prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: Global defense posture is an enabler of U S  defense activities and military operations overseas and is a central means of defining and communicating U S  strategic interests to allies, partners, and adversaries  It is driven by a hierarchy of national-level and DOD-specific guidance, which includes the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy  Under DOD Instruction 3000 12, global defense posture includes three elements: Forces: forward stationed or rotationally deployed forces, U S  military capabilities, equipment, and units (assigned or allocated)  Footprint: networks of U S  foreign and overseas locations, infrastructure, facilities, land, and prepositioned equipment  Agreements: treaties and access, transit, support, and status- protection agreements and arrangements with allies and partners that set the terms regarding the U S  military’s presence within the territory of the host country  EUCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands and is responsible for missions in all of Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of the Middle East, and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans (see figure 1)  EUCOM evaluates the adequacy of posture in Europe to support relevant plans and achieve military objectives  EUCOM shares responsibility with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for U S  military relations with allies and partners in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  The number of U S  military sites located in EUCOM’s area of responsibility and the number of military personnel assigned to Europe have decreased substantially since the end of the Cold War, and two heavy combat brigades had been deactivated by the end of fiscal year 2014  As of May 2016, EUCOM supported one airborne infantry brigade and one Stryker brigade, as well as approximately 62,000 military personnel across approximately 250 sites  Since 2009, we have reported on issues related to DOD’s efforts to estimate and report on the total cost of its global defense posture  In 2009, we identified weaknesses in DOD’s approach for adjusting its global defense posture and recommended, among other things, that DOD issue guidance for estimating total costs for global defense posture and modify its annual report to Congress to include the total cost to complete each planned posture initiative  In February 2011, we reported that EUCOM lacked comprehensive cost data in a key posture planning document and that therefore decision makers lacked critical information that they needed to make fully informed posture decisions  We recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise the Joint Staff’s posture planning guidance to include direction on how the combatant commands should analyze costs and benefits when considering changes to posture and to require that posture plans include comprehensive cost estimates  DOD agreed with the recommendations in both reports and subsequently took steps to implement them  In June 2012, we reported that DOD did not fully understand the cost implications of two posture initiatives in Europe—including its decision to return two heavy brigades from Europe to the United States—and that key posture planning documents did not completely and consistently include cost data  We recommended that DOD fully estimate the cost implications of these two initiatives, clarify components’ roles and responsibilities for estimating costs, and develop a standard reporting format for cost data  DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and has taken steps to implement two of them  Following the President’s June 2014 announcement of ERI, EUCOM identified five lines of effort that it would pursue under ERI, as described in table 1  Three of ERI’s lines of effort are expected to enhance DOD’s posture in Europe  For example, DOD is using ERI to increase the forces present in Europe by rotating an armored brigade combat team and elements of a combat aviation brigade to Europe every nine months  DOD also plans to enhance its footprint in Europe by using ERI funding to make infrastructure improvements and establish locations for prepositioned equipment  Finally, in order to implement ERI’s lines of effort and support U S  activities, DOD is partnering with the State Department to negotiate host nation agreements that, among other things, establish protections for U S  military personnel and provide DOD the authority to improve host nation installations and infrastructure  DOD is also supporting additional exercises and training to improve interoperability with partner countries while providing them with the capability and capacity to defend themselves, but these efforts are not expected to affect DOD’s long-term posture in Europe  Since 2014, DOD has expanded ERI’s objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to posture in Europe  In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, ERI’s objective was to provide short-term reassurance to allies, and the initiative had little funding for long-term enhancements to posture  DOD focused its efforts on bolstering the security and capacity of NATO allies and partners by funding training, conducting exercises, and temporarily rotating Army and Air Force units to Eastern Europe  In fiscal year 2017, DOD expanded ERI’s objectives to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail  Recognizing that ERI’s expanded objectives would require DOD to alter its posture in Europe, DOD has requested increased ERI funding  DOD will have requested approximately $4 5 billion in ERI funding for posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017; about $3 2 billion of this was requested for use in fiscal years 2017  During the time of our review, EUCOM had identified a need for additional funding over the next several years for additional posture enhancements in Europe  Specific details about EUCOM’s future posture plans and funding requirements were omitted because they are classified  DOD has requested increased funding to support planned enhancements to all three posture elements—forces, footprint, and agreements—in Europe: Force deployments to Eastern Europe: In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Army deployed armored brigade combat teams to Eastern Europe to provide short-term reassurance to allies and partners, which DOD officials said included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, among other countries  These short-duration deployments were intermittent and focused on demonstrating U S  commitment to allies and partners  Additionally, the Air Force deployed air units on 4- month rotations to help protect allies’ and partners’ air space  In the fiscal year 2017 budget justification materials provided to Congress, as ERI’s objectives expanded, DOD requested funding to retain Air Force fighter units in Europe  It also began deploying a rotational armored brigade combat team so that one such brigade would be present in Europe at all times (see figure 2)  The first deployment, in January 2017, included approximately 4,000 personnel, 90 Abrams tanks, 90 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles, and 112 supporting vehicles  Additionally, DOD began procuring and prepositioning equipment for two planned armored brigades in Europe, one of which will include modernized tanks, as an additional deterrent  According to Army officials, these force enhancements in Europe give the Army the ability to quickly deploy a substantial ground force in the event of a conflict  As of April 2017, DOD was still evaluating force enhancements in Europe as part of its fiscal year 2018 budget submission  Specific details were omitted because they are classified  New locations and improvements to infrastructure: Since ERI was announced in 2014, DOD has established new enduring locations in Europe  An enduring location is designated by DOD and is a geographic site that DOD expects to access and use to support U S  security interests for the foreseeable future  During our review, DOD had not yet determined whether additional enduring locations would be needed to support ERI  In addition to establishing new enduring locations, DOD plans to improve installations and infrastructure  From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, DOD requested funding in its budget justification submissions to Congress for major military construction projects in nine European countries and to improve support infrastructure—such as roads, railheads, and airbasing—at these locations  Major military construction projects are those projects specified in National Defense Authorization Acts  During the time of our review, DOD was considering addition improvements to existing infrastructure, specific details of which are classified  According to DOD and State Department officials, DOD is also working with U S  allies and partners to determine what infrastructure improvements to roads, railroads, and bridges need to occur outside enduring locations to allow rapid response to a conflict  New host nation agreements: Since ERI was announced, DOD and the State Department have completed host nation agreements with six European nations in support of ERI efforts: Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, implementing previous agreements, in order to facilitate U S  construction on installations and areas in the host country (June and July 2015 and June 2016)  Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, providing an overarching framework for protections for U S  personnel and U S  access to installations in host nations (January 2017)  DOD is using a separate process instead of its established posture planning process to plan for ERI’s posture initiatives because of the emergent nature of ERI requirements and their having been funded through the OCO budget  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  As a result of its not using its established processes, DOD is not prioritizing posture initiatives funded under ERI against posture initiatives funded through its base budget, estimating these initiatives’ long-term sustainment costs, or communicating their future costs to Congress  DOD is planning ERI posture initiatives outside of its established processes and is funding these enduring initiatives—including rotational deployments and infrastructure projects—out of its OCO budget  We have previously identified risks associated with DOD’s practice of completing construction projects outside of its established processes  For example, in September 2016 we reported that DOD had not issued implementing guidance to establish a formal process for reevaluating ongoing contingency construction projects when missions change and that as a result DOD risked completing unnecessary construction projects  We also found that DOD lacked visibility into the amount of funding it was spending on operations and maintenance-funded construction projects in U S  Central Command and that this increased financial risk and duplication risk for the department  Like U S  Central Command, EUCOM is using DOD’s OCO budget to fund construction projects and is planning those projects outside of its established processes  Based on our analysis, DOD plans to spend approximately $503 million from fiscal year 2015 through the end of fiscal year 2017 on ERI-related construction projects—about $279 million for major military construction projects and $224 million for minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair), as shown in table 2  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, DOD’s global defense posture processes apply to DOD forces, footprint, and agreements that support joint and combined global operations and plans in foreign countries  According to the instruction, DOD’s components use these processes to address planning for global defense posture, resource requirements, and policy development, among other things  Further, it states that these processes are overseen by an executive council that provides recommendations, inputs, and expertise on global defense posture to key national strategy products  DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process serves as the annual resource allocation process for DOD and is intended to enable DOD to align resources to prioritized capabilities; balance necessary warfighting capabilities with risk, affordability, and effectiveness; and provide mechanisms for making and implementing fiscally sound decisions in support of the national security strategy and the national defense strategy  DOD is using a separate and evolving process to plan ERI’s posture initiatives—rather than following its established processes—because ERI is being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the department has recognized that the short-term planning process used to develop DOD’s OCO budget can create problems when it is used to plan for enduring initiatives  As a result, DOD has developed a separate process to plan for ERI  As part of the fiscal year 2018 planning process, EUCOM provided a prioritized list of potential requirements and an estimate of its annual costs by appropriation account to the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, DOD completed its review and provided recommendations to DOD’s senior leaders for approval in October 2016 and final decisions were made within DOD in April 2017  The specific criteria by which DOD assessed EUCOM’s potential requirements are classified  DOD is requesting funds for ERI’s posture initiatives as part of its OCO budget, which is generally intended to be short-term funding for ongoing contingency operations  In February 2009, the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria to assist in determining whether funding properly belonged in DOD’s base budget or in its OCO budget  These criteria were updated in September 2010 and currently indicate that funding requests should be for specific geographic areas where combat or direct combat support operations occur (such as Iraq and Afghanistan)  Further, budget items must meet other criteria  For example, OCO funding requests may be for constructing facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat operations  In these cases, the level of construction should be the minimum needed to meet operational requirements, and construction completed at enduring locations must be tied to surge operations or major changes in operational requirements  In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget  We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in OCO budget requests  DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose revised OCO criteria  As of May 2017, the department has not implemented our recommendation  DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or communicate future ERI costs to Congress  When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets  DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture Executive Council  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, the Executive Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction projects and international agreements  The Executive Council’s endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations  For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of prepositioned equipment in Europe  Officials representing the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture initiatives funded under ERI  However, DOD could not provide documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture initiatives funded through the base budget  Further, the Global Posture Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  More detailed information about these proposals, and their potential funding requirements, are classified  According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives, because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not directly affect the services’ base budgets  However, because it does not prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget  For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture initiatives funded in its base budget  Consequently, the Army would be forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the department  In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and construct new facilities  DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs  DOD’s guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of understanding both the size and timing of costs  Finally, our prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and assessing program affordability  DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would have under their established processes  Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets  Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and construction could be substantial  Army and Air Force officials said that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future base budget submissions  DOD officials said that we correctly applied DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment  Additionally, officials said that EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future costs  Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to evaluate the affordability of these initiatives  Further, in the absence of these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred  The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain information about ERI’s future costs  This is in contrast to the way DOD submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation, leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to allocate resources  In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI  We previously reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process  Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously  An official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission  Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing  For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in Poland to store Army equipment  Officials told us that, as a result, this construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal year 2018 request for funding  A senior Army officer told us that completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe  Officials from the U S  Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016 NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and engineering design for this project  Officials expect additional funding will be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019  However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has been approved by NATO may be required to meet U S -specific requirements  Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations will provide moving forward  Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget  The committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget  Both GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when allocating resources  DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said that the department is not required to provide this information  As a result, DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to achieve ERI’s objectives  If DOD does not provide Congress with projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives  Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and enhance posture in Europe to support a new U S  strategy toward Russia  DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives such as ERI  By following a separate planning process when funding ERI with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s future costs  DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot be sustained over the long term  Furthermore, Congress is likely to face challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term  To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes  (Recommendation 1) To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets  (Recommendation 2) To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and comment  DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations, and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget  In its comments, DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts  These are positive steps  DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force requirements through its global force management process, adding that it will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so  However, we continue to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes  Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to evaluate long-term posture priorities  If DOD does not prioritize the forces and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded under ERI  Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the department  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs and plan for these costs in future budgets  In its comments, DOD stated that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s annual program and budget review process  DOD also commented that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds  However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either service incorporated them into their future budgets  Using OCO funds would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets  Additionally, not developing robust estimates for sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its OCO budget  In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate funding to sustain posture investments in Europe  DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  In its comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs  Moreover, DOD commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when preparing budget estimates for Congress  However, DOD does not state whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any underlying assumptions with its budget submission  It is critical that DOD increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U S  European Command  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in fiscal years 2015 through 2017  This includes $157 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air Force  According to U S  European Command officials, Navy and Marine Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military construction or exercise-related construction projects  The tables below do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction projects  Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables 3 and 4  The information in these tables was provided by U S  Army Europe and U S  Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of minor military construction and repair projects  The data provided did not identify the appropriations used for each project  Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately used for a given project  In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this report 


Report 2: B anks play a critical role in the United States economy, channeling money from savers to borrowers and facilitating productive investment  Among other things, banks provide loans to businesses, help individuals finance purchases of cars and homes, and offer services such as checking and savings accounts, debit cards, and ATMs  In addition to occupying a central role in the American economy, the banking industry is a perennial subject of political interest  While the nature of lawmakers' interest in bank regulation has shifted over time, most bank regulations fall into one of three general categories  First, banks must abide by a variety of safety-and-soundness requirements designed to minimize the risk of their failure and maintain macroeconomic stability  Second, banks must comply with consumer protection rules intended to deter abusive practices and provide consumers with complete information about financial products and services  Third, banks are subject to various reporting , recordkeeping , and anti-money laundering requirements designed to assist law enforcement in investigating criminal activity  The substantive content of these requirements remains the subject of intense debate  However, the division of regulatory authority over banks between the federal government and the states plays a key role in shaping that content  In some cases, federal law displaces (or "preempts") state bank regulations  In other cases, states are permitted to supplement federal regulations with different, sometimes stricter requirements  Because of its substantive implications, federal preemption has recently become a "flashpoint" in debates surrounding bank regulation, with one commentator observing that preemption is "[t]he issue at the center of most disputes between state and federal banking regulators " This report provides an overview of banking preemption  First, the report discusses general principles of federal preemption  Second, the report provides a brief history of the American "dual banking system " Third, the report discusses the Supreme Court's decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N A  v  Nelson , where the Court held that federal law preempts state laws that "significantly interfere" with the powers of national banks  Fourth, the report reviews two Supreme Court decisions concerning the extent to which states may exercise "visitorial powers" over national banks  Fifth, the report discusses the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC's) preemption rules and provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act concerning the preemption of state consumer protection laws  Finally, the report outlines a number of current issues in banking preemption, including (1) the extent to which non-banks can benefit from federal preemption of state usury laws, (2) the OCC's decision to grant special purpose national bank charters to financial technology (FinTech) companies, and (3) proposals to provide legal protections to banks serving marijuana businesses that comply with state law  The doctrine of federal preemption is grounded in the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that "the Laws of the United States       shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding " The Supreme Court has explained that "under the Supremacy Clause       any state law, however clearly within a State's acknowledged power, which interferes with or is contrary to federal law, must yield " The Court has identified two general ways in which federal law can preempt state law  Federal law can expressly preempt state law when a federal statute or regulation contains explicit preemptive language—that is, where a clause in the relevant federal statute or regulation explicitly provides that federal law displaces certain categories of state law  The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, for example, contains a preemption clause providing that some of the Act's provisions "shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any [regulated] employee benefit plan " Federal law can also impliedly preempt state law "when Congress' command is       implicitly contained in" the relevant federal law's "structure and purpose " The Supreme Court has identified two subcategories of implied preemption  First, "field preemption" occurs "where [a] scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it " Second, "conflict preemption" occurs where "compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," or where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress " In Crosby v  National Foreign Trade Council , for example, the Court held that a federal law imposing sanctions on Burma impliedly preempted a Massachusetts law that prohibited state entities from doing business with Burma  The Court reached this conclusion after determining that the state statute posed an obstacle to the federal statute's purposes of (1) providing the President with "flexible" authority over sanctions policy, (2) limiting economic pressure against the Burmese government to the specific range reflected in the federal statute, and (3) granting the President the ability to speak for the country "with one voice " Some federal banking laws expressly preempt state law  Section 521 of the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980, for example, expressly grants federally insured state banks the right to charge the highest interest rate allowed by the states in which they are located, even when lending to borrowers in other states with stricter usury laws  Other federal banking laws impliedly preempt state law  Specifically, the Supreme Court has held that the National Bank Act impliedly preempts state laws that "significantly interfere" with the powers of national banks  However, all banking preemption issues are heavily influenced by the regulatory architecture surrounding the banking system  The following section of the report accordingly outlines the development of the American "dual banking system " Disputes over the federal government's role in regulating the financial system have been a feature of American politics since the country's inception  In 1791, Congress approved the creation of the First Bank of the United States over fierce opposition from many of the nation's leaders, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson  In addition to accepting deposits and making loans to the public, the First Bank acted as the federal government's fiscal agent by collecting tax revenues, securing the government's funds, and paying the government's bills  The First Bank's proponents argued that the Bank would facilitate economic growth by extending credit to private businesses and establishing a uniform national currency in the form of the Bank's notes  By contrast, the First Bank's critics argued that the concentration of financial power in a single federal institution threatened state sovereignty and undermined the operations of state-chartered banks  This debate culminated in a victory for the First Bank's critics when Congress refused to renew the Bank's charter by a single vote in 1811  But disputes over the federal government's role in the banking system did not end with the demise of the First Bank  After the War of 1812 generated significant economic turmoil, Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States for a twenty-year term in 1816  The Second Bank performed many of the same functions as the First Bank and attracted similar criticism, eventually becoming the target of populist fury led by President Andrew Jackson  In 1832, President Jackson vetoed legislation to extend the Second Bank's charter, leading to its demise in 1836  After the Second Bank's charter expired, bank regulation was wholly entrusted to the states  Inspired by the Jacksonian attack on concentrated economic power, a number of states dispensed with the requirement that banks obtain a charter via a special act of the state legislature  Instead, banks in these states could obtain charters from state banking authorities as long as they met certain general conditions  During this "Free Banking era," the country lacked a uniform national currency and relied instead on notes issued by state banks, which circulated at a discount from their face value that reflected the issuing bank's location and credit quality  In some states, so-called "wildcat banks" in remote areas issued notes back by minimal specie (gold or silver), assuming that noteholders would be unlikely to travel long distances to redeem them  These wildcat banks failed at a far higher rate than their urban rivals  Economic historians continue to debate the merits and drawbacks of the Free Banking era  According to the standard narrative, Free Banking was largely a failure, resulting in a large number of bank failures, financial instability, and inefficiencies that accompanied a heterogeneous currency  However, a number of revisionist scholars have questioned this assessment, arguing that despite the high rate of bank failures during the Free Banking Era, total losses to bank noteholders during the period were in fact relatively small  Whatever its virtues and vices, the Free Banking Era came to an end during the Civil War  After the Treasury Department's efforts to finance the war by borrowing from Northern banks led to a shortage in specie, Congress enacted the National Currency Act in 1863 and the National Bank Act (NBA) in 1864  Under the Acts, banks were offered the opportunity to apply for a national charter from the newly created OCC, creating a "dual banking system" in which both the federal government and the states chartered and regulated banks  As a condition of obtaining a national charter, the Acts required banks to purchase United States government bonds, giving the federal government a new source of revenue to fight the war  Once national banks deposited those bonds with the federal government, they were allowed to issue national banknotes up to 90 percent of the market value of their bonds  These national banknotes functioned as a uniform national currency and gave the federal government significant control over the nation's money supply  The creation of a dual banking system was not intended by the proponents of the NBA, who assumed that all state-chartered banks would convert to national charters  In order to incentivize state-chartered banks to make this switch, Congress enacted a ten percent tax on state banknotes in 1865  But the tax did not accomplish its intended purpose  While the number of state-chartered banks fell significantly after the enactment of the NBA, state banks eventually skirted this tax by issuing paper checks in lieu of banknotes  And in the late 19th century, state banking authorities contributed to this regulatory arbitrage by offering their banks laxer regulations than the OCC  As a result, state-chartered banks have outnumbered national banks since 1895, and the dual banking system has survived to this day  Under the contemporary dual banking system, the OCC serves as the primary regulator of national banks and has broad powers to regulate their organization, examination, and operations  Section 24 of the NBA grants national banks a number of powers, including: (1) "discounting and negotiating promissory notes, drafts, bills of exchange, and other evidences of debt," (2) "receiving deposits," (3) "buying and selling exchange, coin, and bullion," (4) "loaning money on personal security," and (5) "obtaining, issuing, and circulating notes " Section 24 also grants national banks "all such incidental powers as shall be necessary to carry on the business of banking " Federal court and OCC decisions have identified roughly 80 activities that fall within the "incidental powers" of national banks, including the ability to broker annuities charge customers non-interest fees  By contrast, state banking authorities are the primary regulators of state-chartered banks  While state banking laws are by no means uniform, they typically provide state-chartered banks with the power to engage in activities similar to those listed in the NBA and activities that are "incidental to the business of banking " While the OCC and state banking authorities figure prominently in the dual banking system, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) also play important roles in the bank regulatory regime  Congress created the Federal Reserve in 1913 in response to a 1907 banking panic that highlighted the need for a "lender of last resort" to replenish banks' reserves when they experience liquidity shortfalls  Today, the Federal Reserve also conducts the nation's monetary policy, manages certain elements of the country's payment systems, and regulates bank holding companies, financial market utilities, and banks that join the Federal Reserve System (FRS)  The Federal Reserve Act requires all national banks to join the FRS and gives state banks the option of joining  The Federal Reserve accordingly serves as the principal federal regulator of state-chartered banks that become members of the FRS  The FDIC serves as the principal federal regulator of state-chartered banks that do not join the FRS  Congress created the FDIC in 1933 after a wave of bank failures generated a self-reinforcing cycle of "contagion," leading depositors to "run" from other banks and cause additional failures  In order to minimize the risk of these types of bank runs, the FDIC insures deposits at regulated institutions up to certain limits and regulates those institutions to ensure their safety and soundness  Because federal law requires national banks to obtain FDIC insurance and all states impose that same requirement on the banks they charter, the FDIC plays a key role in regulating the banking system  This complex regulatory architecture has resulted in "symbiotic system" with both state regulation of national banks and federal regulation of state banks  In the modern dual banking system, national banks are not wholly immune from generally applicable state laws, and state banks are not wholly immune from generally applicable federal laws  The Supreme Court has explained that "general state laws" concerning "the dealings and contracts of national banks" are valid as long as they do not "expressly conflict" with federal law, "frustrate the purpose for which national banks were created," or impair the ability of national banks to "discharge the duties imposed upon them" by federal law  National banks are accordingly "governed in their daily course of business far more by the laws of the State than of the nation" because their contracts, ability to acquire and transfer property, rights to collect debts, and liability to be sued for debts "are all based on State law " The OCC has attempted to synthesize the relevant case law as establishing a general principle that state regulations of national banks are valid as long as they "do not regulate the manner, content or extent of the activities authorized for national banks under federal law, but rather establish the legal infrastructure around the conduct of that business " Similarly, state-chartered banks are not wholly immune from federal law  Rather, state banks are subject to certain federal consumer protection, tax, and antidiscrimination laws, in addition to a range of Federal Reserve and FDIC regulations  A number of other legal developments have caused the regulatory treatment of national banks and state banks to converge  Beginning in the 1960s, many states passed so-called "wild card" statutes granting their banks the power to engage in any activities permitted for national banks  Statutes extending the powers of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have also ensured competitive equality in the opposite direction  In 1980, Congress enacted legislation requiring all state-chartered banks—including those that do not join the FRS—to abide by reserve requirements set by the Federal Reserve, eliminating the competitive advantage conferred by lower state-law reserve requirements  Similarly, in 1991, Congress enacted legislation prohibiting FDIC-insured state banks from engaging as a principal in activities that are not permitted for national banks absent permission from the FDIC  Because all states require the banks they charter to obtain FDIC insurance, the legislation "had the ultimate effect of unifying the state and the federal banking systems " Finally, some federal statutes either explicitly or implicitly preempt state laws in ways that eliminate unequal regulatory treatment for national and state banks  In Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v  First Omaha Services Corporation , the Supreme Court held that the NBA grants national banks the power to "export" the maximum interest rates allowed by their "home" states, even when lending to borrowers in other states with stricter usury laws  In that decision, the Court considered whether a national bank headquartered in Nebraska—which permitted banks to charge credit-card holders up to 18 percent interest per year on certain unpaid balances—could charge its Minnesota customers more than the 12 percent maximum interest allowable under Minnesota law  Specifically, the Court evaluated whether an NBA provision allowing national banks to charge interest rates allowed by the states "where the bank[s] [are] located" applies even when national banks extend credit to customers in other states with stricter usury laws  The Court held that the NBA provision indeed afforded national banks this power, concluding that the national bank was permitted to charge the maximum interest rate allowable under Nebraska law even when lending to Minnesota customers  Two years after the Marquette decision, Congress enacted legislation to extend the same power to federally insured state banks, preempting contrary state law and equalizing the regulatory treatment of national and state banks vis-à-vis "interest rate exportation " While the regulatory treatment of national and state banks has accordingly converged, federal preemption nevertheless confers certain unique benefits on national banks  Under the Supreme Court's decision in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N A  v  Nelson , federal laws that grant national banks the power to engage in specific activities impliedly preempt state laws that "significantly interfere" with the ability of national banks to engage in those activities  In Barnett Bank , the Court held that a federal law granting national banks the authority to sell insurance impliedly preempted a state law that prohibited banks from selling insurance, subject to certain exceptions  In reaching this conclusion, the Court explained that the state law posed an obstacle to the federal statute's purpose of granting national banks the authority to sell insurance "whether or not a State grants       similar approval " The Court inferred this purpose from the principle that "normally Congress would not want States to forbid, or to impair significantly, the exercise of a power that Congress explicitly granted " Lower courts have followed Barnett Bank 's rule that absent indications to the contrary, federal statutes and regulations that grant national banks the power to engage in specific activities preempt state laws that prohibit or "significantly interfere" with those activities  In Wells Fargo Bank of Texas N A  v  James , for example, the Fifth Circuit held that an OCC rule granting national banks the power to "charge [their] customers non-interest charges and fees" preempted a state statute prohibiting banks from charging a fee for cashing checks in certain circumstances  Similarly, in Monroe Retail, Inc  v  RBS Citizens, N A  , the Sixth Circuit held that this rule preempted state law conversion claims brought against a class of national banks based on fees they charged for processing garnishment orders  Specifically, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that under Barnett Bank , "the level of 'interference' that gives rise to preemption under the NBA is not very high," and that the relevant conversion claims "significantly interfere[d]" with national banks' ability to collect fees  Finally, the Ninth Circuit employed similar reasoning in Rose v  Chase Bank USA, N A  , where it held that an NBA provision granting national banks the power to "loan money on personal security" preempted a state statute imposing various disclosure requirements on credit card issuers  In arriving at this conclusion, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that "[w]here       Congress has explicitly granted a power to a national bank without any indication that Congress intended for that power to be subject to local restriction, Congress is presumed to have intended to preempt state laws " Federal courts have also adopted broad interpretations of an NBA provision authorizing national banks to dismiss officers "at pleasure " In Schweikert v  Bank of America , N A  , the Fourth Circuit held that this provision preempted a state law claim for wrongful discharge brought by a former officer of a national bank  Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held that this provision preempted a claim brought by a former officer of a national bank for breach of an employment agreement, reasoning that "[a]n agreement which attempts to circumvent the complete discretion of a national bank's board of directors to terminate an officer at will is void as against [federal] public policy " Finally, in Wiersum v  U S  Bank, N A  , the Eleventh Circuit relied on Barnett Bank and the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Schweikert to conclude that this "at pleasure" provision preempted a wrongful-termination claim brought by a former officer of a national bank under a state whistleblower statute  While federal courts have accordingly adopted expansive views of the circumstances in which state laws "significantly interfere" with national banks' powers, they have also recognized certain general limits on the preemptive scope of federal banking statutes and regulations  In Gutierrez v  Wells Fargo Bank, NA , for example, the Ninth Circuit held that federal banking regulations did not preempt a generally applicable state law prohibiting certain types of fraud  The Gutierrez litigation involved a national bank's use of a bookkeeping method known as "high-to-low" posting for debit-card transactions, whereby the bank posted large transactions to customers' accounts before small transactions  In Gutierrez , customers of the bank brought a variety of state law claims based on the theory that the bank adopted high-to-low posting for the sole purpose of maximizing the overdraft fees it could charge customers  In response, the bank argued that OCC regulations preempted the state law claims  The Ninth Circuit held that the OCC regulations preempted some, but not all, of the customers' claims  Specifically, the court held that an OCC regulation authorizing national banks to establish the method of calculating noninterest charges and fees "in [their] discretion" preempted claims premised on the theory that high-to-low posting was an unfair business practice  The court also held an OCC regulation providing that national banks may exercise their deposit-taking powers "without regard to state law limitations concerning       disclosure requirements" preempted the customers' claims that the bank failed to affirmatively disclose its use of high-to-low posting  However, the court held that federal law did not preempt claims that the bank defrauded its customers by making misleading statements about its posting method  Specifically, the court reasoned that these claims survived preemption because they were based on "a non-discriminating state law of general applicability that does not conflict with federal law, frustrate the purposes of the [NBA], or impair the efficiency of national banks to discharge their duties " In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the argument that federal law preempted the customers' fraud claims because those claims "necessarily touche[d] on" national banks' authority to provide checking accounts  The court rejected this argument on the grounds that such an expansive preemption standard "would swallow all laws " The Ninth Circuit accordingly allowed the customers' fraud claims to proceed because they did not "significantly interfere" with national banks' ability to offer checking accounts  While the implications of Barnett Bank have been fleshed out most thoroughly in the lower federal courts, the Supreme Court has also applied that decision's reasoning in two cases concerning an NBA provision prohibiting states from exercising "visitorial powers" over national banks  In Watters v  Wachovia Bank, N A  , the Court held that this provision—together with an OCC regulation providing that national banks may conduct authorized activities through operating subsidiaries—preempted state licensing, reporting, and visitation requirements for the operating subsidiaries of national banks  Specifically, the Court reasoned that the proper inquiry in analyzing whether state law interferes with federally permitted bank activities "focuse[s] on the exercise of a national bank's powers , not on its corporate structure " The Court accordingly concluded that the operating subsidiaries of national banks should be treated "as equivalent to national banks with respect to powers exercised under federal law " And because "duplicative state examination, supervision, and regulation would significantly burden" national banks' ability to engage in authorized activities, the Court held that those same regulatory burdens also unacceptably interfere with the ability of national bank subsidiaries to engage in those activities

ground_truth: In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the President announced the ERI, to reassure allies in Europe of U.S. commitment to their security. This initiative has been funded using OCO appropriations, which Congress provides in addition to DOD's base budget appropriations. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for GAO to review matters related to ERI. In this report, we (1) describe changes in ERI's objectives, funding under ERI, and DOD's posture in Europe since 2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD's planning processes for posture initiatives funded under ERI prioritize those initiatives, estimate their long-term costs, and communicate their estimated costs to Congress. GAO analyzed DOD strategy documentation, budget and cost analysis guidance, budget justification materials, and cost and obligations data. GAO also interviewed knowledgeable officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. European Command, the military services, and the State Department. Since 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded the European Reassurance Initiative's (ERI) objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to European posture. DOD expanded ERI's objectives from the short-term reassurance of allies and partners to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail. With respect to funding, DOD will have requested approximately $4.5 billion for ERI's posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017 (about $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2017 alone), and in July 2016 EUCOM identified funding needs for future posture initiatives. The expansion of ERI's objectives has contributed to DOD's enhancing its posture in Europe. Specifically, DOD has increased the size and duration of Army combat unit deployments, planned to preposition Army equipment in Eastern Europe, added new enduring locations (e.g., locations that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S. security interests for the foreseeable future), improved infrastructure, and negotiated new agreements with European nations. As of April 2017, DOD was considering further force enhancements under ERI as part of the department's ERI budget request. DOD also was reviewing whether new enduring locations to support ERI were needed and was considering other improvements to existing infrastructure. DOD's process for planning ERI has not established priorities among posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those in its base budget, nor estimated long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, nor communicated future costs to Congress. ERI is being planned using a separate process from DOD's established processes and is funded from DOD's overseas contingency operations (OCO) appropriations. GAO found several weaknesses: Lack of prioritization : DOD establishes priorities among ERI posture initiatives but has not evaluated them against base budget initiatives using its posture management process. As a result, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of ERI initiatives and may be investing in projects that it will not continue should OCO funding become unavailable. Lack of sustainment costs : EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term costs to sustain equipment and construction funded under ERI. Based on DOD's approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, GAO determined that these costs could be substantial. DOD officials said that GAO correctly applied DOD's approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment. In the absence of comprehensive estimates, DOD has been limited in its ability to assess affordability and plan for future costs. Not communicating future costs : DOD limits Congress's visibility into the resources needed to implement ERI and achieve its objectives because it does not include future costs in its ERI budget request. This is a public version of a classified report issued in August 2017. Information on specific posture planning, guidance, and budget estimates that DOD deemed to be classified have been omitted from this report. GAO recommends that DOD prioritize ERI posture initiatives against initiatives in its base budget, develop cost estimates for sustaining initiatives, and communicate future costs to Congress. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations are warranted.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  However, as discussed later in this report, Congress has abrogated Watters 's holding that states may not examine or regulate the activities of national bank subsidiaries  While the Court adopted a broad view of preemption in Watters , it cabined the preemptive effect of the relevant NBA provision two years later in Cuomo v  C learing House Association, LLC  In that decision, the Court held that this NBA provision did not preempt an information request that the New York Attorney General (NYAG) sent to several national banks  Specifically, the NYAG had sent letters to several national banks requesting nonpublic information about their lending practices in order to determine whether the banks had violated state fair lending laws  In response, a banking trade group and the OCC argued that the relevant NBA provision—together with an OCC regulation interpreting that provision to mean that "[s]tate officials may not       prosecut[e] enforcement actions" against national banks, "except in limited circumstances authorized by federal law"—preempted the information request  The Supreme Court rejected this interpretation of the NBA's visitorial powers provision, drawing a distinction between (1) "supervision," or "the right to oversee corporate affairs," which qualify as "visitorial powers," and (2) "law enforcement " Because the Court concluded that the NYAG had issued the information requests in his "law enforcement" capacity—as opposed to "acting in the role of sovereign-as-supervisor"—it held that the NBA did not preempt the requests  As the above discussion makes clear, OCC regulations have figured prominently in litigation over the preemptive scope of federal banking law  While some commentators have contended that the NBA's text and legislature history implicitly provides the OCC with the authority to promulgate preemption rules, Congress formally recognized that the OCC has such authority in the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 (Riegle-Neal Act)  Specifically, Section 114 of the Riegle-Neal Act provides that "[b]efore issuing any opinion letter or interpretive rule       that concludes that Federal law preempts the application to a national bank of any State law" concerning certain specified subjects, the OCC must give the public notice and an opportunity submit written comments  In the 1990s and early 2000s, the OCC exercised this authority in a number of interpretive letters and legal opinions  In these documents, the OCC took the position that federal law preempted state laws that limited the ability of national banks to: advertise; operate offices within a certain distance from state-chartered bank home offices; operate ATM machines; engage in fiduciary activities; finance automobile purchases; sell annuities; sell repossessed automobiles without an automobile dealer license; and conduct Internet auctions of certificates of deposit  In 2004, the OCC expanded upon these interpretive letters and legal opinions by issuing what one commentator has described as "sweeping" preemption rules  The OCC's 2004 preemption rules articulated a general preemption standard according to which "state laws that obstruct, impair, or condition a national bank's ability to fully exercise" its federally authorized powers "are not applicable to national banks" except "where made applicable by Federal law " This general standard accordingly expanded on Barnett Bank 's "significant interference" test in two ways  First, the OCC's 2004 standard omitted the intensifying phrase "significantly" from the Barnett Bank test  Second, the 2004 standard by its terms required that national banks be able to "fully" exercise their authorized powers—a phrase that does not appear in Barnett Bank   However, despite these facial differences with the Barnett Bank test, the OCC explained that it intended the phrase "obstruct, impair, or condition" to function "as the distillation of the various preemption constructs articulated by the Supreme Court, as recognized in Hines [ v  Davidowitz ] and Barnett Bank , and not as a replacement construct that is in any way inconsistent with those standards " Beyond this general preemption standard, the OCC's 2004 rules concluded that the NBA preempted certain categories of state laws  First, the rules provided that national banks "may make real estate loans       without regard to state law limitations concerning": licensing and registration (except for purposes of service of process); "[t]he ability of a creditor to require or obtain private mortgage insurance, insurance for other collateral, or other credit enhancements or risk mitigants, in furtherance of safe and sound banking practices"; loan-to-value ratios; terms of credit; "[t]he aggregate amount of funds that may be loaned upon the security of real estate"; escrow accounts; security property; access to and use of credit reports; disclosure and advertising; processing, origination, servicing, sale or purchase of, or investment or participation in, mortgages; disbursements and repayments; rates of interest on loans; due-on-sale clauses, with certain exceptions; and "[c]ovenants and restrictions that must be contained in a lease to qualify the leasehold as acceptable security for a real estate loan " Second, the rules provided that national banks "may make non-real estate loans without regard to state law limitations concerning" many of the same matters identified in the regulation concerning real estate lending  Finally, the rules provided that national banks "may exercise [their] deposit-taking powers without regard to state law limitations concerning": (1) abandoned and dormant accounts, (2) checking accounts, (3) disclosure requirements, (3) funds availability, (4) savings account orders of withdrawal, (5) state licensing or registration requirements (except for purposes of service of process), and (6) special purpose savings services  The OCC's 2004 rules also identified general categories of state law that the agency interpreted as surviving preemption  Specifically, the rules provided that the NBA does not preempt state laws that are consistent with federal law and involve (1) contracts, (2) torts, (3) criminal law, (4) rights to collect debts, (5) the acquisition and transfer of property, (5) taxation, (6) zoning, and, with respect to real estate lending, (7) certain homestead laws  According to the OCC's 2004 rules, such laws survive preemption so long as they "do not regulate the manner, content or extent of the activities authorized for national banks under federal law " The OCC's 2004 preemption rules proved controversial  In 2008, the United States experienced a financial crisis caused in part by reckless subprime mortgage lending and a collapse in the real estate market  In the wake of the crisis, commentators debated the role that federal preemption of state predatory lending laws played in generating the pre-2008 housing bubble  Some commentators contended that national banks played a significant role in the predatory lending that preceded the crisis, and that federal preemption "effectively gut[ted] states' ability to legislate against predatory lending practices " By contrast, others rejected the contention that preemption played a significant role in causing the crisis, arguing that national banks and their subsidiaries accounted for only a small share of subprime mortgage lending  In 2010, Congress responded to concerns over federal preemption of state consumer protection laws in Section 1044 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank)  Section 1044 provides that federal law preempts such laws only if: (A) application of a State consumer financial law would have a discriminatory effect on national banks, in comparison with the effect of the law on a bank chartered by that State; (B) in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in [ Barnett Bank ], the State consumer financial law prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers; and any preemption determination under this subparagraph may be made by a court, or by regulation or order of the Comptroller of the Currency on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with applicable law; or (C) the State consumer financial law is preempted by a provision of Federal law other than title 62 of the Revised Statutes  Beyond this general preemption standard, Section 1044 contains a number of other provisions narrowing the OCC's preemption authority  First, Section 1044 provides that courts reviewing OCC preemption determinations should accord those determinations only Skidmore deference, under which courts assess an agency's interpretation of a statute "depending upon the thoroughness evident in the consideration of the agency, the validity of the reasoning of the agency, the consistency with other valid determinations made by the agency, and other factors which the court finds persuasive and relevant to its decision " Before the enactment of Dodd-Frank, certain courts had afforded OCC preemption determinations a more permissive form of deference known as Chevron deference, according to which courts defer to agency interpretations as long as they are reasonable  Section 1044 accordingly requires that courts take a less deferential posture toward OCC preemption determinations  Second, Section 1044 provides that no OCC preemption determination "shall be interpreted or applied so as to invalidate, or otherwise declare inapplicable to a national bank, the provision of the State consumer financial law, unless substantial evidence, made on the record of the proceeding, supports the specific finding regarding the preemption of such provision in accordance with the legal standard" established by Barnett Bank   This "substantial evidence" standard is often used in cases involving the Administrative Procedure Act, which provides that courts shall hold unlawful an agency's formal rules and other determinations made on the basis of a formal hearing when they are "unsupported by substantial evidence " The Supreme Court has explained that "substantial evidence" entails "more than a mere scintilla" of evidence, and requires "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion " Third, Section 1044 provides that the OCC shall (1) "periodically conduct a review, through public notice and comment, of each determination that a provision of Federal law preempts a State consumer financial law," (2) "conduct such review within the 5-year period after prescribing or otherwise issuing such determination, and at least once during each 5-year period thereafter," and (3) "[a]fter conducting the review of, and inspecting the comments made on, the determination,       publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the decision to continue or rescind the determination or a proposal to amend the determination " Fourth, Section 1044 provides that the OCC must submit to Congress a report addressing its decision to continue, rescind, or propose an amendment to any preemption determination  Finally, Section 1044 abrogated the Supreme Court's decision in Watters , providing that "State consumer financial laws" apply to the subsidiaries and affiliates of national banks "to the same extent" that they apply "to any person, corporation, or other entity subject to such State law " After Dodd-Frank's enactment, commentators debated the meaning of Section 1044's general preemption standard  As discussed, Section 1044's preemption standard provides that federal law preempts "State consumer financial laws" that "prevent[] or significantly interfere[]" with the powers of national banks "in accordance with the legal standard for preemption in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in [ Barnett Bank ] " Some commentators have argued that this language simply codifies the Barnett Bank standard and was not intended to significantly modify pre-existing law  However, others have argued that Section 1044 was intended to pare back the OCC's 2004 preemption rules, which interpreted the NBA as preempting state laws that "obstruct, impair, or condition" the powers of national banks  According to this latter group of commentators, the OCC's "obstruct, impair, or condition" standard was more expansive than Barnett Bank 's "significant interference" test, meaning that a codification of that test would modify pre-existing law  In 2011, the OCC responded to the enactment of Section 1044 by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking that reaffirmed its pre-Dodd-Frank preemption decisions while deleting the "obstruct, impair, or condition" language from its preemption rules  While the OCC acknowledged that this language "created ambiguities and misunderstandings regarding the preemption standard that it was intended to convey," it maintained that the specific preemption determinations reflected in its 2004 rules were nevertheless consistent with Barnett Bank   The OCC accordingly proposed reaffirming the specific preemption determinations in its 2004 rules while removing the "obstruct, impair, or condition" standard  The OCC's proposal quickly generated controversy  After the OCC issued the notice, the Treasury Department's General Counsel wrote a letter to the Comptroller of the Currency arguing that the OCC's proposed rule was "inconsistent with the plain language of [Dodd-Frank] and its legislative history " Specifically, the Treasury Department argued that interpreting Section 1044 as making no significant changes to existing preemption law conflicted with "basic canons of statutory construction" and legislative history indicating that the provision was intended to "revise[]" the OCC's preemption standard  Senator Carl Levin also expressed disagreement with the proposed rules in a letter to the Comptroller, arguing that "[i]f [Congress] had wanted to leave the OCC's purported federal preemptive powers unchanged, [it] could have engaged in a very simple exercise—do nothing " Other Senators expressed support for the OCC's proposed rules  Senators Tom Carper and Mark Warner criticized the Treasury Department's letter for "ignor[ing] the clear legislative history indicating that [Section 1044] is intended to codify the Barnett case " In responding to the Treasury Department's argument that Section 1044 was intended to "revise" the OCC's preemption standards, Senators Carper and Warner argued that the OCC's proposed rules would effectuate the contemplated revision by removing the potentially troublesome "obstruct, impair, or condition" language from the agency's 2004 rules  The OCC ultimately agreed with Senators Carper and Warner  In July 2011, the OCC published a final regulation revising its preemption rules  In the final rule, the OCC concluded that "the Dodd-Frank Act does not create a new, stand-alone 'prevents or significantly interferes' preemption standard, but, rather, incorporates the conflict preemption legal standard and the reasoning that supports it in the Supreme Court's Barnett decision " The OCC's 2011 rule also deleted the phrase "obstruct, impair, or condition" from the relevant preemption standard, noting that preemption determinations based "exclusively" on that language "would need to be reexamined to ascertain whether the determination is consistent with the Barnett conflict preemption analysis " However, the rule indicated that the OCC had not identified any preemption determinations that in fact relied "exclusively" on the relevant language  The final rule also noted that all future OCC preemption determinations would be subject to Section 1044's requirement concerning "case-by-case" determinations  Since the enactment of Dodd-Frank, a number of courts have interpreted Section 1044 as codifying the Barnett Bank standard  Some courts have accordingly concluded that Barnett Bank demarcates the boundaries of the OCC's 2011 preemption rules, reasoning that those rules do not preempt any state laws that would survive preemption under the Barnett Bank test  One court has also addressed the appropriate level of judicial deference towards the OCC's 2011 preemption determinations  As discussed, Section 1044 provides that courts "shall" assess OCC preemption determinations "depending upon the thoroughness evident in the consideration of the agency, the validity of the reasoning of the agency, the consistency with other valid determinations made by the agency, and other factors which the court finds persuasive and relevant to its decision"—a standard commonly known as " Skidmore deference " In 2018, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the OCC's 2011 preemption determinations are "entitled to little, if any, deference" under Skidmore   Specifically, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the OCC's 2011 preemption determinations represent the agency's "articulation of its legal analysis" under Barnett Bank (as opposed to being grounded in expert factual findings), those determinations would not warrant significant deference even in the absence of Section 1044  Whether other federal circuit courts will follow the Ninth Circuit in affording minimal deference to the OCC's 2011 preemption rules remains to be seen  As the debates over Section 1044 of Dodd-Frank make clear, a number of banking preemption issues remain the subject of active debate  This final section of the report discusses three additional current issues involving banking preemption and related federalism questions  A number of recent judicial decisions have generated debate over the circumstances in which non-bank financial companies can benefit from banks' ability to "export" the maximum interest rates of their "home" states  As discussed, the Supreme Court has held that national banks may charge any interest rate allowable under the laws of their home states even when lending to borrowers in other states with stricter usury laws  After this decision, Congress extended the power to export maximum interest rates to federally insured state banks  Recently, courts have grappled with whether this exportation power extends to non-bank financial companies and debt collectors that purchase loans originated by federally insured banks  That is, courts have addressed the circumstances in which loans originated by federally insured banks remain subject to the usury laws of the banks' home states even when the loans are (1) made to borrowers in other states with stricter usury laws, and (2) subsequently purchased by non-banks, which do not possess the exportation power when they originate loans themselves  A number of courts have concluded that in certain contexts, a loan that is non-usurious when originated remains non-usurious irrespective of the identity of its subsequent purchasers—a principle that some commentators have labeled the "valid when made" doctrine  However, in 2015, the Second Circuit rejected the application of this rule in Madden v  Midland Funding , holding that non-bank debt collectors that had purchased debt originated by a national bank could not benefit from the bank's exportation power  In Madden , a New York resident brought a putative class action under New York usury law against debt collectors that had purchased her credit card debt from a Delaware-based national bank  In response, the debt collectors argued that federal law preempted the New York usury claims because the credit card debt had been originated by a Delaware-based national bank and was not usurious under Delaware law  The Second Circuit rejected this argument, reasoning that the application of New York usury law to the debt collectors did not "significantly interfere" with the national bank's powers under Barnett Bank   Specifically, the court reasoned that because the debt collectors were not national banks and were not acting "on behalf of" a national bank, the New York usury claims did not interfere with the national bank's power to export the maximum interest rates of its home state  The Second Circuit's decision in Madden has generated significant debate  In an amicus brief supporting the debt collectors' petition for re-hearing before the Second Circuit, industry groups argued that the decision threatened to seriously disrupt lending markets  Specifically, these groups argued that the court's decision would "significantly impair" banks' ability to manage their risk by selling loans in secondary credit markets—a result that would ultimately inhibit their capacity to originate loans  Similarly, in an amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, the OCC and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the Second Circuit's decision was "incorrect," reasoning that "[a] national bank's federal right to charge interest up to the rate allowed by [the NBA] would be significantly impaired if [a] national bank's assignee could not continue to charge that rate " In response, the plaintiff in Madden argued that the Second Circuit's decision is unlikely to significantly affect credit markets  Specifically, the Madden plaintiff argued that the court's decision will not disrupt credit markets because non-banks that purchase loans originated by banks retain the right to collect the balances of those loans within applicable state law usury limits  While the Second Circuit ultimately denied the debt collectors' petition for re-hearing and the Supreme Court denied their petition for a writ of certiorari, the Madden decision has attracted congressional interest  The Financial CHOICE Act—comprehensive regulatory reform legislation that passed the House of Representatives in June 2017 but did not become law—would have codified the "valid when made" doctrine and abrogated Madden   A more limited bill directed solely at codifying the "valid when made" doctrine ( H R  3299 ) also passed the House in February 2018 but did not become law  Echoing the arguments made by industry groups, the bill's sponsor contended that the Second Circuit's decision will harm credit markets and impede financial innovation  By contrast, the bill's critics argued that it would facilitate predatory lending by allowing non-banks to evade state usury laws  These proposals have not been re-introduced in the 116th Congress  In a number of cases involving the scope of the exportation doctrine, non-bank financial companies have played a more active role in the origination process than the debt collectors in Madden   Specifically, a number of these cases have involved arrangements in which a non-bank financial company solicits borrowers, directs a partner bank to originate a high-interest loan, and purchases the loan from the bank shortly after origination in order to benefit from the bank's exportation power  Some courts have held that non-banks employing these so-called "rent-a-charter" schemes are not eligible for federal preemption, reasoning that preemption depends on a transaction's economic realities rather than its formal characteristics  Specifically, these courts have concluded that non-banks do not assume their partner banks' exportation power when the economic realities surrounding a transaction indicate that the non-banks are the "true lenders " According to this "true lender" doctrine, non-banks that have established these types of relationships qualify as the "true lenders" when they possess the "predominant economic interest" in the relevant loans when the loans are originated  In these circumstances, some courts have concluded that the non-banks are not entitled to the benefits of federal preemption  Like the Second Circuit's decision in Madden , these "true lender" decisions have attracted Congress's attention  In the 115th Congress, H R  4439 would have abrogated this line of decisions by making clear that a loan's originator is always the "true lender" for purposes of the exportation doctrine  The bill's supporters argued that the "true lender" decisions threaten to undermine partnerships between banks and FinTech companies —a broad category of businesses offering digital financial products that some commentators have hailed for their innovative potential  The bill's opponents, by contrast, contended that the legislation would allow non-banks to circumvent state usury laws and questioned the value of bank-FinTech partnerships designed with that purpose in mind  H R  4439 was referred to the House Committee on Financial Services during the 115th Congress but has not been re-introduced in the 116th Congress  Congress is not alone in considering whether to extend the benefits of federal preemption to FinTech companies  In July 2018, the OCC issued a Policy Statement announcing that it will begin accepting applications for "special purpose national bank charters" (SPNB charters) from FinTech companies that are engaged in "the business of banking" but do not take deposits  In the Policy Statement, the OCC explained that the NBA provides it "broad authority" to grant national bank charters to institutions that engage in the "business of banking"—a category that includes paying checks and lending money  The OCC accordingly concluded that it has the statutory authority to grant national bank charters to FinTech companies that engage in these core banking activities  According to the OCC, SPNB charters will help foster responsible innovation and promote regulatory consistency between FinTech companies and traditional banks  The OCC further explained that it will use its existing chartering standards and procedures to evaluate applications for SPNB charters, and that FinTech companies that receive such charters "will be supervised like similarly situated national banks, including with respect to capital, liquidity, and risk management " While the OCC touted the ability of SPNB charters to "level the playing field with regulated institutions" without explicitly mentioning federal preemption, commentators have observed that preemption represents "the central benefit" offered by such charters  The OCC's decision to accept applications for national bank charters from FinTech companies has generated debate  Critics of the policy have contended that FinTech companies' interest in such charters "is virtually entirely about avoiding state consumer protection laws," and that "[f]ederal chartering should not be a move to eviscerate" such laws  State regulators have also filed lawsuits challenging the OCC's authority to charter non-depository FinTech companies  In the spring of 2017, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) and the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) responded to an early OCC proposal to charter FinTech companies by filing suits in the U S  District Court for the District of Columbia and the U S  District Court for the Southern District of New York, respectively  The CSBS and NYDFS made substantially similar claims, arguing that (1) the NBA does not give the OCC the authority to charter non-depository institutions, (2) the Administrative Procedure Act requires the OCC to follow notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures before issuing SPNBs, (3) the OCC's decision was arbitrary and capricious, and (4) the OCC's decision violated the Tenth Amendment by invading states' sovereign powers  Both district courts dismissed the lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds, reasoning that the organizations failed to identify any imminent injuries to their members and that the case was not ripe for resolution because the OCC had not issued any SPNBs  However, after the OCC issued its Policy Statement in July 2018, both organizations filed new lawsuits that remain pending  Policymakers have also turned their attention to how federal law affects traditional banks' responses to changes in state law—namely, state-level efforts to legalize marijuana  While a number of states have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, federal law criminalizes the drug's sale, distribution, and possession, in addition to the aiding and abetting of such activities  Federal law also criminalizes money laundering, making it unlawful to: conduct a financial transaction involving the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity —a category that includes the sale or distribution of marijuana—"knowing that the transaction is designed       to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership or the control of the proceeds       or to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law"; or knowingly engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 that is derived from specified unlawful activity   Finally, the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and associated regulations require that financial institutions report illegal and suspicious activities to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and maintain programs designed to prevent money laundering  Federal banking regulators have broad powers to discipline banks for violations of these laws  The Federal Reserve regularly conducts examinations of member banks that include evaluations of BSA compliance, and the FDIC has the authority to terminate a bank's deposit insurance for violations of law  Because of marijuana's status under federal law, many banks have refused to serve marijuana businesses even when those businesses operate in compliance with state law  While some small banks have offered accounts to marijuana businesses, an estimated 70 percent of marijuana businesses remain unbanked  Because of this inability to access the banking system, many marijuana businesses reportedly operate entirely in cash, raising concerns about tax collection and public safety  These perceived problems have attracted congressional interest  In March 2019, the House Committee on Financial Services approved legislation intended to minimize the legal risks associated with banking the marijuana industry  The proposed bill— H R  1595 , the SAFE Banking Act of 2019—would create a "safe harbor" under which federal banking regulators could not take various adverse actions against depository institutions for serving marijuana businesses that comply with applicable state laws ("cannabis-related legitimate businesses")  The legislation would also provide that for purposes of federal anti-money laundering law, the proceeds from transactions conducted by cannabis-related legitimate businesses shall not qualify as the proceeds of unlawful activity "solely because the transaction[s] [were] conducted by a cannabis-related legitimate business " Finally, H R  1595 would require FinCEN to issue guidance concerning the preparation of suspicious activity reports for cannabis-related legitimate businesses that is "consistent with the purpose and intent" of the bill and "does not significantly inhibit the provision of financial services" to cannabis-related legitimate businesses  Variations on some of the SAFE Banking Act's provisions have been incorporated into broader marijuana-related legislation  The Responsibly Addressing Marijuana Policy Gap Act of 2019 ( S  421 and H R  1119 ) would eliminate federal criminal penalties for persons who engage in various marijuana-related activities in compliance with state law and create a "safe harbor" from adverse regulatory action for depository institutions that serve marijuana businesses  Another Senate bill— S  1028 , the STATES Act—would provide that the Controlled Substances Act's (CSA's) marijuana-related provisions do not apply to persons acting in compliance with state marijuana regulation s, subject to certain exceptions  While the bill does not have the type of "safe harbor" for depository institutions in H R  1595 , S  421 , or H R  1119 , it contains a "Rule of Construction" clarifying that conduct in compliance with the legislation shall not serve as the basis for federal money laundering charges or criminal forfeiture under the CSA 
Report 2:  Such controls would minimize the risk of abuse when officials act as both proposing and deciding officials  In addition, VA does not have oversight measures to ensure that all allegations of misconduct referred by the OIG to facility and program offices are investigated by an entity outside the control of the facility or program office involved in the misconduct  The investigation of allegations of misconduct by the program office or facility where the complaint originated may present the appearance of a conflict of interest in which managers and staff at facilities may investigate themselves or other allegations where they may have a personal stake or bias in the matter to be investigated  Therefore, the risk that the results of the investigation are minimized, or not handled adequately, is increased  VA’s newly developed process to communicate the scope of its reviews that involve matters referred by the OSC to the Office of the Secretary will be important to ensure any allegations outside the purview of the OIG’s investigation are fully addressed by a departmental entity in accordance with OSC requirements  Further, the OIG’s inability to locate investigative documentation prevents a third party from verifying whether the OIG examined the disclosures, whether any recommendations were addressed, or whether appropriate disciplinary action was taken for these cases  This lack of information has direct influence on management’s ability to make sound decisions relating to investigative matters  According to OIG officials, a spreadsheet is being used for tracking case numbers associated with disclosures, but plans to implement a process within the new system  Nonanonymous whistle-blowers faced higher rates of adverse action subsequent to their disclosure than the VA population as a whole  In addition, these individuals also had attrition rates higher than their peers who had not filed a disclosure  The disparities between whistle-blowers and other employees may be an indication that retaliation by senior officials may have occurred after misconduct was disclosed  Although VA has started to provide additional information for potential whistle-blowers who wish to report criminal or other activity to the OIG, VA does not have a process to inform employees of how their information may be shared between organizations when misconduct is reported  Without a clear understanding of how the lines for reporting misconduct operate, whistle- blowers may be uncertain as to their options for reporting misconduct, increasing the risk that they may not report workplace misconduct  We are making the following 16 recommendations to VA  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should develop and implement guidance to collect complete and reliable misconduct and associated disciplinary-action data department-wide, whether through a single information system, or multiple interoperable systems  Such guidance should include direction and procedures on addressing blank data fields, lack of personnel identifiers, and standardization among fields, and on accessibility  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct applicable facility and program offices to adhere to VA’s policies regarding employee misconduct adjudication documentation  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) to routinely assess the extent to which misconduct-related files and documents are retained consistently with VA’s applicable documentation requirements  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OHRM to assess whether human-resources personnel adhere to basic principles outlined in VA Handbook 5021 when informing employees of their rights during the adjudication process for alleged misconduct  (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should adhere to OPM and NARA guidance and establish a specific record-retention period for adverse action files  In doing so, the Secretary should direct applicable administration, facility, and program offices that have developed their own record-retention schedules to then adhere to the newly established record-retention period  (Recommendation 5) The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Inspector General should revise its policy to include a requirement to verify whether evidence produced in senior-official case referrals demonstrates that the six elements required in VA Directive 0701 have been addressed  (Recommendation 6) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) to review responses submitted by facility or program offices to ensure evidence produced in senior-official case referrals demonstrates that the six elements required in VA Directive 0701 have been addressed  (Recommendation 7) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OAWP to issue written guidance on how OAWP will verify whether appropriate disciplinary action has been implemented for all substantiated misconduct by senior officials  (Recommendation 8) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OAWP to develop a process to ensure disciplinary actions proposed in response to findings of misconduct are recorded within appropriate information systems to maintain their relevance and value to management for making decisions and take steps to monitor whether the disciplinary actions are implemented  (Recommendation 9) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OAWP to issue written guidance on how OAWP will review the disposition of accountability actions for all substantiated misconduct cases involving senior officials resulting from investigations  (Recommendation 10) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should implement internal controls to ensure that proper adherence to separation-of-duty standards involving the removal of an employee are consistent with policy  (Recommendation 11) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should develop oversight measures to ensure all investigations referred to facility and program offices are consistent with policy and reviewed by an official independent of and at least one level above the individual involved in the allegation  To ensure independence, referred allegations of misconduct should be investigated by an entity outside the control of the facility or program office involved in the misconduct  (Recommendation 12) The VA Inspector General, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of OAWP, should develop a process to ensure that OSC case numbers are linked to the investigative case number and final report  (Recommendation 13) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OAWP to develop a time frame for the completion of published guidance that would develop an internal process to monitor cases referred to facility and program offices  (Recommendation 14) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that employees who report wrongdoing are treated fairly and protected against retaliation  (Recommendation 15) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should direct OAWP to develop a process to inform employees of how reporting lines operate, how they are used, and how the information may be shared between the OSC, the OIG, OAWP, or VA facility and program offices when misconduct is reported  (Recommendation 16) We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VA Office of Inspector General (OIG), and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) for review and comment  In its comments, VA concurred with nine of our recommendations and partially concurred with five (see app  VI for a copy of VA’s letter)  Regarding our recommendations to the Inspector General, the OIG concurred with one recommendation and partially concurred with the other  The OIG also provided comments on our findings (see app  VII for a copy of the OIG’s letter)  We received technical comments by e-mail from OSC’s Principal Deputy Special Counsel, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate  Regarding VA’s comments, in its response to our first recommendation that the Secretary develop and implement guidance to collect complete and reliable misconduct and associated disciplinary-action data department-wide, VA concurred and outlined steps it plans to take to address our recommendations  These steps include the creation of new policies to address blank data fields, lack of personnel identifiers, lack of standardization among fields, and accessibility issues related to misconduct and associated disciplinary-action data department-wide  The target date for system implementation, dependent on approved funding and acquisition-related requirements, is January 1, 2020  On our second recommendation, that the Secretary direct applicable facility and program offices to adhere to VA’s policies regarding employee-misconduct adjudication documentation, VA concurred  It stated that a memorandum will be distributed to reiterate facility and program-office requirements to adhere to VA Handbook 5021, Employee/Management Relations, no later than October 1, 2018  VA also concurred with our third recommendation, that the Secretary direct the Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) to routinely assess the extent to which misconduct-related files and documents are retained  According to VA, OHRM will assess, during periodic Oversight and Effectiveness Service reviews, the extent to which misconduct- related files and documents are retained  The first assessment is to be incorporated into the fiscal year 2019 Oversight and Effectiveness Service schedule no later than November 1, 2018  VA concurred with our fourth recommendation, that the Secretary direct OHRM to assess whether human-resources personnel adhere to basic principles outlined in VA Handbook 5021  VA stated that OHRM will assess, during periodic Oversight and Effectiveness Service reviews, whether human-resources and administration personnel adhere to basic principles outlined in VA Handbook 5021  The first assessment is to be incorporated into the fiscal year 2019 Oversight and Effectiveness schedule no later than November 1, 2018  In its response to our fifth recommendation, that the Secretary adhere to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) guidance and establish a specific record- retention period for adverse-action files, VA concurred and indicated that the Human Resources and Administration Assistant Secretary will establish VA guidance regarding the retention period for adverse-action files  In addition, the Human Resources and Administration Assistant Secretary is to advise applicable administration, facility, and program offices that have developed their own record-retention schedules to adhere to the newly established directive  According to VA, the directive will be established no later than November 1, 2018  VA partially concurred with our seventh recommendation, that the Secretary direct departmental heads to review responses submitted by facility or program offices to ensure evidence produced in senior-official case referrals demonstrates that the six elements required in VA Directive 0701 have been addressed  VA stated that the process described in our report pertaining to OIG findings or results will be changed to require all such reports to be submitted to OAWP  VA also indicated that it expects to publish new guidance by October 1, 2018, that will require the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP) to review responses and recommendations from facilities or program offices  Given VA’s comments, we have revised our draft recommendation to have the Secretary direct OAWP, not the department heads, to ensure evidence demonstrates that the six elements have been addressed  VA also partially concurred with our eighth recommendation, that the Assistant Secretary of OAWP review all substantiated misconduct by senior officials to verify whether disciplinary action has been implemented  VA stated that all substantiated misconduct by senior leaders in VA is handled by OAWP from intake, through investigation, working with the proposing and deciding officials  VA also stated that it expects to publish written guidance by October 1, 2018, that will clarify how OAWP will work with the appropriate servicing personnel office to ensure that the recommended disciplinary actions decided are implemented for substantiated misconduct involving senior officials  Given VA’s comments, we have revised our draft recommendation to have the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct OAWP to issue written guidance on how OAWP will verify that appropriate disciplinary action has been implemented for all substantiated misconduct by senior officials  VA partially concurred with our ninth recommendation, that the Assistant Secretary of OAWP develop a process to ensure disciplinary actions proposed are recorded within appropriate information systems  VA stated that the VA-wide discipline tracking system currently used by OAWP will eventually be phased out  It added that once the Human Resources Information System (HRSmart) is capable of capturing and recording similar data, it will be used for this purpose  Accordingly, we have not revised our draft recommendation  VA partially concurred with our 10th recommendation, that the Assistant Secretary of OAWP assess all misconduct cases involving senior officials to ensure investigative reports with findings of substantiated misconduct include recommendations for action  According to VA, OAWP has instituted several processes since our review  VA plans to issue written guidance that outlines the process for the review and disposition of appropriate accountability actions for allegations of misconduct by senior officials by October 1, 2018  Given VA’s comments, we have revised our draft recommendation to have the Secretary of Veterans Affairs direct OAWP to issue written guidance on how OAWP will review the disposition of accountability actions for all substantiated misconduct cases involving senior officials resulting from investigations  In its response to our 11th recommendation, that the Secretary implement internal controls to ensure that separation-of-duty standards involving the removal of an employee are consistent with policy, VA concurred  It stated that it will also establish and distribute internal controls to ensure that separation-of-duty standards involving the removal of an employee are consistent with policy no later than November 1, 2018  VA partially concurred with our 12th recommendation, that the Secretary take steps to ensure independence of referred allegations of misconduct by requiring that investigations be conducted outside the control of the facility or program office involved in the misconduct  VA stated that OAWP is responsible for recording, tracking, reviewing, and confirming the implementation of recommendations from audits and investigations  However, VA did not address how it will ensure the independence of the entity responsible for conducting an investigation  As we discuss in our report, during the review OAWP officials stated that the process of referring cases of misconduct back to facilities and program offices where the misconduct occurred will continue  Accordingly, we have not revised our draft recommendation and believe implementation of it will help ensure independence  VA concurred with our 14th recommendation, that the Assistant Secretary of OAWP develop a time frame for the completion of published guidance for the development of an internal process to monitor cases referred to facility and program offices  VA provided an expected date of October 1, 2018, for publishing the internal VA guidance, with the subsequent Directive and Handbook to be published as rapidly as staff coordination permits  In its response to our 15th recommendation, that the Secretary ensure that employees who report wrongdoing are treated fairly and protected against retaliation, VA concurred  It stated that OAWP and OSC have developed a functional process to ensure whistle-blower protections are implemented, but did not indicate what the process entails  The VA Secretary has also delegated authority to the Executive Director, OAWP, to put individual personnel actions on hold if the actions appear motivated by whistle-blower retaliation  VA added that OAWP has also hired two whistle-blower program specialists specifically to increase awareness of whistle-blower protections and work with individuals that disclose employee wrongdoing to ensure individuals are treated fairly and protected from retaliation for their disclosures  VA concurred with our 16th recommendation, that the Assistant Secretary of OAWP develop a process to inform employees of how reporting lines operate  VA stated that it will provide whistle-blower training to all employees on a biennial basis, which will include the reporting lines for disclosures of wrongdoing, the manner in which disclosures flow once they are made, how information is shared among the whistle-blower entities, and what protections exists for those who disclose wrongdoing  Regarding our recommendations to the Inspector General, the OIG partially concurred with our sixth recommendation, to revise its policy to include a requirement to verify whether evidence produced in senior- official case referrals demonstrates that the six elements required in VA Directive 0701 have been addressed  The OIG indicated that VA Directive 0701 is currently being updated to require a written or electronic signature from the person preparing the responses as an attestation that the specific requirements of the directive were met  The OIG also indicated in its letter that the OIG’s Hotline staff carefully review the case response but Hotline staff are not required to request an updated response from VA to address matters not necessary to the resolution to the referral  The OIG asserted that requesting an update would detract from the resources for other important VA activities  On page 4 of the OIG’s letter, the OIG states that Hotline analysts are allowed to exercise some discretion in accepting responses that may include minor departures from the six elements  We continue to believe that, in order to have a complete response to a referral, all six elements required by the directive should be addressed  In addition, Directive 0701 does not allow for the use of professional judgement to decide which elements to include or not to include in a response  While we agree that requiring a written or electronic signature from the person preparing the responses as an attestation will help ensure that the specific requirements of the directive were met, we maintain that not requiring Hotline analysts to review responses to ensure that all elements of the directive are addressed is inconsistent with the intent of the directive  In its response to our 13th recommendation, that the OIG develop a process to ensure that an OSC case number is linked to the investigative case number and the final report, the OIG concurred  It stated that it will engage with the Executive Director of OAWP to develop a process to ensure that OSC case numbers are linked to OIG and OAWP investigative case numbers, as appropriate, and linked to any final report of investigation  In addition to its response to recommendations, the VA OIG also raised a number of concerns with our findings  Page 1 of its letter summarizes some of these concerns and then provides more detail on each concern raised, starting on page 2  Our responses to each of these detailed concerns are provided below  The OIG stated that our report does not focus on the most important cases, but focuses primarily on case referrals regarding senior officials that were not handled by the OIG because the allegations were lower risk or because of resource constraints  In addition, the OIG stated that GAO risks presenting a skewed picture of the OIG’s oversight work  We disagree with this characterization of our findings  We requested that the OIG provide us with data from the OIG’s Master Case Index (MCI) information system that would allow us to select a sample of cases, in accordance with the scope of our review  The OIG was unable to provide the requested information due to several reasons  Instead, the OIG provided data from the OIG Hotline and Office of Investigations case- management systems (subsystems within MCI) that contained a limited number of fields for analysis and 23 cases pertaining to SES misconduct that were referred to VA for investigation during GAO’s period of review  Therefore, as we discuss in the report, we were only able to review the 23 senior-official misconduct cases included in our report because the OIG was only able to provide related documentation for these cases  The OIG stated that we only reviewed a sample of just 23 case referrals from fiscal years 2011 through 2014  As described, we reviewed all 23 senior-official misconduct cases that were referred to VA for investigation that the OIG was able to provide us, not a sample  The OIG stated that our report inaccurately states that the extracts received from the MCI information system contained missing information  We disagree with this characterization of our findings  Our review included a comprehensive assessment of the reliability of the OIG’s data  To conduct this assessment, we requested an explanation of each data field to clarify when fields are normally populated and how they are used  Our findings are consistent with the information provided in response to this request  For example, the OIG’s response to our data-reliability assessment stated that the data field used to identify the type of allegations being investigated should never be blank  However, we found that field to be blank in some cases in the data that were provided to us, though the OIG asserted that the MCI information system is a relational database where each case may be associated with multiple allegations and codes  In response to the OIG’s comments on our report, we requested supporting documentation to demonstrate that the fields analyzed during our period of review did not contain missing data  The OIG provided the MCI information system user’s manual that contains detailed procedures for accessing and entering data into the MCI information system, and a compilation of various internal documents  However, the documentation did not provide evidence of the completeness of data entered into the MCI information system as part of quality-assurance reviews performed by the OIG or other designated entity  Absent evidence of data-quality reviews aimed at assessing the accuracy and completeness of data contained in the MCI information system, we did not change the conclusions based on our previous analysis  The OIG stated that our report provides incomplete information regarding sampled cases and mischaracterized one of the OIG’s case referrals in the body of the report  We disagree with this characterization of our findings  Specifically, the OIG said that we inaccurately stated that a medical center director conducted the investigation into his own alleged misconduct and found no allegations were substantiated  The synopsis included in our report clearly articulates that the medical center director was named in the allegation for having received a similar complaint involving time and attendance abuse by a physician  The medical center director, who provided the response to the OIG, was implicated in the allegation as having not addressed a similar time and attendance complaint regarding the same physician 2 years earlier  The OIG did not provide any supporting documentation to demonstrate that the alleged time and attendance abuse allegations against the physician were not substantiated  The OIG stated that our report inaccurately stated that the medical center director conducted his own investigation of himself and found no allegations were substantiated  We disagree  In response to the OIG’s comments on our report, we requested that the OIG provide additional support used to determine that the medical center director did not investigate the allegation in which he was named  The additional case documentation provided by the OIG further reaffirmed our assessment that the medical center director performed his own investigation and found no allegations were substantiated  Additional documentation provided by the OIG indicated that the OIG referred the case to the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) for a response  However, documentation we examined during the course of our audit, and the documentation provided in response to our draft report, indicates that the medical center director performed the investigation of the allegations and then the results were routed through the VISN back to the OIG  The OIG stated that routing the response through the VISN should address our concerns of independence  This process does not address our concerns regarding independence because VA Directive 0701 states that all responses to Hotline case referrals must contain evidence of an independent review by an official separate from and at a higher grade than the subject / alleged wrongdoer  In this case, the name of the medical center director who signed the facility response provided to the OIG was the same individual named in the allegations  The OIG stated that the report does not provide a balanced presentation of the rigor with which the OIG reviews all incoming Hotline contacts and case responses  We disagree with this characterization of our findings  As described above, the OIG was unable to provide comprehensive data to select a sample of OIG audits, evaluations, and inspections for review due to the limitations cited  We focused on misconduct involving senior officials consistently with the scope of our review and thoroughly reviewed all 23 senior-official misconduct cases that were referred to VA for investigation, which were the only cases that the OIG was able to provide  The OIG stated that the description for one of the cases included in appendix V of the draft report was incomplete because we misunderstood the OIG’s process  We disagree with this characterization  In response to the OIG’s comments on our report, we requested additional supporting documentation  The documentation provided reaffirmed our assessment that another medical center director performed his own investigation and found no allegations were substantiated  Similar to the case described above, the medical center director completed his own investigation and then routed the response through the VISN back to the OIG  In contrast to the previous case, however, the Hotline Workgroup reviewed the response to the OIG and found it to be insufficient  Specifically, the OIG noted that the medical center director who provided the response was the subject of the complaint, despite the response being directed to the VISN, and requested clarification  The VISN informed the OIG that it is not its policy for the complainant to have any involvement in the review and data submission on a case in which the complainant is involved  The VISN stated that while this did obviously occur in this instance, it has taken steps to ensure it does not occur in the future  The supporting evidence provided for the case included in appendix V also contradicts the OIG’s previous assertion that the routing of a response through the entity with oversight (VISN) over the medical center director should have addressed GAO’s concerns of independence  The OIG stated our report provides a misrepresentation of the OIG’s failure to follow internal policies for department responses  We disagree  According to OIG statements on page 4 of the OIG’s letter, Hotline analysts are allowed to exercise some discretion in accepting responses that may include minor departures from the six elements required in VA Directive 0701  We continue to believe that in order to have a complete response to a referral, all six elements required by the directive should be addressed  On the basis of our review, the OIG does not have an effective method to ensure that cases referred to VA are reviewed in accordance with VA Directive 0701  Out of the 23 cases we reviewed, only 4 included sufficient documentation needed to support VA’s findings, and we could not identify a case that contained all six elements required in VA Directive 0701  This suggests that the current OIG review process is not adequately resolving case referrals, as asserted by the OIG’s response  In addition, VA Directive 0701 does not currently include a provision that would allow Hotline analysts to deviate from the six required elements  As stated in our report, the OSC also raised concerns regarding 40 percent of disclosure cases that were referred to VA facility and program offices  The OIG stated that much of the information in the draft report is dated and ignores system updates, specifically several key Hotline-related process improvements since 2014  Although our review began in 2015, we disagree with this characterization of our findings  In our report, we included relevant improvements to demonstrate where the OIG was able to provide support for those improvements  For example, our report discusses: (1) a new process for communicating the scope of reviews that involve matters referred by the OSC to the Office of the Secretary, (2) a description on the VA website of the process for employees who wish to report criminal or other activity to the OIG, (3) a new Enterprise Management System, and (4) a new process for receiving whistle-blower disclosures by the Secretary  In response to the OIG’s comments on our report, we requested additional documentation for any systems, practices, or personnel changes that have been implemented since 2011, including improvements to Hotline-related processes since 2014 that were not included in our report  In response, the OIG provided a copy of the OIG’s organizational chart (current as of Apr  23, 2018), described the oversight responsibilities of each OIG component, and summarized the pertinent staff positions within each component  On the basis of this documentation, we identified a new office (the Office of Special Reviews), a promotion, staff reassignments, and numerous vacancies during our review period  However, the OIG did not provide evidence of any measures to improve the MCI information system, case-referral processes, or relevant staff roles that were not already included in our report  As described above, the OIG was unable to provide comprehensive data to select a sample of OIG audits, evaluations, and inspections for our initial review due to the limitations cited  In response to the OIG’s comments on our report, we requested documentation related to any significant changes that have been made to the MCI information system that allows the OIG to identify all allegations of misconduct for export and analysis  The OIG provided additional information regarding overall departmental achievements that are highlighted in the OIG’s Semiannual Report to Congress, and other products from its website published between fiscal years 2011 through 2018  We recognize the OIG’s broader administrative and oversight work described in the published reports  However, this information does not address changes specifically made to the MCI information system that would enable the OIG to analyze cases pertaining to alleged misconduct by senior officials that we requested  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-5045 or larink@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) (1) collects reliable information associated with employee misconduct and disciplinary actions that is accessible and could be used to analyze misconduct department-wide; (2) retains documentation that demonstrates VA adheres to its policies when adjudicating cases of employee misconduct; (3) ensures allegations of misconduct involving senior officials are reviewed in accordance with VA investigative standards, and these officials are held accountable; (4) has procedures to investigate whistle-blower allegations of misconduct; and the extent to which (5) data and whistle-blower testimony indicate whether retaliation for disclosing misconduct occurs at VA  For the first objective, we obtained VA employee misconduct data from 12 information systems operated by various VA components covering October 2009 through July 2017, where available  To determine the reliability of VA’s misconduct data, we analyzed the contents of the 12 information systems operated by various offices across VA  These data encompass each of the three major administrations that constitute VA— the National Cemetery Administration (NCA), Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and Veterans Health Administration (VHA)  We selected the information systems based on our discussions with VA officials and staff that oversee the data and, hence, identified databases capable of collecting information pertaining to either employee misconduct or disciplinary actions  Data fields were selected based on whether they would provide beneficial information to better understand the disciplinary process  VA’s Personnel and Accounting Integrated Data (PAID) system, which was developed to track payroll actions, contains information about adverse disciplinary actions that affect employee salary department-wide  We obtained an extract of all adverse disciplinary actions from the PAID system  We assessed the reliability of each system for the purposes of identifying and tracking misconduct cases  To do this, we performed electronic tests on 12 information systems to determine the completeness and accuracy of the fields contained in the data files  We also submitted to the overseeing offices for all 12 information systems general data-quality questions regarding the purpose of the data, their structure, definitions and values for certain fields, automated and manual data-quality checks to ensure the accuracy of the data, and limitations  As discussed further, the data were generally not reliable for a department-wide assessment of all misconduct and disciplinary actions due to the lack of completeness and compatibility of the data across all information systems  VA staff could not confirm whether some of the missing data we identified were artifacts of the database extraction process VA used to assemble the data files we used in our review  Despite challenges with aspects of the data, we found the data sufficiently reliable for conducting analysis where fields were populated and field definition concurrence was obtained by program offices  For the second objective, we selected a generalizable stratified random sample of 544 misconduct cases from October 2009 through May 2015  Where available, we reviewed the employees’ disciplinary-action files and Electronic Official Personnel Folders to determine the extent to which VA’s actions were consistent with disciplinary policy outlined in VA Handbook 5021, Employee/Management Relations  These data encompass each of the three major administrations that constitute VA— NCA, VBA, and VHA  We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for analysis of disciplinary actions affecting salary that resulted from misconduct that was not reported to supervisors directly from employees  Accordingly, our sample only includes misconduct cases that resulted in a change in salary or were reported to departmental organizations within the 12 information systems selected  We developed a data-collection instrument to document the results of our case reviews  We revised our data-collection instrument to address issues found during the course of our analysis, and developed a companion document that outlined the decision rules for reviewing cases  We also designated two primary reviewers to ensure the decision rules were consistently applied across all cases  Our review of laws and regulations revealed that disciplinary rules sometimes vary depending on whether employees fall under Title 5, Title 38, or hybrid Title 5 and Title 38 hiring authority  To minimize confusion associated with these differences, we incorporated criteria into our data- collection instrument  In addition, we were unable to obtain complete case information for 25 percent of the cases  For these cases, we obtained direct access to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Electronic Official Personnel Folders system to attempt to recover some of the missing information  Ultimately, we were unable to complete our review for 10 percent of cases in our sample because of missing files  In addition to reporting missing case information, we used our generalizable analysis results to project VA-wide figures for several data elements that were not in compliance with VA policy  Unless otherwise noted, estimates in this report have a margin of error of +/-7 4 percentage points or less for a 95 percent confidence interval  For the third objective, we analyzed data from the Office of Accountability Review (OAR) Legacy Referral Tracking List and VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) case-referral and investigative case-management systems, and we selected cases for in-depth review  We selected these two systems based on discussions with VA officials who were knowledgeable with databases that have the capacity to track misconduct information pertaining to senior officials  The OAR Legacy Referral Tracking List comprises referrals from January 2011 through May 2015  The OIG provided 23 case-referral files involving senior officials from calendar years 2011 through 2014  As part of our review of the OIG case files, we evaluated specific data elements contained in VA’s response documents using VA policy for referring and reviewing misconduct cases  We assessed the reliability of the OAR Legacy Referral Tracking List and OIG case-management systems for the purposes of identifying and tracking misconduct cases  To do this, we performed electronic tests on each database to determine the completeness and accuracy of the fields contained in the data files, including senior-official indicators  Where feasible, we opted to match individual datasets to PAID to determine whether disciplinary actions were administered as prescribed  We also submitted to OAR and the OIG general data-quality questions regarding the purpose of the data, their structure, definitions and values for certain fields, automated and manual data-quality checks to ensure the accuracy of the data, and limitations  On the basis of this information, we found the OAR data to be sufficiently reliable for conducting analysis where fields were sufficiently populated  For the OAR data, we matched the persons of interest to adverse-action files from PAID to determine whether adverse disciplinary actions were administered as prescribed during the available time frame (January 2011 through May 2015)  We also obtained VA’s response documents for the 23 case-referral files provided by the OIG to evaluate whether VA was adhering to its own policy for referring and reviewing misconduct cases  Through our OAR Legacy Referral Tracking List analysis, we identified illustrative case examples of misconduct involving senior officials  Further, based on our evaluation of the 23 OIG case referrals using VA’s referral policy, we developed several illustrative case examples  For the fourth objective, we interviewed senior officials from VA and the OSC responsible for investigating whistle-blower complaints  We obtained the OSC’s procedures for referring disclosure complaints and VA’s policy for investigating these complaints once received at the agency  In addition, we obtained whistle-blower disclosure data from the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) covering calendar years 2010 through 2014  To determine the reliability of the data, we conducted electronic testing and traced data elements to source documentation  We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable to identify the total number of cases that were investigated by the OIG, or referred to facility and program offices  We also observed a course to assess VA’s training provided to VA employees conducting investigations  We identified 135 OSC disclosure cases for analysis based on two criteria: (1) they contained at least partial complainant information (i e , the allegations were not anonymously reported or could be identified with supplemental information) and (2) they contained an indicator that the case had been closed by the OSC pending an ongoing investigation by VA or the OIG  These cases represent the universe of VA disclosures accepted by the OSC  Of the 135 disclosure cases referred to VA, 53 cases were referred to VA facility and program offices for further investigation  The remaining 82 disclosure cases indicated that they were investigated by the OIG  We reviewed the results of OSC’s assessment of investigative documentation developed by VA for these whistle-blower disclosure cases  For the fifth objective, we analyzed the 135 whistle-blower disclosure cases obtained from the OSC  These cases represent the universe of VA disclosures accepted by the OSC from calendar years 2010 through 2014, which were investigated by VA  We obtained an extract of year-end rosters from the PAID system as of September for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, with a final extract through May 30, 2015  Finally, we interviewed representatives from whistle-blower advocacy groups, as well as established whistle-blowers who disclosed wrongdoing or retaliation at VA and who were referred to us by one advocacy group  Of the 135 disclosures received by the OSC, a total of 129 employees made a total of 130 disclosures nonanonymously  For these 130 disclosure cases, we reviewed OSC and OIG investigative reports, as well as PAID roster files, to gather additional information to perform analysis of potential retaliation  We also interviewed six individual whistle- blowers with formal disclosure cases accepted by the OSC, indicating that the OSC had previously reviewed the case and determined that it contained sufficient evidence and merit to warrant further investigation  Our analysis of potential retaliation comprised two parts  First, we compared the 129 employees associated with the selected OSC cases to the PAID rosters using the complainants’ information to determine whether employees associated with the selected OSC cases were more likely to leave the agency  We identified the overall count and proportion (across years) of roster-matched employees who made a disclosure between fiscal years 2010 through 2014 but were not employed at VA the following fiscal year  Second, to determine whether employees associated with the selected OSC cases were more likely to receive disciplinary action, we also calculated the yearly totals and proportion of roster-matched employees identified above for whom a record existed in the PAID disciplinary action information system  We did this by comparing the proportion of employees who received one or more disciplinary actions in the year prior to the appearance in the roster, in the same fiscal year as the roster, and in the subsequent fiscal year  We also completed this analysis utilizing the PAID roster file to determine the yearly proportion of all VA employees who left the agency  On the basis of the results of our analysis, we reported by fiscal year the percentage of whistle-blowers that received disciplinary action or left VA at a higher rate than the overall VA population following a disclosure  To address all objectives, we interviewed senior officials from VA’s major components responsible for investigating and adjudicating cases of employee misconduct  We also reviewed standard operating procedures, policy statements, and guidance for staff charged with investigating and adjudicating allegations of employee misconduct  We conducted this performance audit from January 2015 to May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  This data file is designed to track referrals made to OAR, including allegations of misconduct related to senior officials  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 11 fields out of 92 that were missing information that could be used to analyze misconduct  Complainant #1 (First Name) (20 percent of 1,245 blank)— According to OAR, this field is populated when there is a known complainant for a matter  Some matters referred to OAR may be anonymously disclosed and not contain complainant information  This file also contains a case-origin field that specifies whether a case was anonymous  Our review of both the complainant and case-origin field indicated that only 11 percent of the complaints were generated from an anonymous source, and the remaining records should have included a complainant name  Disciplinary Action (96 percent of 1,245 blank)—This field should be populated to indicate whether a disciplinary action was taken after the completion of an investigation  Grade (97 percent of 1,245 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated with the grade of the Person of Interest (POI), if known  Our review of this field indicated that 97 percent were blank, therefore we were unable to analyze the variation in grade level for officials who were the subject of complaints  OAR Action (77 percent of 1,245 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated as an internal reference to describe what stage in the administrative process the matter was in when received  The lack of information did not allow for analysis of the types of actions taken for each case  Person of Interest (POI) (47 percent of 1,245 blank)—This field specifies the first and last name of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee who is the subject of an allegation  POI (Person of Interest) Last Name 1–5 (51 to 99 percent of 1,245 blank)—This field specifies the last name of VA employee who is the subject of an allegation  There are a total of five person-of-interest (POI) fields for each matter  According to OAR, blank POI fields occur when the case has fewer than five POIs or the POI was not specified in the matter referred  Our review of the five POI fields indicated that more than half of the records did not contain at least one POI because no individual was specified  The lack of information did not allow for further investigation of senior-level officials involved in misconduct  Proposed Action (97 percent of 1,245 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated to notify OAR staff if any disciplinary action was proposed  Our review of this field indicated that 97 percent were blank, suggesting that very few high-level officials received corrective action, or the field was not consistently completed for each record  Due to the large share of blank values, the data posed limitations when analyzing how many senior officials received corrective action as a result of a complaint  This data file is designed to track misconduct and disciplinary actions taken against VA employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 9 fields out of 21 that were missing information that could be used to analyze misconduct  Action Taken (3 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated with the action that the deciding official takes, with the exception of pending actions  If there is a pending action, this field will remain blank  Our review of the action-taken field found three records that were annotated as a “pending decision” within this field, which indicates that there is an option for entering information into this field when there is an action pending and the field should never be blank  Admin Leave (30 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated if an employee is placed on administrative leave while an adverse action is pending  If an employee is not placed on administrative leave, the field may be left blank  Our review of the admin-leave field found that about 66 percent of the records were annotated as “no” within this field, which indicates that there is an option for entering information into this field when an employee was not placed on administrative leave  Date Proposed (11 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field is used when an adverse action is proposed for an employee  There are some actions that are not proposed, such as probationary terminations or admonishments that may be taken without being proposed, and therefore result in this field being blank  Our analysis found that about 95 percent of these records containing blank proposed date fields also had an entry in the proposed adverse-action field, which contained such entries as removals, suspensions, and demotions that require a proposed date  Deciding Official (14 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated with the name of the official who issued the action taken  Effective Date (5 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated with the date of the action taken  Some entries will not have an effective date if an entry is pending decision  Also, if no action is taken, the decision was counseling, or the proposed action was rescinded, this field may not have an effective date  Our review found that about 14 percent of the cases that included adverse actions, such as a suspension, removal, reassignment, or demotion, and that should have included a date of action, were blank  Offense 2 and 3 (79 and 95 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field tracks the second- and third-most-significant charge against the employee when applicable  Proposing Official (16 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field should be populated with the name of the official who makes the proposed adverse action  Instances where a proposing official has left the agency at the time of entry and could not be found in the lookup feature that relies on the e-mail global address list may produce blank fields  Also, disciplinary actions that were taken without proposal would not have a proposing official  In these instances, the human-resources specialists who enter the actions are instructed to include the name in the other-comments box  Our review of these records indicated that a majority of records lacking an entry in the proposing official field also lacked an annotation in the other- comments field to accurately identify the proposing official  Settlement (14 percent of 9,851 blank)—According to OAR, this field tracks whether a settlement agreement occurred  This data file is designed to collect allegations of criminal activity, waste, abuse, and mismanagement received by the OIG Hotline Division  Through our analysis of this information system, we identified one field out of seven that was missing information that could be used to analyze misconduct  Nature of Complaint (54 percent of 896 blank)—According to the OIG, this field should contain a brief description of the issue that most closely matches the allegation  Each case can have more than one nature of complaint and corresponding administrative action, if any  OIG officials stated that this field identifies the type of allegations being investigated and should never be blank  Our review of these cases found that over half of the cases involving the OIG contained entries for administrative action taken, but the nature-of-complaint fields corresponding to these actions were blank  This data file is designed to track misconduct and disciplinary action taken against VBA employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 3 fields out of 20 that were missing information that could be used to analyze misconduct  Alleged Offense 2 and 3 (92 and 99 percent of 1,375 blank)— According to VBA officials, this field should be populated if an individual is charged with multiple offenses, or has additional offenses in the same reporting period  In most instances, there is typically only one offense at the time of reporting  Sustained (52 percent of 1,375 blank)—According to VBA, this field should be populated if an offense is sustained at the time of reporting  This data file is designed to track all allegations of misconduct and associated disciplinary actions taken against VA employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 8 fields out of 34 that were missing information that could be used to analyze misconduct  Deciding Official (3 percent of 5,571 blank)—According to OAWP, this field should be populated with the name of the official who makes the decision for adverse action  Detail Position (89 percent of 5,571 blank)—According to OAWP, this field should be populated with the position an employee was detailed to if removed from official position  Offense 2 and 3 (69 and 91 percent of 5,571 blank)—According to OAWP, this field tracks the most-significant charges against the employee  If there are fewer than three charges, these fields are left blank  Offense 1 Sustained (14 percent of 5,571 blank)—According to OAWP, this field should be populated if an individual’s first offense has been sustained  Offense 2 and 3 Sustained (73 and 91 percent of 5,571 blank)— According to OAWP, these fields should be populated if an individual’s second and third offenses have been sustained  The majority of cases only involve one offense  Proposing Official (9 percent of 5,571 blank)—According to OAWP, this field should be populated with the name of the official who makes the proposed adverse action  This data file tracks Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) discrimination complaints  Through our analysis of this information system, we identified 1 field out of 66 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Employment—We found that the values for this field were not mutually exclusive, or independent of one another  For example, this field includes two distinct categories of information: employment status, such as full time or part time; and hiring authority, such as Title 5 or Title 38  This method of storing information resulted in undercounting each of the separate values due to the system’s failure to account for expected overlap  For instance, an employee could be both a full-time and Title 5 employee and the field only tracks one or the other  ORM officials stated that this field has since been modified to capture more options to account for the overlap  This data file is designed to track misconduct and disciplinary actions taken against Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 1 field out of 21 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Position—We found the VA-Wide Adverse Employment Action Database contained variations within this field, such as multiple values for the “Cemetery Caretaker” position name  According to OAR, this field is a free-text field, and the office conducts manual searches to review and analyze position titles when needed  Our review found that the different variations in position titles made it difficult to successfully determine the frequency and nature of allegations by position  This is an information system designed to collect allegations of criminal activity, waste, abuse, and mismanagement received by the OIG Hotline Division  Through our analysis of this data file, we identified 1 field out of 7 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Nature of Complaint—Our review of the Master Case Index file found variations of similar values in this field  For example, this field contained 21 different claim types pertaining to similar types of fraud, which made it difficult to assess the frequency and nature of claims entered into the system  OIG officials stated that they do not attempt to account for these variations or assess the frequency of use because they are assigned based on a “best match” to the allegations of the case  This data file is designed to track misconduct and disciplinary action taken against VBA employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 1 field out of 20 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Position—Our review found some duplication and overlapping values among this field  For example, the position title for “service representative” contained 21 similar categories with numerous variations in spelling (i e , Veteran Service Representative vs  Veterans Service Representative, and Rating Veteran Service Representative vs  Rating Veterans Service Representative)  We were unable to verify the number of distinct positions due to the lack of standardization within this field  This data file is a tracking spreadsheet for monitoring misconduct and disciplinary action workload  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 5 fields out of 12 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Action Proposed/Decided/Taken—We were unable to analyze this data field because the action taken was tracked in one single field and updated with the most-recent action, rather than each distinct action being entered in a separate field  Consequently, we were not able to distinguish those cases where corrective action may have been taken, to verify whether the corrective action had been implemented  Current Status—We were unable to analyze this data field because it was not a standardized field  For example, we were unable to determine the total number of cases that were closed, open, or pending due to the variations in the data field (e g , Open, open, open – pending, open-pending)  Full Name of Employee, Grievant, Appellant, Complainant, Non- Employee—We were unable to distinguish whether the individual filing a complaint was an employee, grievant, appellant, complainant, or nonemployee because the information entered into this single field only provided the employee’s full name and did not provide a distinction as to which category the record was assigned, as indicated by the field name  NCA Facility—We were unable to analyze this data field because it was not a standardized field  For example, we were unable to run demographic information on the different facilities involved because this field contained erroneous information  Examples of erroneous information included the name of the Memorial Service Network in one case, and the region, rather than the facility name, in another  Supervisor Name—We were unable to analyze this data field because it was not a standardized field  For example, we were unable to determine the total number of supervisors that were associated with each case due to the variations in the names entered within this field, which included misspelled first or last names, addition/omission of middle initials, or no first name  This data file is a tracking spreadsheet for all allegations received by the VA Secretary regarding misconduct, patient care, or other wrongdoing  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 1 field out of 9 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Subject—Our review of this tracking spreadsheet found over 380 different possible categories that could be assigned to one record  These categories contained a significant number of variations  For example, we found 38 different categories that contained possible EEO-related issues such as “EEO/Whistleblower,” “Potential EEO,” and “EEO Violations ” We were unable to distinguish the different subject categories for this field due to the lack of standardization  CSRT officials stated that ExecVA reports contain only data corresponding to specific search criteria  This is an information system for tracking allegations of misconduct at all VA facilities that include violation of law and misdemeanors  Through our analysis of this data file, we identified 3 fields out of 29 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Classification—We found that this field contained at least three different variations of assault categories (i e , assault, assault-other, and assault-aggravated)  VAPS officials stated that this field is determined and entered by the user  Crime Type—We found this field contained at least five different variations of alcohol-consumption categories, such as “entering premises under the influence” and “alcohol – under the influence ” VAPS officials stated that this field is determined and entered by the user  Final Disposition—We found this field contained at least two different variations of charge type (i e , charged, charged – Issued Ticket), six different variations of open type (for example, open/referred to Court, open/cvb), and two different variations of closed type (i e , closed, case closed)  VAPS officials stated that this field is determined and entered by the user  This data file is designed to track all allegations of misconduct and associated disciplinary actions taken against VA employees  Through our analysis of this spreadsheet, we identified 1 field out of 34 that did not have standardization that could be useful to analyze misconduct  Position Title—We found this field contained at least 15 different variations of Registered Nurse, such as “Registered Nurse,” “Staff RN,” and “RN ” Allegations surrounding inadequate staffing, patient care, and safety at a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) emergency room were investigated by the medical center director of the facility  The medical center director found that the inadequate patient care and safety issue was unsubstantiated based on a review of patient safety incidents for the last 6 months  The medical center director did not provide a copy of her report review to support this conclusion  She also indicated that an external consultant was hired to assess staffing issues, and found generally that improvements could be made for staffing to address surge capacity  The director stated the medical center was in the process of implementing the recommendations made by the consultant, but her response did not discuss the specific improvements planned or include the external consultant’s report  A fact-finding was performed by a panel comprised of VA Connecticut Healthcare System officials in response to alleged violations of law, gross mismanagement, and waste of funds that included the improper billing of services for a Las Vegas conference and paying contracts through a VA nonprofit corporation to handle such expenditures  The allegations specifically requested a cost-benefit analysis for the conference location  The response received from the program office stated that an outside accounting firm performs an annual financial audit of the VA nonprofit corporation and found no material issues  Neither a copy of the annual financial audit nor a cost-benefit analysis was provided in the response as support  Additionally, the response did not address allegations regarding the status of several essential positions vacated over the prior 3 years  Allegations involved time-and-attendance abuse by a physician who was accused of not responding to calls from peers or coming into the clinic, in favor of his private practice  According to the complainant, physician assistants (PA) examine the physician’s patients at the clinic for him  The medical center director, who was also named in the allegation as having received a similar complaint against the physician 2 years earlier, reviewed the case against the physician and himself  The medical center director’s response claimed that the location indicated in the allegation was not a private practice, but rather a location where the physician reviews medical records and sometimes serves as an expert witness  He did not provide evidence to support his claim  The medical center director also stated that he had not received any reports against the physician for missed calls or clinics and that PAs are expected to participate in these activities  However, he did not provide the physician’s work log, or the PA position descriptions showing that they are allowed to perform these functions autonomously  Finally, the medical center director claimed he did not recall the allegation made against the physician 2 years prior and neither formally substantiated nor disproved the current allegations against the physician  No recommendations were made  The medical center director was accused of hiring an unqualified individual to a Quality Manager position due to their romantic relationship  The response received from the human-resources consultant noted that it was unusual to find a Nurse II manager with only an associate’s degree, but was not illegal, and the employee was qualified based on prior experience  Concerns were also raised concerning the medical center director’s use of over $400 in government funds to “soundproof” the Quality Manager’s office, including having panels attached to one wall and the hollow office door replaced with a solid door  The Chief of Engineering Services was interviewed regarding the request and stated it was an odd request, and the first time he was asked to soundproof an administrative employee’s office  The response provided by the program office did not address why the director used government funds to soundproof the Quality Manager’s office  The response provided also did not address whether recommendations that the Quality Manager’s retention allowance be reviewed for compliance and that she be counseled for appropriate office dress code were implemented  The medical center director was alleged to have misrepresented a plan to track and provide mental-health services to veterans in non-VA hospitals and created a hostile work environment against African-American veterans and employees  The medical center director investigated the allegations against himself and provided a response that was eventually submitted late to the OIG  His response indicated that a review was completed and all allegations were unsubstantiated  Several documents provided with his response showed that only 12 contacts were made to veterans with mental-health care needs during the requested 24-month period, the percentage of patients experiencing wait times greater than 14 days before receiving mental-health services averaged 18 percent, and two veteran suicides occurred  The medical center director did not address allegations of creating a hostile work environment for African American veterans and employees  The medical center director improperly reannounced a vacancy in order to hire an individual with whom he allegedly had a close personal relationship to an Assistant Director position  He also requested the master key to the facility be issued to her against regulations  The allegation involving the master key was substantiated, but the Deputy Under Secretary who conducted the investigation stated that while there was no record of the key being returned, the key was returned and the general engineer brought the facility into compliance with VA regulations  Nonetheless, the Deputy Under Secretary found that a master key was issued in violation of policy, but no recommendations were made to the medical center director for corrective action  Allegations involved false patient wait-time documentation and abuse of authority  Specifically, a medical center director instructed staff to falsify patient wait times between follow-up appointments in order to meet VA’s 14-day timeliness metric  The investigation concluded that the false documentation allegation was substantiated, but attributed the cause to staff not understanding how to enter a follow-up appointment date into the system  It was also concluded that the correction of several hundred dates in the system improved the performance of the department for the national wait-time metric  However, no documentation was provided to (1) prove the medical center director had not abused his authority by instructing staff to review wait times greater than 14 days to determine how they could be reduced, and (2) support the conclusion that the original wait times were entered in error  In addition to the contact above, Dave Bruno (Assistant Director), Erica Varner (Analyst in Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Chris Cronin, Carrie Davidson, Ranya Elias, Colin Fallon, Mitch Karpman, Grant Mallie, Anna Maria Ortiz, Sabrina Streagle, Reed Van Beveren, and April Van Cleef made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: Banks play a critical role in the United States economy, channeling money from savers to borrowers and facilitating productive investment. While the nature of lawmakers' interest in bank regulation has shifted over time, most bank regulations fall into one of three general categories. First, banks must abide by a variety of safety-and-soundness requirements designed to minimize the risk of their failure and maintain macroeconomic stability. Second, banks must comply with consumer protection rules intended to deter abusive practices and provide consumers with complete information about financial products and services. Third, banks are subject to various reporting, recordkeeping, and anti-money laundering requirements designed to assist law enforcement in investigating criminal activity. The substantive content of these requirements remains the subject of intense debate. However, the division of regulatory authority over banks between the federal government and the states plays a key role in shaping that content. In some cases, federal law displaces (or "preempts") state bank regulations. In other cases, states are permitted to supplement federal regulations with different, sometimes stricter requirements. Because of its substantive implications, federal preemption has recently become a flashpoint in debates surrounding bank regulation. In the American "dual banking system," banks can apply for a national charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or a state charter from a state's banking authority. A bank's choice of chartering authority is also a choice of primary regulator, as the OCC serves as the primary regulator of national banks and state regulatory agencies serve as the primary regulators of state-chartered banks. However, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) also play an important role in bank regulation. The Federal Reserve supervises all national banks and state-chartered banks that become members of the Federal Reserve System (FRS), while the FDIC supervises all state banks that do not become members of the FRS. This complex regulatory architecture has resulted in a "symbiotic system" with both federal regulation of state banks and state regulation of national banks. In the modern dual banking system, national banks are often subject to generally applicable state laws, and state banks are subject to both generally applicable federal laws and regulations imposed by their federal regulators. The evolution of this system during the 20th century caused the regulation of national banks and state banks to converge in a number of important ways. However, despite this convergence, federal preemption provides national banks with certain unique advantages. In Barnett Bank of Marion County, N.A. v. Nelson, the Supreme Court held that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts state laws that "significantly interfere" with the powers of national banks. The Court has also issued two decisions on the preemptive scope of a provision of the NBA limiting states' "visitorial powers" over national banks. Finally, OCC rules have taken a broad view of the preemptive effects of the NBA, limiting the ways in which states can regulate national banks. Courts, regulators, and legislators have recently confronted a number of issues involving banking preemption and related federalism questions. Specifically, Congress has considered legislation that would overturn a line of judicial decisions concerning the circumstances in which non-banks can benefit from federal preemption of state usury laws. The OCC has also announced its intention to grant national bank charters to certain financial technology (FinTech) companies—a decision that is currently being litigated. Finally, Congress has recently turned its attention to the banking industry's response to state efforts to legalize and regulate marijuana.