 6 ). Proposed Account Consolidations and Restructuring In the FY2020 request, the Administration proposed to consolidate accounts in two areas: Most non-health development assistance accountsâDevelopment Assistance; Economic Support Fund; Assistance to Europe, Eurasia and Central Asia; and the Democracy Fundâwould have been combined into a single new Economic Support and Development Fund (ESDF). The Administration made a similar request for both FY2018 and FY2019, but Congress did not enact the proposed account restructuring. For the first time, the Administration proposed to consolidate the four humanitarian assistance accountsâInternational Disaster Assistance (IDA), Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA), Food for Peace, Title II and Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA)âinto a single International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account. Budget documents stated that the consolidated account would be managed by USAID under the policy authority of the State Department (see Humanitarian Assistance section below). The Administration suggested that consolidation of these accounts would streamline management to allow more efficient deployment of resources. The House passed legislation, H.R. 2740 , did not adopt the account structure proposed by the Administration. However, it did move the Economic Support Fund account from Title III (bilateral economic assistance) of the bill to Title IV (security assistance), making comparisons of the two titles to the request or to prior appropriations potentially misleading. The committee report notes that ESF funds "are provided to advance United States interests by helping countries meet political and security needs," and may be provided in countries that also receive Development Assistance funds, seemingly clarifying the purpose for distinct accounts rather than a combined ESDF. The Senate committee bill did not adopt the account structure changes proposed by the Administration or the House bill. It did, however, add a "restructured debt" account line under the Treasury Programs heading, with $20 million in recommended funding, that was included in neither the Administration request nor the House bill. P.L. 116-94 , like the Senate bill, maintained the development and humanitarian assistance account structure used in the FY2019 legislation, but added a $15 million line item for debt restructuring under Treasury Programs. Independent Agencies Under the original FY2020 request, funding for independent SFOPS agencies would have been reduced by 12% overall from FY2019 levels. Requested Peace Corps funding was $396.2 million (a 3.5% reduction from FY2019) and for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), $800 million (an 11.6% reduction). As in the FY2019 budget request, the FY2020 request proposed elimination of two independent development agenciesâthe Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the U.S. Africa Development Foundation (USADF)âand incorporation of their staff and small grant activities into USAID's Western Hemisphere and Africa bureaus, respectively. The request specified that funding was included for 40 staff positions to enable this transition, as well as $20 million in ESDF to support small grants. H.R. 2740 , as passed, would have maintained funding for the MCC and USADF at FY2019 levels while increasing funding for the Peace Corps (3.5% increase) and IAF (44%, with the increase to be used to support the Central America Strategy, the Caribbean Basin Strategy, and for programs in Colombia). The committee report made clear that the committee did not assume the proposed consolidation of IAF and USADF into USAID. S. 2583 , the committee-passed bill, would have provided overall funding for independent agencies at much the same level recommended by the House bill, but would have maintained Peace Corps and MCC funding at the FY2019 level. USADF funding would have increased by 10% and IAF by 67% compared to FY2019, with the committee specifying that the funds were not for close-out costs. The enacted legislation adopted the Senate funding levels for all the independent agencies, a 1.3% increase, in total, over FY2019 funding. In March 2020, The Administration requested an additional $73 million for the Peace Corps to fund the emergency evacuation of volunteers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress enacted $88 million for this purpose in P.L. 116-136 . Including this funding, FY2020 appropriations for independent agencies to date total $1.474 billion. Multilateral Assistance The various multilateral assistance accounts, through which the United States contributes to multilateral development banks and international organizations that pool funding from multiple donors to finance development activities, would have been cut by about 18% from FY2019, to $1.52 billion, under the request. As in the FY2018 and FY2019 requests, the Administration included no funding in the FY2020 request for the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account, which funds U.S. voluntary contributions to international organizations, primarily United Nations entities such as UNICEF. Congress appropriated $339 million for IO&P in FY2019. The Administration also requested no funding for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), describing the FY2019 appropriation as sufficient to cover FY2019 and FY2020. The House legislation, H.R. 2740 , would have increased total funding for international organizations by nearly 26%, to $2.34 billion. This included a 91% increase compared to FY2019 for the IO&P account, with report language allocating funds for core contributions to specific agencies, including $147.5 million for UNICEF and $55.5 million for the U.N. Population Fund. The IO&P allocation also included $170.5 million for the U.N. Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA, which works in Palestinian territories) and report language specified that $226.6 million of multilateral assistance should support humanitarian and development efforts in the West Bank and Gaza. The bill also included $139.6 million for the GEF and $30 million for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. The Senate committee bill, S. 2583 , included $2.07 billion for multilateral aid accounts, an 11.5% increase over FY2019 funding. The increase was driven by a 12% IO&P funding increase and inclusion of $206.5 million in International Bank of Reconstruction and Development funding that was in the Administration request but not the House bill or the FY2019-enacted appropriation. The enacted legislation included a total of $2.082 billion for multilateral assistance, a 12% increase over FY2019 funding. Within that total, IO&P funding was increased by 15% to $390.5 million, offset in part by the lack of a contribution to the African Development Bank ($32 million in FY2019). All other multilateral accounts were funded at the same level as FY2019. Export Promotion Assistance/International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC) Export promotion activities in FY2020, as in all recent years, are expected in total to return more to the Treasury through offsetting collections (such as fees and loan interest payments) of the Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) than is appropriated for these programs. In 2019, OPIC was dissolved and replaced by the new U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), which also incorporates USAID's Development Credit Authority (DCA). The request included increased administrative funding to support this transition ($98 million, compared to $80 million for OPIC administration and $10 million for DCA administration in FY2019). The FY2020 request also included $200 million in program funds to support DFC credit subsidies, technical assistance and feasibility studies. As in FY2018 and FY2019, the Administration's export promotion request called for the elimination of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (TDA), seeking $12.1 million for an orderly shutdown. Congress appropriated $79.5 million for TDA in both FY2018 and FY2019. H.R. 2740 , as passed, did not include funding for OPIC, anticipating its termination under the BUILD Act, and instead provided funds for the DFC, including $164 million for the capital account (45% less than requested), to include $101 million for administrative expenses. It also set an $80 million limit on transfers to the DFC to support direct and guaranteed loans and included several reporting requirements for the new agency. The bill also included $75 million for TDA, a 5.7% cut from current year funding. The Senate committee bill, S. 2583 , would have funded the DFC through several specific budget allocations: $98 million for administrative expenses, $150 million for an equity fund, $50 million (by transfer from the Development Assistance account) for a program accounts, and $2 million for the Inspector General. Like the House bill, the Senate committee bill anticipated offsetting collections to exceed DFC appropriations in FY2020. S. 2583 also included $79.5 million for TDA. P.L. 116-94 provided $299 million for a DFC corporate capital account (including $119 million for administrative expenses, $150 million for equity investments, and $30 million for other programs), $80 million for the cost of direct and guaranteed loans through a program account, and $2 million for the Inspector General. Like the House and Senate bills, the enacted legislation assumes that offsetting collections will make appropriations for the DFC unnecessary. The bill also included $79.5 million for TDA. Key Sectors As in previous years, the bulk of aid requested for FY2020 was for global health, humanitarian, and security assistance programs. Global Health The total request for the Global Health Programs (GHP) account for FY2020 was $6.34 billion, a 28% cut from the FY2019 enacted funding level. Global health sub-accounts would have been cut across the board under the request, with reductions ranging from 11% for malaria programs to nearly 55% for family planning and reproductive health programs ( Table 7 ). HIV/AIDS program funding would have been cut by nearly 30% from FY2019 funding levels, though the Administration asserted that the requested funding would be sufficient to maintain treatment for all current recipients. The Administration proposed limiting U.S. Global Fund contributions to 25% of all donations, rather than the 33% that the United States has provided since the George W. Bush Administration. The House legislation, H.R. 2740 , included nearly $9.30 billion for GHP, which would have increased GHP funding by 5% over FY2019 levels and was 47% more than requested. Sub-sector allocations specified in the accompanying report would have maintained level funding or slight increases for most health subsectors compared to FY2019 levels, with the exception of family planning and reproductive health funding, which would have increased by 30%. The bill included $1.56 billion for the Global Fund, retaining the U.S. contribution limit at 33% of the total, and directed the Administration to fully obligate the funds for the first installment of the new replenishment round. In addition, the House committee bill included a provision that would have prohibited funds appropriated in the act, or prior SFOPS Acts, from being used to implement the Administration's expansion of the "Mexico City Policy," which prohibits all global health funding (expanded from family planning funding) to foreign NGOs engaged in voluntary abortion activities, even if such activities are conducted with non-U.S. funds. S. 2583 would have provided $9.12 billion for GHP in total, about 3% more than the FY2019 funding, with slight increases in all health subsectors compared to the FY2019 subsector allocations, as specified in the accompanying report. Compared to the House bill, the Senate committee bill included significantly less funding for family planning and reproductive health programs (-22%) and more for malaria programs (+4.5%). The bill would have provided $1.56 billion for the Global Fund, the same as the House bill. P.L. 116-94 included a total of $9.09 billion for GHP, 2.9% more than the FY2019 funding level and 43% more than the Administration's request. The increase over FY2019 funding was driven by modest increases across all global health subcategories, as detailed in the explanatory statement, with the exception of family planning and reproductive health, which was maintained at the FY2019 funding level. The biggest increases were to HIV/AIDS (+3.5%) and nutrition (+3.4%) activities. Like the House and Senate bills, the enacted appropriation allocated $1.56 billion for the Global Fund. P.L. 116-123 , the first COVID-19 supplemental bill, included an additional $435 million for Global Health Programs, to be administered by USAID, "for necessary expenses to prevent, prepare for and respond to coronavirus." This funding brought the GHP total for FY2020 to $9.53 billion, or nearly 8% more than the FY2019-enacted funding. Humanitarian Assistance The initial FY2020 budget request for humanitarian assistance was $5.97 billion, a 37% decrease from the FY2019 appropriation (including funds for Food for Peace in the Agriculture appropriation). The request continued a long-standing trend of humanitarian budget requests being significantly smaller than prior-year enacted funding levels, at times reflecting the fact that humanitarian assistance funds may be carried over from year to year and unobligated balances from prior years may still be available ( Figure 3 ). The Administration's budget justification asserted that "when combined with all available resources, average funding available for 2019 and 2020 roughly matches the highest-ever level of U.S. overseas humanitarian programming, and is sufficient to address needs for Syria, Yemen, and other crisis areas." For FY2020, as noted earlier, the budget proposed to fund all humanitarian assistance through a new, single global International Humanitarian Assistance (IHA) account. IHA would have been managed by the newly consolidated Humanitarian Assistance Bureau at USAID, but with a "senior dual-hat leader" under the policy authority of the Secretary of State reporting to both the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator. The proposal would have effectively moved the administration of refugee and migration assistance funding from State to USAID. The State Department would have retained approximately 10% of MRA funding to support refugee diplomacy and administrative expenses, costs associated with resettlement of refugees in the United States, and support for refugee resettlement in Israel. Within USAID, the proposal would also have eliminated the Food for Peace Act, Title II funding currently appropriated through the agriculture appropriation but administered by USAID. The Administration previously proposed this in FY2018 and FY2019, citing inefficiency and the ability to provide food assistance through other accounts. Under the proposed plan, emergency food assistance would also have been funded through the IHA account. H.R. 2740 , as passed, would have provided $7.97 billion in foreign operations humanitarian assistance, a 2% increase over FY2019 funding and about 26% more than requested. Funding was provided through the traditional accounts (IDA, MRA and ERMA) rather than the proposed IHA account. An additional $1.85 billion was included in the Senate committee-passed agriculture appropriation, H.R. 3164 , for Food for Peace. S. 2583 included $7.82 billion for foreign operations through the traditional account structure. The Senate committee-passed agriculture appropriation, S. 2522 , included $1.716 billion for Food for Peace, for a humanitarian aid total of $9.53 billion, almost level with FY2019-enacted funding. The enacted omnibus legislation maintained both the account structure and funding levels for humanitarian assistance. P.L. 116-94 included a total of $9.55 billion for humanitarian assistance in the SFOPS ($7.83 billion) and Agriculture ($1.725 billion) divisions, a 0.2% increase over FY2019 funding, with slight increases to the IDA and Food for Peace accounts. COVID-19 supplemental appropriations enacted in March 2020 made additional humanitarian assistance available to prevent, prepare for and respond to the pandemic. P.L. 116-123 added $300 million to the IDA account and P.L. 116-136 added an additional $258 million for IDA and $350 million for MRA, bringing the enacted humanitarian assistance total to $10.46 billion ($8.74 billion in SFOPS), or about 10% more than the enacted FY2019 funding. Security Assistance The FY2020 request for military and security assistance was $7.415 billion, a 19% cut from FY2019 enacted levels. Reductions were proposed for every account ( Figure 4 ). As is typical, the bulk of security assistance requested by the Administration (67%) would have been Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to Israel ($3.3 billion), Egypt ($1.3 billion), and Jordan ($350 million). As in FY2018 and FY2019, the Administration's FY2020 request sought authority to provide FMF assistance through a combination of grants and loans, including loan guarantees, rather than the current use of FMF on an almost exclusive grant basis. The Administration asserted that loan authority would enable partners to purchase more U.S.-made defense equipment and promote burden sharing in security cooperation activities. FY2020 International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) funding would have decreased by 37%, with a notable increase requested for Colombia ($209 million from $143 million in FY2018) and decrease for Afghanistan ($95 million, down from $160 million in FY2018). The House legislation, H.R. 2740 , included $11.21 billion for security assistance, an almost 23% increase over the FY2019 funding level and a more than 50% increase over the Administration request. The difference was almost entirely due to the House bill including the Economic Support Fund account under security assistance rather than bilateral economic assistance. Excluding ESF funds, security assistance in the bill would have been reduced about 1% from FY2019 funding. The Senate committee bill, S. 2483 , included the traditional accounts under the security assistance heading and provided a total of $9.11 billion, on par with FY2019 funding. However, within that total INCLE funding would have decreased by 9% and NADR funding would have increased by 11% compared to FY2019. P.L. 116-96 provided $9.014 billion in security assistance accounts, a reduction of about 1.5% from FY2019 funding, keeping the FY2019 account structure. Funding was reduced from the FY2019 level for the INCLE, PKO and FMF accounts (-7.1%, -6.4%, and -0.6%, respectively), while NADR and IMET funding increased (+3.6% and +1.9%, respectively). Other Foreign Assistance Sectors In addition to proposed cuts to global health and humanitarian assistance, the FY2020 budget request would have reduced funding from the previous year's enacted levels for almost all development sectors. Programs to counter trafficking in persons would have been cut the least, 25%, while activities related to environmental protection, microenterprise, water and sanitation, and education would have been cut by more than 60%. Democracy promotion and food security funding would have been reduced by about half. One exception to the proposed sector cuts was gender equality funding, which would have increased by about 80%, driven by the Women's Global Development and Prosperity Initiative (WGDP), rolled out by Ivanka Trump in February 2019, for which the budget request included $100 million ( Table 8 ). The House legislation, H.R. 2740 , recommended development sector allocations similar to those enacted for FY2019, with the exception of environment programs, for which the allocation would have increased by 77%. In addition to the funding allocation, the environmental programs section also specified that funding may be used to support the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (Paris Agreement) and that none of the funds in the act, or in prior SFOPS appropriations acts, may be used to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. The report accompanying the legislation ( H.Rept. 116-78 ) called for the USAID Administrator to provide a detailed implementation plan of the WGDP to Congress, including focus countries and planned metrics, within 90 days of enactment. Sector allocations in the Senate committee bill, S. 2483 , would have increased funding for democracy and environment programs relative to the FY2019 funding (+17% and +90%) and the House bill (+17% and +7%, respectively), while providing fewer funds for education and gender equality programs than both the FY2019 legislation (-28% and -25%) and the House bill (-30% and -35%). Senate committee allocation in all sectors, with the exception of gender equality (-59%), would have been higher than the Administration requested for FY2020. P.L. 116-94 included sector allocations more similar to the FY2019 legislation than to the Administration's request. As in the House and Senate bills, the enacted legislation significantly increased environment sector funding compared to FY2019 (+81%). Funding for education (+7.2%), water and sanitation (+3.4%) and gender equality (+53.5%) also increased compared to FY2019, though the gender equality funding total included "up to" $100 million for the WGDP, creating potential for a significantly lower allocation. Country and Regional Aid Allocations Top aid recipients under the request, consistent with recent years, would have been allies in the Near East who receive the bulk of military aid, including Israel and Egypt; strategically significant development partners such as Jordan and Afghanistan; and several global health focus countries in Africa ( Table 9 ). Notable reductions in aid were proposed for South Africa (-171%) and West Bank/Gaza (-43%). The Near East and Africa would have continued to be the top regional aid recipients under the request, together comprising more than 75% of aid allocated by country or region ( Figure 5 ).The FY2020 request emphasized large increases for the Indo-Pacific and Europe and Eurasia regions relative to the FY2019 request, as part of the emphasis on countering Chinese and Russian influence. However, the requested funding for East Asia and the Pacific was 14% less, and the South and Central Asia request almost 17% less, than the FY2018 allocations for those regions (FY2019 country and regional allocations are not yet available). Aid to Europe and Eurasia would have been reduced by 54%, and aid to sub-Saharan Africa by 35%. Aid to the Western Hemisphere would decrease by 30%, though the FY2020 budget request sought authority to transfer $500 million in aid from unspecified accounts as necessary to meet needs related to the crisis in Venezuela. The MENA region would have seen the smallest proportionate cuts under the request, about 8%, and increased its share of regionally allocated aid from 36% to 44%. These country and regional allocations do not include the nearly $6 billion requested for humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian assistance is not requested by country and could significantly change country and regional aid totals once allocated. Nor do they include nonhumanitarian supplemental funds appropriated for COVID-19 response, which were not appropriated by country or region. The House legislation and report, H.R. 2740 / H.Rept. 116-78 , did not provide comprehensive country and regional allocations, but did specify aid levels for several countries and regions, including $3.305 billion for Israel, $1.403 billion for Egypt, $1.525 billion for Jordan, $457 million for Colombia, $160 million to support the Indo-Pacific Strategy, $541 million designated for Central America as a region, and $280 million for the Countering Russian Influence Fund. S. 2583 / S. 126 also did not provide comprehensive allocations by country, but did specify many such aid levels, including $3.305 billion for Israel, $1.432 billion for Egypt, $1.650 billion for Jordan, $448 million for Ukraine, $403 million for Colombia, $322 million for Afghanistan, and $453.6 million for Iraq. The bill and report also included a total of $515 million for Central America as a region, $285 million for the Countering Russian Influence Fund, $375 million for a new Countering Chinese Influence Fund, and $200 million for the Relief and Recovery Fund to assist areas formerly controlled by ISIS. P.L. 116-94 and the accompanying explanatory statement include detailed funding directives for many countries and regional programs. Among the largest allocations are $3.305 billion for Israel, $1.525 billion for Jordan, $1.432 billion for Egypt, $448 million each for Ukraine and Colombia, and $452 million for Iraq. Major allocations for regional activities include $1.482 billion to support the Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 ( P.L. 115-409 ), $300 million for the Countering Chinese Influence Fund, $520 million for Central America (and a directive that funds appropriated for Central America in FY2019 be made available), and $290 million to carry out the purposes of the Countering Russian Influence Fund. Appendix A. SFOPS Funding, by Account Appendix B. International Affairs Budget The International Affairs budget, or Function 150, includes funding that is not in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation: foreign food aid programs (P.L. 480 Title II Food for Peace and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition programs) are in the Agriculture Appropriations, and the Foreign Claim Settlement Commission and the International Trade Commission are in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations. In addition, the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs appropriation measure includes funding for certain international commissions that are not part of the International Affairs Function 150 account. Appendix C. SFOPS Organization Chart


Overview The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act) requires annual financial audits of federal agencies' financial statements to "assure the issuance of reliable financial information ... deter fraud, waste and abuse of Government resources ... [and assist] the executive branch ... and Congress in the financing, management, and evaluation of Federal programs." Agency inspectors general (IGs) are responsible for the audits and may contract with one or more external auditors. The Department of Defense (DOD) completed its first agency-wide financial audit in FY2018 and recently completed its FY2019 audit. Comprehensive data for the FY2019 audit are not currently available. Therefore, this report focuses on DOD's FY2018 audit. Congressional interest in DOD's audits is particularly acute because DOD accounts for about half of federal discretionary expenditures and 15% of total federal expenditures. The Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) contracted with nine Independent Public Accounting firms (IPAs) to conduct the FY2018 and FY2019 audit. The IPAs conducted 24 separate audits within DOD (see Table 1 for each of the component-level audit opinions). In both FY2018 and FY2019 audits, the DOD IG issued the overall agency-wide opinion of disclaimer of o pinion âmeaning auditors could not express an opinion on the financial statements because the financial information was not sufficiently reliable. DOD components that received a disclaimer of opinion represent approximately 56% of the reported DOD assets and 90% of the reported DOD budgetary resources. DOD expected to receive a disclaimer of opinion for FY2018 and FY2019. The department has stated it could take a decade to receive an u nmodified (clean) audit opinion. The federal government as a whole is unable to receive a clean opinion on its financial report because agencies with significant assets and budgetary costs, such as DOD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Railroad Retirement Board, have each received a disclaimer of opinion in recent years. The federal government as a whole potentially could receive a clean audit opinion without all government agencies receiving a clean audit opinion; however, the size of the DOD budgetâ$708 billion in FY2019âprevents an overall clean opinion without DOD receiving a clean audit opinion. DOD employs 2.9 million military and civilian employees at approximately 4,800 DOD sites in 160 countries. DOD IG personnel and auditors from IPAs visited over 600 sites, sent over 40,000 requests for documentation, and tested over 90,000 sample items. DOD spent $413 million to conduct the FY2018 audit: $192 million on audit fees for the IPAs and $221 million on government costs to support the audit. DOD spent an additional $406 million on audit remediation and $153 million on financial system fixes. What Is a Financial Audit? Financial statements are the primary way for an entity to communicate its financial performance to its stakeholders. How each line item on a financial statement (e.g., property) should be valued and reported is based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), an agreement among practitioners (i.e., accountants, auditors, and regulators). In a financial audit, a private or public entity hires an independent auditor to provide reasonable assurance to all stakeholders that its financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether caused by error or fraud. Auditors form opinions by examining the types of risks an organization might face and the controls in place to mitigate those risks. Auditors give unbiased professional opinions on whether financial statements and related disclosures are fairly stated in all material respects for a given period of time in accordance with GAAP. As mentioned previously, the CFO Act requires federal agencies' financial statements to be audited annually. The CFO Act assigns responsibility for audits to agency inspectors general (IGs), but an IG may contract with one or more external auditors to perform an audit. The annual audit can inform Congress and the agency about its business processes and areas for improvement. An audit of DOD can provide benefits, such as (1) effective and efficient internal operations that can lead to reducing costs and improving operational readiness; (2) improved allocation of assets and financial resources that can enhance DOD's decisionmaking and ability to support the Armed Forces; and (3) improved compliance with statutes and financial regulations. For each line item on a financial statement and notes to the financial statement, an auditor will examine a sample of the underlying economic events to determine the reported information's accuracy. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) promulgates financial reporting and accounting standards for federal government entities, and GAO establishes federal auditing standards, including for federal grant recipients in state and local governments. GAO issues the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS), also commonly known as the Yellow Book , to provide a framework for conducting federal government audits. The Yellow Book requires auditors to consider the visibility and sensitivity of government programs in determining the materiality threshold. Similar to requirements in the private sector, GAGAS requires federal financial reporting to disclose compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements that have a material effect on financial statements. Before auditors examine an entity's financial statement, they first evaluate its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems' (information technology systems') access control and reliability, as well as internal controls. ERP refers to an enterprise-wide information system used to manage and coordinate all of an entity's resources, information, and functions from shared data stores, including financial information. Auditing ERP systems is a critical aspect of evaluating an entity's internal controls. Internal Control in the Federal Government Internal control is a series of integrated actions that management uses to guide an entity's operations. Under GAO standards, effective internal controls should require management to use dynamic, integrated, and responsive judgment rather than rigidly adhering to past policies and procedures. The success or failure of an entity's internal controls depends on its personnel. Management is responsible for designing effective internal controls, but implementation depends on all personnel understanding, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. Federal agencies have been required to report to Congress on internal controls since the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982. In addition, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 requires agencies to report to Congress on the effectiveness of internal control over financial management systems. GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (also known as the Green Book ) provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An audit of an entity's internal controls includes computer systems at the entity-wide, system, and application levels. GAGAS recommends using specific frameworks for internal control policies and procedures, including certain evaluation tools created specifically for federal government entities. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A123, Management's Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control , provides additional guidance. The federal government's internal control framework is based on the framework created by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO), which is widely used in the private sector. The COSO framework is dedicated to improving organizational performance and governance through effective internal control, enterprise risk management, and fraud deterrence. The COSO framework, depicted in Figure 1 , was created to help practitioners assess internal controls not as an isolated issue, but rather as an integrated framework for how internal controls work together across an organization to help achieve objectives as determined by management. It represents the integrated perspective recommended by COSO for practitioners who are creating and assessing internal controls. The cube may be best understood by examining each set of components separately: Categories of objectives. Operations, Reporting, and Compliance are represented by the columns. The objectives are designed to help an organization focus on different aspects of internal controls to help management achieve its objectives. Components of internal control. Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring Activities are represented by the rows. The components represent what is required to achieve the three objectives. Levels of organizational structure. Entity-Level, Division, Operating Unit, and Function are represented by the third dimension. For an organization to achieve its objectives, according to COSO, internal control must be effective and integrated across all organizational levels. Internal Control at DOD Internal controls can help DOD leadership achieve desired financial results through effective stewardship of public resources. Effective internal controls can increase the likelihood that DOD achieves its financial objectives, including getting a clean (i.e., unmodified) audit opinion. Properly designed internal controls can help reduce the amount of detail an auditor will examine, including the number of samples examined. Good internal controls could reduce the amount of time required to conduct an audit, thus reducing its cost. At DOD, auditors identified 20 agency-wide internal control material weaknesses and 129 DOD component-level material weaknesses that range from issues with financial management systems to inventory management. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that results in a reasonable possibility that management will not prevent, or detect and correct, a material misstatement in the financial statements in a timely manner. Many of these material weaknesses are discussed later in this report under " Issues for Congress ." Properly designed internal controls can also serve as the first line of defense in safeguarding assets. Internal controls help private and public entities achieve objectives, such as enterprise risk management, fraud deterrence, and sustained and improved performance, by designing processes that control risk. The DOD IG identified multiple DOD components that do not have sufficient entity-level internal controls . The lack of entity-level internal controls directly contributed to an increased risk of material misstatements on the components' financial statements and the agency-wide financial statements. Until DOD resolves the many issues surrounding internal controls and establishes a better record-keeping system, it might be difficult for auditors to identify other material weaknesses that could prevent DOD from receiving a clean audit opinion. When the current set of internal control issues is resolved, and auditors are better able to analyze DOD records, they might discover additional issues, including new material weaknesses, that need to be resolvedâa cascading effectâbefore DOD receives a clean audit opinion. This cycle might repeat a few times. FY2018 Audit Results The DOD auditors issued 2,377 notices of findings and recommendations (NFRs) that resulted in 20 agency-wide material weaknesses and 129 DOD component-level material weaknesses. Appendix A provides an overview of the 20 agency-wide material weaknesses. An auditor creates an NFR to capture issues that require corrective action. DOD then creates a corrective action plan (CAP) to address one or more NFRs. The NFR is later retested, and if the CAP sufficiently addresses the NFR, the auditor is to validate that the issue has been resolved. As of June 2019, the majority of NFRs were related to three critical areas: approximately 48% were related to financial management systems and information technology; 30% were related to financial reporting and DOD's fund balance with Treasury; and 16% were related to property. Although the overall number of NFRs increased slightly between December 2018 and June 2019, the number has decreased significantly in certain categories (see Table 2 , Other column). The increase in NFRs in certain categories is an expected result of the audit process. As auditors learn more about DOD and how it functions, they may continue to identify new NFRs, while DOD continues to address some of the previously identified NFRs. The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) has established an audit NFR database. DOD uses the database to consolidate and track the status of all auditor-issued NFRs and prioritize and link them to CAPs. The NFR and CAP component-based metrics are reported and reviewed monthly in the National Defense Strategy meeting with the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Military Service financial management leadership teams. The military service branchesâArmy, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Forceâaccount for over 60% of NFRs identified in the FY2018 audit (see Table 3 ). For DOD to receive a clean audit opinion, civilian leadership and uniformed Armed Forces personnel may need to improve collaboration. According to DOD, it is prioritizing CAPs that align with the National Defense Strategy and provide the greatest potential value to DOD operations and the warfighter. DOD has established actionable financial statement audit priorities at many levels within the department, including at the command level. Those FY2019 priorities include the following: Real Property; Government Property in the Possession of Contractors; Inventory, and Operating Materials and supplies; and Access Controls for IT Systems. Given the complexity of DOD operations, auditors began their work for the FY2019 financial audit in late 2018. Comprehensive data for the FY2019 audit are not currently available. However, the auditors issued an overall agency-wide disclaimer of opinion for FY2019. Most financial statement audits stop as soon as the auditor determines the reporting entity is not auditable. DOD, however, has asked the auditors to continue such audits to identify as many problems as possible, with the goals of identifying systemic issues and making faster progress toward business reform. Issues for Congress Although the CFO Act required annual audits of federal agencies' financial statements, DOD did not complete an agency-wide audit until 2018â28 years later. One of DOD's strategic goals is to reform its business practices for greater performance and affordability. According to DOD, the annual audit process helps it reform its business practices consistent with the National Defense Strategy (NDS): The financial statement annual audit regimen is foundational to reforming the Department's business practices and consistent with the National Defense Strategy. Data from the audits is driving the Department's strategy, goals, and priorities and enabling leaders to focus on areas that yield the most value to the warfighter. The audits are already proving invaluable and have the potential to support long-term, sustainable reform that could lead to efficiencies, better buying power, and increased public confidence in DoD's stewardship of funds. Continued congressional oversight of DOD's plan to achieve a clean audit opinion could help DOD achieve a clean audit opinion. As more components receive a clean audit opinion, audit costs might eventually decrease. For FY2018, DOD incurred nearly $1 billion in total audit costs, which was less than 0.25% of DOD's FY2018 budget. Although the cost of an audit is a consideration, the more impactful benefits from an annual financial audit, arguably, are the changes in DOD business practices that directly impact the NDS while increasing transparency. The audits identified three critical areas of improvement that are consistent with the NDS: (1) financial management systems and information technology (IT), (2) financial reporting and fund balance with Treasury, and (3) property (real property, inventory, and supplies, and government property in the possession of contractors). Addressing the issues in these critical areas not only could help DOD improve its business practices, but it might also help resolve many of the NFRs, which could enable some audit components to receive clean audit opinions in the next few years instead of in another decade or more. Financial Management Systems and Information Technology According to DOD, its financial management systems and information technology provide a broad range of functionality to support agency financial management, supply chain management, logistics, and human resource management. Reliable systems are mission critical to DOD meeting its NDS and supporting the warfighter. Also, DOD is required to comply with laws and regulations, such as the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982, the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, and OMB Circular A-123. These laws and regulations collectively require DOD to maintain a system of internal controls that can produce reliable operational and financial information. The challenges DOD faces in financial management systems and information technology are twofold and compromise nearly half of all NFRs (see Table 2 or Table 3 ). First, DOD's initiatives to address the issues related to access controls for IT systems are partially implemented. A fully implemented plan to address access control issues would potentially restrict access rights to appropriate personnel, monitor user activity, and safeguard sensitive data from unauthorized access and misuse. As part of its corrective action plan, DOD is requiring financial system owners and owners of business systems that contribute financial information to review and limit access only to those who need it and only to the specific areas within the systems that they need to access. DOD has developed security controls and standardized test plans that align with the Federal Information Systems Control Audit Manual methodology used to test systems during an audit. Further, DOD management has directed components without a proper software maintenance policy to establish a baseline policy for those software systems and maintain a record of all software system changes. In addition to requiring components to develop reports on privileged users and transactions, including privileged user activities, the department has directed components to periodically review user access rights and remove unauthorized users. Second, the number and variety of financial systems complicate DOD's financial statement audits. In 2016, DOD reported more than 400 separate information technology systems were used to process accounting information to support DOD's financial statements. Many of these legacy systems were designed and implemented to support a particular function, such as human resource management, property management, or logistics management, and were not designed for financial statement reporting. These systems include newer ERP systems and custom-built legacy systems, financial systems, and nonfinancial feeder systems. Also, aging systems and technology that predate modern data standards and laws, as well as nonaccounting feeder systems, affect data exchange with modern ERPs to facilitate auditable financial reports. DOD's IT modernization program is investing in ERPs and aims to migrate 51 legacy systems to core modern ERPs by the end of 2023. How the remediation plans evolve and how they are implemented as DOD migrates to the new ERPs could be a significant determiner of DOD's ability to address nearly half of the NFRs. Financial Reporting and Fund Balance with Treasury According to DOD's auditors, its policies and procedures for compiling and reporting financial statements are not sufficient to identify, detect, and correct inaccurate and incomplete balances in the general ledger. Without an adequate process to identify and correct potential misstatements in the general ledger, balances reported on financial statements, accompanying footnotes, and related disclosures may not be reliable or useful for decisionmaking for Congress, including appropriating the DOD budget. The lack of accurate numbers, arguably, also presents challenges for DOD leadership in making agency financial decisions. DOD's assets increased by nearly $200 billion in FY2018 over FY2017. Fund Balance with Treasury, one of the assets, increased by $78.6 billion. According to DOD, the increase in Fund Balance with Treasury resulted from additional appropriations received in FY2018. DOD is unable to effectively track and reconcile collection and disbursements activity from its financial systems, which resulted in DOD being unable to reconcile its general ledger and Treasury accounts. The fund balance with the Treasury Department is an asset account reported on DOD's general ledger, which shows a DOD component's available budget authority. Similar to a personal checking account, the fund's balance increases and decreases with collections and disbursements of new appropriations and other funding sources. Each DOD component should be able to perform a detailed monthly reconciliation that identifies all the differences between its records and Treasury's records. The reconciliations are essential to supporting the budget authority and outlays reported on the financial statements. The auditors identified several deficiencies in the design and operation of internal controls for fund balance with the Treasury that resulted in DOD-wide material weakness. DOD has undertaken business process improvements to streamline reporting, reduce differences to an insignificant amount, and support account reconciliations. Property and Inventory The auditors report that DOD faces challenges with properly recording, valuing, and identifying the physical location of real property, inventory, and government property that is in the possession of contractors. DOD's challenges with property and inventory complicate Congress's ability to perform effective oversight and budget appropriations. Without accurate real estate counts and values, DOD will continue to face challenges in meeting the National Strategy for Efficient Use of Real Property. DOD faces similar issues with inventory. It is unable to provide assurance that inventory recorded in the financial statements exists and is valued properly. Without accurate inventory counts, DOD might not be able to support its missions without incurring additional costs. Some appropriated funds could be used to purchase extraneous inventory that DOD might already have on hand, or DOD might rely on inventory that appears in an inaccurate count but does not actually exist. Real Property The auditors report that DOD is unable to accurately account for all of its buildings and structures. This includes houses, warehouses, vehicle maintenance shops, aircraft hangars, and medical treatment facilities, among others. As an example, during the FY2018 audit, the Air Force identified 478 buildings and structures at 12 installations that were not in the real property system. DOD faces issues with demonstrating the right of occupancy or ownership through supporting documentation and with incomplete or out-of-date systems of record. Accurate property records, valuation, and right of ownership could potentially help inform DOD leadership as it considers any future base realignment and closure. According to DOD, military departments are executing real property physical inventories to reconcile with the systems of record. The Army has the largest real property portfolio in the department. All branches of the Armed Forces are facing challenges with obtaining source documents, establishing value for properties, and assessing and reporting expected maintenance costs. The Air Force is focused on correcting its records for buildings, which account for more than 90% of its real property value, first addressing its building inventory at its most significant bases. The Navy has completed its physical inventory and corrected its records. Initial results showed a 99.7% accuracy rate. The Marine Corps has undertaken a process of accurately counting and recording its physical inventory. The Armed Forces will be unable to obtain a clean audit opinion without determining the value of their real property and other assets. Inventory, Materials, and Supplies DOD manages inventory and other property at over 100,000 facilities located in more than 5,000 different locations. The military services and DOD components report inventory ownership on their financial statements, but this inventory can be in the custody of or managed by the military service or another DOD component. For example, as of FY2017 year end, the military services reported that the Defense Logistics Agency held approximately 46% of the Army's inventory, 39% of the Navy's inventory, and 45% of the Air Force's inventory, ranging from clothes to spare parts to engines. Given the vast geographic dispersion of DOD resources and the complexity of how they are managed, the system of records and physical inventory must agree with each other for DOD leadership to have an accurate understanding of available resources. GAO highlighted a few examples in its latest high-risk series: The Army found 39 Blackhawk helicopters that were not recorded in the property system; 107 Blackhawk rotor blades could not be used but were still in the inventory records; 20 fuel injector assemblies for Blackhawk helicopters did not have documentation to indicate ownership by any specific military service; and 24 gyro electronics for military aircraft that should not be used were still in the inventory records. Accurate inventory, materials, and supplies help DOD avoid purchasing materials it does not need and help ensure that the right parts, supplies, and other inventory are available to support mission readiness. Ensuring that parts, supplies, and inventory are usable not only helps with mission readiness but also helps avoid unnecessary warehousing costs. Many of the parts, supplies, and inventory are unique to DOD and require long lead times to contract and manufacture. An accurate physical count and system of records could help shorten the time before items are available for the warfighter. Government Property in the Possession of Contractors At times, DOD might provide contractors with property for use on a contract, such as tooling, test equipment, items to be repaired, and spare parts held as inventory. The government-provided property and contractor-acquired property should be recorded in DOD's property system, and at the end of the contract, it might be disposed of, consumed, modified, or returned to DOD. The auditors report that the DOD property system should be able to accurately distinguish DOD property ownership and possession between DOD and the contractor. For DOD to receive a clean audit opinion, it should consider requiring its contractors to maintain and provide auditors with accurate records. Transferring property from DOD to contractors, and from contractors to DOD, requires an accurate real-time system of record keeping. Audit Costs Total DOD audit-related costs for FY2018, including the cost of remediating audit findings, supporting the audits and responding to auditor requests, and achieving an auditable systems environment, were $973 million (see Table 4 ). DOD predicts that audit-related costs will remain relatively consistent for a few more years until more components begin to achieve unmodified opinions. In addition to the issues previously discussed, there are three agency-level issues or approaches that contribute to DOD audit costs remaining relatively constant in the near term: more substantive testing, completion of audit procedures even for those components that are likely to receive a disclaimer of opinion, and expansion of DOD service provider examinations. While DOD's annual audit costs (i.e., excluding remediation costs) might remain close to FY2018 costs (nearly $413 million) or increase in the near term, the cost is expected to decrease after the first few years, as more components achieve a clean audit opinion. Eventually, DOD audit costs might increase as costs for travel and accounting increase with economic growth. Substantive Testing To reduce the risk of potential material misstatement without reliable internal controls, auditors seek other ways of validating financial information. Reliance on internal controls is not a pass-or-fail approach; rather, it is incremental. DOD received 20 agency-wide material weaknesses and 129 component-level material weaknesses in internal controls in the FY2018 audit; until those are resolved, DOD auditors must rely on substantive testing, which will keep audit costs relatively high. There are two categories of substantive testing: Analytical P rocedures . Substantive testing through analytical procedures might include comparing current-year information with the prior year, examining trend lines, or reviewing various financial ratios. Because FY2018 was the first full financial audit of DOD and many systems of records are not reliable, auditors may have difficulty performing analytical procedures and must rely more on tests of details. Tests of Details. An auditor selects individual items for testing and applies detail procedures, such as verifying that invoiced items from a vendor match payments made by DOD, physically locating an inventory item that is recorded in DOD's financial systems, and verifying mathematical accuracy by recalculating certain records. Completion of Audit Procedures To gain a detailed understanding of the underlying issues that prevent DOD components from receiving clean audit opinions, the department has requested comprehensive completion of audit procedures even after auditors have determined components will receive disclaimers of opinion. While this approach might initially incur higher audit costs, in the long run it might enable DOD to resolve the component-specific issues more quickly and to gain a holistic perspective of system-wide issues. These benefits might help DOD lower its financial audit costs in the long run. Service Provider Examinations Some DOD organizations provide common information technology services to other organizations within DOD, such as the Defense Information Systems Agency's (DISA's) Automated Time Attendance and Production System. For FY2018, auditors completed 20 DOD service provider examinations; 14 resulted in unmodified opinions and 6 resulted in qualified opinions. See Table B-1 for more information, including auditors' opinions and the number of FY2018 NFRs issued. Service provider examinations assess whether information technology control activities were designed, implemented, and operated effectively to provide management reasonable assurance that control objectives function as designed or intended in all material respects. The procedures performed by the auditors for examinations are not meant to provide the same level of assurance as a full audit. These examinations' results can be used to reduce redundant testing of control by component-level auditors, saving time and money; see Table 1 for the list of audited DOD components. For FY2019, DOD expects to complete 23 common service provider examinations, compared to 20 in FY2018. The expanded service provider examinations for FY2019 might incrementally increase DOD audit costs over FY2018. Financial Audit Limitations and Benefits Since passing the CFO Act of 1990, Congress has continued to express interest in DOD completing an annual financial audit. Financial audits can help DOD increase transparency and accountability, improve business processes, and improve the visibility of assets and financial resources, but by design, audits are meant to accomplish a specific purpose, and therefore there are some inherent limitations on the benefits they can provide. Financial audits' limitations and benefits are discussed below. Limitations of Financial Audits A financial audit is a tool to help improve business processes and readiness on an annual basis. It does not address program effectiveness or efficiency, but it does consider whether an entity's assets, including its budget authority, are used to accomplish its programmatic purpose. To communicate the annual audit's benefits to Congress and other stakeholders, DOD may attempt to measure cost savings or business process improvements, but it may struggle to fully quantify the benefits, as many of the daily operational improvements are likely to be organic and informal. Only the most significant issues will be identified in auditors' reports. DOD will likely benefit from auditors' NFRs, as well as ongoing informal dialogue between auditors and DOD personnel. When an auditor identifies an issue, DOD could seek to address the issue immediately rather than wait for a written report. It is inefficient for auditors or DOD to capture and write a report on all issues, large and small. In the private sector, generally, only critical audit matters that involve especially challenging or complex auditor judgments are included in audit reports. Many other issues are addressed in the normal course of business. Reporting or recording every instance of savings or process improvement based on auditors' informal feedback arguably detracts from the audit's purpose. Allowing a degree of flexibility to identify and report the cost savings and process improvements that DOD determines are the most significant may help the department focus effectively on responding to audit findings. Independent audit opinions do not fully guarantee that financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects, but provide reasonable assurance for the following reasons: Auditors use statistical methods for random sampling and look at only a fraction of economic events or documents during an audit. It is cost- and time-prohibitive to recreate all economic events. Some line items on financial statements involve subjective decisions or a degree of uncertainty as a result of using estimates. Audit procedures cannot eliminate potential fraud, though an auditor may identify fraud. Financial audits are not specifically designed to detect fraud, but an auditor assesses the potential for fraud, including evaluating internal controls designed by management to prevent and identify potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Auditors are required to consider whether financial statements could be misstated as a result of fraud. Effective internal controls could prevent or mitigate risks for fraudulent financial reporting, misappropriation of assets, bribery, and other illegal acts. Fraud risk factors do not necessarily indicate fraud exists, but risk factors often exist when fraud occurs. In a few years, if DOD has improved its current business practices, future improvements might be less significant and more incremental. Even so, annual audits could potentially be a valuable tool to help DOD continue to improve its business processes. Benefits of an Annual Financial Audit The annual audit gives Congress an independent opinion on DOD's financial systems and business processes. It provides a way for DOD to continue to improve its performance and highlights areas that need to be fixed. DOD has identified four categories of how the annual audit improves its operations, along with some examples: Increases Transparency and Accountability. Holds DOD accountable to Congress and the taxpayers that DOD takes spending taxpayer dollars seriously through efficient practices. Auditing DOD helps improve public confidence in DOD operations, similar to other Cabinet-level agencies that conduct an annual financial audit. Streamlines Business Processes. Audits help reduce component silos and help leadership better understand interdependencies within DOD. The department might be able to improve its buying power and reduce costs, as well as improve operational efficiencies. Improves Visibility of Assets and Financial Resources. More accurate data could enhance DOD readiness and decisionmaking. Getting the appropriate supplies to warfighters helps improve their fighting posture. If a service does not know whether it has enough spare parts to ensure that aircraft are able to fly, it may spend significant amounts of money to get spare parts quickly to meet operational requirements. Accurate cost information related to assets, such as inventory and property, can help DOD make more informed decisions on repair costs and future purchases. Strengthens Internal Controls. Strengthened internal controls help minimize fraud, waste, and abuse. In addition, they help improve DOD's cybersecurity and enhance national security. In addition to the previously described identification of Blackhawk helicopters and parts, DOD is starting to see gains by eliminating recurring annual costs. For example, strengthening internal controls to improve operations at the U.S. Pacific Fleet has freed up purchasing power to fund $4.4 million in additional ship repair costs. Also, the Army has implemented a materiality-based physical inventory best practice to count assets at Army depots. The Army estimates this process improvement could help avoid approximately $10 million in future costs. Conclusion Since passing the CFO Act of 1990, which required 24 agencies to conduct an agency-wide annual financial audit, Congress has continued to express interest in DOD completing an annual audit. DOD completed its first agency-wide audit in FY2018 and a subsequent audit in FY2019. Both audits resulted in a disclaimer of o pinion . The ongoing independent assessment of DOD's financial systems, arguably, provides Congress and DOD leadership with an independent third-party assessment of DOD's financial and business operations. Reliable systems that produce auditable financial information, including an accurate count and valuation of real estate and inventory, could help Congress provide better oversight and ultimately determine how funds appropriated for DOD should be spent in support of the NDS. Further, the annual financial audit of DOD by independent auditors might provide DOD with a competitive advantage when compared to other countries' defense agencies. In many other countries, financial informationâincluding a financial audit of defense agenciesâis nonexistent or opaque at best and not readily available to legislators or citizens. Many of DOD's financial management systems are also used for operational purposes. Testing of the financial management systems and other systems that interface with each other as part of the annual audit process can help identify and improve cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the conduct of military operations. DOD's efforts to fix its vulnerabilities and reduce wasteful practices, arguably, could enable it to respond to future threats more effectively. The implementation of new ERP systems and the complexity of auditing DOD might result in DOD not achieving a clean audit opinion within the next decade. Without each of the Armed Forces receiving a clean audit opinion, DOD will not be able to receive an agency-wide clean audit opinion even if all other DOD components receive a clean audit opinion. Appendix A. DOD Agency-Wide Material Weaknesses Weaknesses and inefficiencies in internal controls are classified based on severity. Auditors identified 20 material weaknesses at DOD (see Table A-1 ) related to internal controls that range from issues with financial management systems to inventory management. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting that results in a reasonable possibility that management will not prevent, or detect and correct, a material misstatement in the financial statements in a timely manner. In addition to material weaknesses, the auditors issue two types of deficienciesâa significant deficiency or a control deficiency â that are less severe than a material weakness, but a combination or multiple instances of either deficiency can result in material weaknesses. A significant deficiency is a deficiency or a combination of deficiencies that are less severe than a material weakness, but important enough to merit management's attention. A control deficiency is a noted weakness or deficiency that auditors typically bring to management's attention, but that does not have an impact on the financial statement unless a combination of them results in a material weakness. Improvements in either type of deficiency could improve the business process and help prevent waste, abuse, and fraud. Appendix B. Common Service Providers Some organizations within DOD provide common information technology services to other organizations at DOD. These organizations report to higher-level organizations. For FY2018, auditors completed 20 DOD service provider examinationsâ14 resulted in unmodified opinions and 6 resulted in qualified opinions. See Table B-1 for more information, including auditors' opinions and the number of FY2018 NFRs issued. Service provider examinations provide a positive assurance as to whether information technology control activities were designed, implemented, and operate effectively to provide management reasonable assurance that control objectives function as designed or intended in all material respects. Examination procedures are limited in scope as compared to a financial audit. Component-level auditors can use these examinations' results to reduce redundant testing, saving time and money; see Table 1 for the list of audited DOD components. For FY2019, DOD expects to complete 23 common service provider examinations.