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



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

Report 1: The U S  government engages with the governments of other countries in the Western Hemisphere through various inter-American organizations including the OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH  According to State, the OAS is the primary inter-American political forum through which the United States engages with other countries in the Western Hemisphere to promote democracy, human rights, security, and development  PAHO serves as the Regional Office for the Americas of the World Health Organization, the United Nations agency on health  IICA supports agricultural development and rural well-being through technical cooperation and the execution of agricultural projects throughout the hemisphere  PAIGH specializes in regional cartography, geography, history, and geophysics and has facilitated the settlement of regional border disputes  According to U S  agency officials, the organizations’ regional knowledge and technical expertise make them effective implementing partners for projects serving U S  national interests and priorities throughout the hemisphere  Member states collectively finance these organizations by providing assessed and voluntary contributions (see table 1)  For each organization, its member states’ assessed contributions are intended to finance the organization’s regular budgets, which generally cover the organization’s day-to-day operating expenses, such as facilities and salaries  Member states also finance certain OAS, PAHO, and IICA activities and projects through voluntary contributions  According to U S  officials, the United States provides voluntary contributions to the OAS, PAHO, and IICA primarily through assistance agreements for specific projects from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) provides the framework for international organizations to oversee funds such as the assessed contributions provided by member states to OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH  The institute’s authoritative guidance, International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, includes mandatory performance standards that describe the nature of internal audit activities and provide criteria for evaluating these activities  Organizations are required to subscribe to these IIA standards, according to PAIGH officials and OAS, PAHO, and IICA documents  Assistance agreements are a critical tool the U S  government uses to achieve important national objectives  As we have previously reported, effective oversight and internal control are important to provide reasonable assurance to federal managers and taxpayers that assistance agreements are awarded properly, recipients are eligible, and federal funds are used as intended and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations  State, USAID, HHS, and USDA oversee funds provided to OAS, PAHO, and IICA through assistance agreements using monitoring activities such as financial and performance reports  Within each of these agencies, various bureaus and offices are responsible for awarding and managing assistance agreements to these inter-American organizations, including State’s Office of Weapons Removal and Abatement in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, USAID’s Office of U S  Foreign Disaster Assistance, HHS’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its Food and Drug Administration, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  The documentation of these monitoring activities as called for by federal standards for internal control enables the agencies to determine the effectiveness of the agreement activity  We found that the strategic goals of the four inter-American organizations are predominantly aligned with the high-level strategic goals for the Western Hemisphere documented by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  According to officials, the agencies all consider U S  strategic goals when deciding which projects to fund at OAS, PAHO, and IICA  State, USAID, HHS, and USDA have goals for foreign assistance to the Western Hemisphere, as shown in table 2  For example, four of the five goals in State and USAID’s Joint Strategy correspond with goals at the OAS, IICA, and PAIGH  U S  agencies, on an ongoing basis, evaluate each inter- American organization to ensure U S  and organization goals are aligned  Officials from all four agencies provided examples of how they help to ensure alignment of U S  strategic goals when funding projects at OAS, PAHO, and IICA  State: According to State officials, State created an Annual Performance and Budget Review process in 2014 specifically to review entities, such as the OAS, that receive voluntary contributions funded through the International Organization and Programs account  This process examines performance of State-funded activities relative to those activities from the previous year and the extent to which the activities advance U S  priorities and objectives  State officials further noted that the Annual Performance and Budget Review helps inform State’s decision-making on what to include in the following year’s budget request  For example, during the 2016 review for the OAS Development Assistance Program, State reported the program’s significant activities, funds expended, and achievements such as training government officials on successful small business policies in the United States  USAID: According to USAID officials, USAID’s project design and approval policies and procedures ensure that all USAID-funded activities are linked to applicable U S  and USAID strategies  USAID’s agency guidance requires, at a minimum, that each project or activity must be formally approved in writing by the relevant Mission Director or Principal Officer for a given program  Officials stated that this approval memo and supporting documentation address a number of planning considerations, including how the proposed activity aligns with broader strategies  Furthermore, officials stated that USAID’s lawyers review project approval documentation prior to final approval and verify that the activity complies with all applicable statutes, regulations, and policies  HHS: According to HHS officials, HHS engages with PAHO on its Biennial Work Plans, which are operational planning instruments that PAHO uses to identify activities that it can implement within each of its member states  HHS officials noted that they use PAHO’s Biennial Work Plan to strengthen U S  approaches on issues of common concern and to advance U S  priorities within the region  According to HHS officials, proposals for technical cooperation projects are required to correspond to one of the technical priorities in PAHO’s strategic plan for 2014–2019 and to be aligned with the HHS global strategy and U S  priorities  USDA: USDA officials said that they compare the U S  strategic goals with IICA’s goals and objectives when they formulate project proposals with IICA to ensure that the projects are aligned with U S  priorities for the region  Additionally, USDA officials told us that USDA helped shape and influence IICA’s recent 10-year strategic plan, ensuring that IICA’s strategic objectives were closely aligned with U S  strategic goals  OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of assessed and voluntary contributions, such as external auditors and internal audit boards as required by IIA standards  State and USDA have directly supported these oversight mechanisms  OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have oversight mechanisms, as shown in table 3  The four organizations follow the internal control standards of the IIA, codified in the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, according to PAIGH officials and OAS, PAHO, and IICA documents  All four organizations have internal and external auditors, as required by these standards  Furthermore, OAS, PAHO, and IICA have additional oversight mechanisms, such as anti-fraud policies and program evaluation processes  The officials we interviewed from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA expressed confidence in the four organizations’ management of their assessed and voluntary contributions  All four organizations document the status of their financial and internal control activities in audit reports posted on their public websites  For example, the OAS Office of the Inspector General’s April 2017 Annual Report included an update on its five ongoing audits and investigations  The report also outlined progress made against prior recommendations  U S  agency officials support budget and administrative subcommittees in three of the four organizations and promote the participation of U S  experts on independent audit committees, as shown in table 4  For example, according to officials, State plays a significant role in promoting policies on oversight and accountability at the four organizations through formal engagement in deliberations and decision-making of each organization’s governing body and through informal engagement with other member states and the secretariat by recommending best practices in governance, management, and oversight  State and USDA are also directly involved in implementing some of the additional oversight mechanisms at the organizations  For example, a USDA official serves as a member of IICA’s Audit Review Committee  Additionally, an IICA official told us the United States was involved in defining IICA’s Convention and Rules of Procedure for its governing bodies, which established the requirement for internal and external auditing  According to State officials, the United States led efforts to strengthen oversight at several of the organizations under review in recent years, such as advocating for the creation of an ethics officer position at PAHO, proposing language to strengthen the authority and independence of the OAS’s Office of the Inspector General, and encouraging the creation of audit committees at both organizations  In addition, State has played a lead role in supporting the ongoing reform of the OAS administration, which includes improved oversight and accountability, according to officials from the OAS and the U S  Mission to the OAS  We reviewed 12 selected assistance agreements that the four U S  agencies awarded to OAS, PAHO, and IICA that were active during calendar years 2014 through 2016, and found that two agencies did not consistently include all key monitoring provisions in their agreements  While HHS and USAID implemented applicable guidance by including all key monitoring provisions in their agreements, USDA and State did not do so  USDA and State agency officials did not explain why USDA and State did not include these monitoring provisions in their agreements  However, State has since taken corrective action to ensure that they are included in future agreements, according to State officials  Applicable agency guidance calls for agencies to conduct monitoring activities as part of their oversight of their agreements  Each of the four agencies has established agency-specific guidance that outlines the monitoring activities for assistance agreements  In some cases, the agency-specific guidance may mandate additional monitoring activities beyond those called for in applicable federal regulations, such as risk assessments  For example, State’s guidance calls for the creation of a monitoring plan  Federal standards for internal control require that agencies include in agreements all key provisions delineating the parties’ responsibilities  For the 12 agreements we reviewed, the number of total key monitoring provisions per agreement varied—including within one agency—depending on when the agency issued and updated its guidance relative to when the agreements were approved  Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to document internal controls, transactions, and significant events  Specifically, internal control standards state that agency management should include internal control activities (e g , monitoring activities) in policies or directives for transactions such as assistance agreements  For the 12 assistance agreements we reviewed, USDA and State did not include provisions implementing 6 of the 55 total (11 percent) applicable monitoring activities required by applicable guidance to carry out required monitoring activities (see table 5)  State took corrective action in 2015 by issuing a standard operating procedure  USDA: USDA did not include 4 of the 13 key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three USDA agreements we reviewed (see table 6)  Two of the agreements and supporting documentation each included all four key applicable monitoring provisions  However, Agreement 2 in the table did not include 4 of the 5 monitoring provisions in the agreement or work plan, which documents the monitoring provisions  The agreement partially included performance goals, because it included objectives for the agreement’s activities, but did not include time frames to complete all of the activities  The USDA grant official did not explain why the work plan did not adhere to applicable federal regulations when it was drafted and approved  State: State did not include 2 of the 21 key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three State agreements we reviewed (see table 7)  Two of the agreements and supporting documentation we reviewed included the 7 monitoring provisions implementing the requirements in the applicable agency guidance  However, one agreement awarded in 2012 did not include 2 of the provisions: a risk assessment and a monitoring plan  That office that awarded this agreement took corrective action in 2015 by issuing a standard operating procedure requiring that risk assessments and monitoring plans accompany its grants and cooperative agreements  USAID: USAID included both key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three USAID agreements we reviewed (see table 8)  USAID’s Automated Directives System 308, Standard Provisions for Cost-Type Awards to Public International Organizations contains two key monitoring provisions for agreements  USAID incorporated the monitoring provisions nearly verbatim into the agreements we reviewed, using templates from this guidance for required terms and conditions  HHS: HHS included the 15 monitoring provisions implementing the applicable guidance for the three HHS agreements we reviewed (see table 9)  None of the agencies provided us with full documentation to demonstrate their adherence to the required monitoring activities called for in all of their agreements that we reviewed, including the previously mentioned key monitoring provisions that we reviewed  State and HHS have taken corrective actions to address the gaps we found in documentation for the agreements we reviewed  Agency officials told us that they use these monitoring documents, such as financial and progress reports, to inform future budgetary and programmatic decisions  Therefore, they may lack information needed to make such decisions if they do not have access to complete monitoring documentation  According to federal standards for internal control, each agency is to include key monitoring provisions as part of its agreements  In the individual assistance agreements, the agencies specify the requirements to fulfill these activities, such as requiring financial reports on a quarterly basis or including specific information in performance reports  Grants officers at times, if they deem it necessary or appropriate, include additional monitoring provisions requiring activities beyond those required by the applicable guidance, such as site visits  Federal standards for internal control call for agency management to design monitoring activities, such as financial and performance reporting, so that all transactions are completely and accurately recorded  Recording these activities maintains their relevance and value to management in controlling operations and making decisions  Without access to complete monitoring documentation, the agencies risk weakening the effectiveness of these controls  None of the four U S  agencies had full documentation of all of the monitoring activities required by their agreements we reviewed (see table 10)  The agencies did not have full documentation of monitoring activities for 9 of the 12 agreements we reviewed  For the 42 monitoring activities identified across all of the individual agreements, the four agencies did not have full documentation of 18 of the activities (43 percent)  However, State took corrective action in May 2017 to address its gaps in documentation, and according to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration addressed its gap in documentation by implementing its agreement monitoring program in fiscal year 2018  USDA did not have full documentation of any of the 10 monitoring activities we identified (see table 11)  USDA demonstrated that it had partially documented 2 of the 10 monitoring activities (20 percent) by providing us with some, but not all, quarterly performance reports  For one of the agreements, USDA had no documentation of the monitoring activities for that agreement  For its other two agreements, USDA did not have full documentation of the required monitoring activities  USDA officials did not explain why they did not have full documentation  Without full documentation of the required monitoring activities, USDA may not have the information it needs to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions  USAID did not have full documentation of 2 of the 11 total monitoring activities (18 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 12)  USAID had partial documentation of those 2 monitoring activities  For example, USAID provided us with some, but not all, records such as financial reports required by the terms of the monitoring activities in the agreements  According to USAID officials, the agencies’ lack of complete monitoring documentation was in part due to agency officials not following some of their agency’s requirements for managing agreement documents, such as placing all documents in a shared document management system  For example, for one of the agreements we reviewed, USAID officials stated that they stored some agreement documentation electronically—such as modifications, correspondence with the agreement recipient, and quarterly financial reports—but primarily maintained paper files  USAID officials told us they use the monitoring documents of these agreements, such as financial and progress reports, to inform future budgetary and programmatic decisions  For example, according to USAID officials, USAID uses monitoring documents to identify and address potential project delays or other “red flags ” For one of the agreements we reviewed, USAID officials stated these monitoring reports also assist them in determining whether to award additional funds and establish new indicators in subsequent agreements  Without full documentation of the required monitoring activities, USAID may not have the information it needs to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions  State did not have full documentation for 5 of the 16 monitoring activities (31 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 13)  However, State had partial documentation of 4 of those 5 monitoring activities  For example, State had some, but not all, records such as standard reporting metrics, required by the terms of the monitoring activities in one of the agreements  State did not have documentation of one of the monitoring activities (site visits)  According to State officials, the agency’s lack of complete monitoring documentation was in part due to agency officials not following some of the agency’s requirements for managing agreement documents, such as placing all documents in a shared document management system  For example, according to State officials, for one of the agreements we reviewed, the grants officer mistakenly had saved site visit reports and similar documents to personal folders because the officer did not know how to use State’s grant document storage system  As a result, neither the current grants officer nor other State officials could retrieve these documents  In May 2017, after awarding the agreements we reviewed, State took corrective action by issuing the Federal Assistance Directive to establish internal guidance, policies, and procedures for all domestic and overseas grant-making bureaus, offices, and posts within the department when administering federal financial assistance  The directive notes that State implemented a grant management system for domestic and overseas grants to resolve its “significant deficiency in the management of Federal financial assistance ” In addition, the directive indicates that officials from State’s Bureau of Administration, Office of the Procurement Executive, Federal Assistance Division will evaluate compliance with risk assessment requirements and review documentation for selected agreements each fiscal year  One of the stated purposes of these reviews is to mitigate risk by strengthening management and oversight of awards, including grants  According to a State Office of Inspector General report, State should complete the full deployment of this system for overseas grants in fiscal year 2019  HHS did not have full documentation of 1 of the 5 applicable monitoring activities (20 percent) we identified across the three agreements we reviewed (see table 14)  HHS had partial documentation of the semiannual progress report activity for one of its agreements, required by the terms of its agreement  HHS officials did not explain why they did not have full documentation for this monitoring activity  HHS had full documentation of all applicable monitoring activities for the other two agreements we reviewed  According to agency officials, the Food and Drug Administration, which administered one of the HHS agreements we reviewed, has taken corrective action to evaluate its agreement documentation and address deficiencies  According to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration developed a pilot program intended to provide an additional layer of oversight to ensure adherence to the terms of each agreement  Under the pilot, officials said, a grant monitoring specialist reviews the agreement documentation and monitoring reports to identify agreements that need additional assistance  According to HHS officials, the Food and Drug Administration implemented this program in fiscal year 2018 and will eventually include all Food and Drug Administration agreements  U S  assistance agreements for projects with inter-American organizations further U S  strategic goals in the Western Hemisphere, but State, HHS, USAID, and USDA did not consistently include all key monitoring provisions as part of their assistance agreements or demonstrate that they had full documentation of monitoring activities for the agreements we reviewed  Of these four agencies, USAID and USDA have not taken corrective actions  Monitoring the implementation of U S  assistance agreements and fully documenting the results of such monitoring are key management controls to help ensure that U S  agreement recipients use federal funds appropriately and effectively  The agencies risk weakening the effectiveness of these controls by not including all key monitoring provisions called for by applicable agency guidance  Further, if the agencies do not have full documentation of the agreements’ required monitoring activities, they may not be able to effectively manage federally funded projects that support U S  strategic goals  In addition, agencies may not have all the information they need to make budgetary and programmatic decisions  We are making a total of three recommendations: one to USAID and two to USDA  The USAID Administrator should ensure that USAID officials have full documentation of required monitoring activities in agreements with inter- American organizations  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA includes all key monitoring provisions specified by applicable guidance as part of agreements with inter-American organizations  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Agriculture should ensure that USDA officials have full documentation of required monitoring activities in agreements with inter- American organizations  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report for comment to State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  USDA concurred with our recommendations in an e-mail  In its written comments, reproduced in appendix IV, USAID stated that it has policies, procedures, and training in place for the officials who manage these agreements  In response to our recommendations, USAID stated that it will issue an agency notice to remind all such officials of these responsibilities, including the requirement to maintain complete files for each agreement  State and HHS did not provide formal comments  They did provide technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of State, the Administrator of the U S  Agency for International Development, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Agriculture  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9601, or melitot@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V  Congressional requesters asked us to review several issues related to the Organization of American States (OAS), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH)  In this report, we (1) assess the extent to which the organizations’ strategic goals align with those of U S  agencies; (2) examine how the organizations oversee the use of their funds and the extent to which U S  agencies have supported those efforts; (3) assess the extent to which U S  agencies included key monitoring provisions as part of their assistance agreements; and (4) assess the extent to which U S  agencies had documentation of monitoring activities, including those called for by these provisions  To address the first objective, we gathered documentation and interviewed officials from the four U S  agencies and the four organizations to determine the U S  strategic goals for foreign assistance to the Western Hemisphere and the goals of the four organizations  According to Department of State (State) and U S  Agency for International Development (USAID) officials, the strategic document that underpins their foreign assistance priorities for the region is The Department of State’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs’ and USAID’s Bureau for Latin American and Caribbean Affairs’ Joint Regional Strategy  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officials said that HHS’s relevant strategic document is The Global Strategy of the U S  Department of Health and Human Services  U S  Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) strategic goals for foreign assistance, according to officials, are outlined in the United States Department of Agriculture Strategic Plan FY2015–2018  The OAS outlined its strategic goals in the Comprehensive Strategic Plan of the Organization, adopted on October 31, 2016  PAHO’s goals are laid out in Strategic Plan of the Pan American Health Organization 2014–2019  IICA’s strategic document is the IICA 2010–2020 Strategic Plan, which took effect in October 2010  PAIGH’s strategic document is the Declaration and Guide for the Pan American Agenda 2010-2020  We compared the strategic goals articulated by the four organizations against U S  strategic goals to assess the extent to which the organizations’ goals contribute to U S  interests in the region  We then interviewed officials from the four agencies and reviewed relevant documentation on efforts they undertake to ensure that U S -funded activities align with U S  strategic goals  To address the second objective, we reviewed documentation of the organizations’ internal control mechanisms and confirmed our findings with the organizations  We identified mechanisms to include policies, directives, rules, practices, and organizational structures that can have an oversight role in the use of the organizations’ funds  We also interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to discuss their support of these mechanisms  To address the third objective, we identified 60 active assistance agreements that these agencies oversaw with OAS, PAHO, and IICA during calendar years 2014 through 2016 and selected a nongeneralizable sample of 12 agreements, three each from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA  To determine which agreements we would review for each agency, we selected the three agreements with the lowest, median, and highest dollar value  If any of an agency’s agreements supported the same country or activity or were for one-time projects such as seminars, we selected the next appropriate agreement based on dollar value  For these selected agreements, we then identified the applicable agency guidance for monitoring activities in the agreements, which we define as all documents related to each agreement provided to us by the agencies, such as monitoring reports  The number of key monitoring provisions varied—even within each agency—depending on when agency guidance was issued and updated relative to when the agreements were approved  USDA did not have applicable internal agency-specific guidance for monitoring of assistance agreements at the time it awarded the agreements we reviewed; thus, with USDA’s input, we used the applicable sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, which together have five key monitoring provisions for agreements  However, USDA approved two of the agreements in 2012 and the third agreement in 2016, and this third agreement was subject to an amended version of the Code of Federal Regulations, which added an additional provision for performance goals  State’s four applicable grants policy directives have seven key monitoring provisions for agreements that were applicable at the time the agreements we reviewed were approved  USAID’s Standard Provisions for Cost-Type Awards to Public International Organizations (PIOs): A Mandatory Reference to ADS Chapter 308 has two key monitoring provisions for agreements: audits and records, and the organization’s adherence to their rules  HHS’s grants policy has five key monitoring provisions for grant documentation  We identified key monitoring provisions for agencies to include as part of agreements to ensure oversight of the use of funds, such as financial and progress reports  For the 12 agreements in our sample, we analyzed the assistance agreements from the four agencies, and then determined the extent to which the agencies’ agreements included key monitoring provisions implementing monitoring activities called for by applicable agency guidance  We did not include subsequent amendments to these 12 agreements in our review of key monitoring provisions  We interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA (1) to confirm we were applying the appropriate federal or agency guidance and (2) to discuss instances in which the agreements did not include key monitoring provisions  To address the fourth objective, we reviewed the 12 selected assistance agreements and guidance to identify specific required monitoring activities, such as financial and program reports, site visits, and other forms of oversight  The agreements specify the requirements for these activities such as requiring financial reports on a quarterly basis  For these 12 agreements, we reviewed all the documentation provided to us by the agencies, then determined the extent to which the agencies had full documentation of key monitoring activities as specified in the assistance agreements, including those called for by key monitoring provisions, as well as those called for by guidance when the monitoring provisions were absent  We did not include subsequent amendments to these 12 agreements in our review of monitoring activities  We interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to discuss instances in which the agency did not have full documentation of key monitoring activities  We also discussed how State, USAID, and HHS agency officials manage their agreement documentation and use the information in the agreements’ required monitoring documentation  We conducted this performance audit from July 2016 to December 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The Organization of American States (OAS), Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute on Geography and History (PAIGH) have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of funds  Tables 15–18 show the mechanisms (oversight policies and oversight committees and organizations) for each of these inter-American organizations, as confirmed by the organizations’ officials  To oversee the execution of their agreements, the Department of State (State), the U S  Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and U S  Department of Agriculture (USDA) are to conduct monitoring activities called for by applicable federal regulations or agency guidance and document these provisions in assistance agreements as called for by federal standards for internal control  We identified key monitoring provisions implementing the applicable agency guidance for State, USAID, HHS, and the applicable regulations for USDA, as shown in table 19  For both the agency guidance and the federal regulations, those listed are the ones that were in effect when the agreements in our sample were approved  Some of the agency guidance and regulations have since been amended or superseded  In addition to the contact named above, Pierre Toureille (Assistant Director), Julia Jebo Grant (Analyst-in-Charge), Leslie Stubbs, and Paul Sturm, Alana Miller, and Shirley Min made key contributions to this report  In addition, David Dayton, Martin de Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Jeff Isaacs, and Alex Welsh provided technical assistance 


Report 2: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, more than a quarter of the land in the United States  These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), where t he federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area  Four federal agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U S  Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands  No single law provides authority for these four agencies to acquire and/or disposal of lands  Rather, Congress provided various acquisition and disposal authorities through laws enacted over more than a century  This report describes the primary authorities of the four agencies  The extent to which each of the agencies has authority to acquire and dispose of land, and the nature of the authorities, varies considerably  Some of the agencies have relatively broad authority to acquire and/or dispose of land  Most notably, the BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals  By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands  The extent of the acquisition and disposal authorities for the FS and the FWS are not nearly as broad as the BLM's but not nearly as restrictive as the NPS's  The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest  The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used  The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands  The acquisition authorities differ as to the circumstances in which they apply, and the disposal authorities likewise differ as to their purposes  Thus, where a specific acquisition or disposal by an agency is contemplated, the particular authority at issue should be consulted  In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow federal agencies to acquire lands that could be viewed as benefitting from federal management  Among other circumstances, acquisition might be authorized to bring inholdings or lands adjacent to federal lands into federal ownership to improve or simplify management of federal lands  Acquisitions also might be authorized to conserve species, protect natural and cultural resources, and increase opportunities for recreation  The disposal authorities generally are designed to allow federal agencies to dispose of land that is no longer required for a federal purpose, might be inefficient to manage, or might be chiefly valuable for another purpose  For instance, disposal might be authorized to allow lands to be used for agriculture, community development, mineral extraction, or educational purposes  Agencies also acquire and dispose of federal land in exchanges  Exchanges are not discussed separately in this report, as often the authorities to acquire and dispose of lands also apply to land exchange  However, there are provisions of law particularly applicable to exchanges  The exchange authorities for the NPS and the FWS are relatively narrow  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U S C  §§1701-1781) provides broader exchange authority and is the main authority governing exchanges by the BLM and the FS  Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; the extent of federal land ownership overall; and the sources and levels of land acquisition funds, among other issues  The suitability of the acquisition and disposal authorities, and the extent and circumstances of their use by the agencies, forms the backdrop for congressional consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate the use of authorities  With regard to the establishment of new authorities, for instance, some 115 th Congress proposals would authorize states to exchange land grant parcels for federal lands  Other measures would authorize the BLM and FS to convey small tracts to adjacent landowners and to govern the use of proceeds from these conveyances  Proposals to modify authorities include measures in the 115 th Congress to reauthorize and amend BLM authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U S C  §§2301 et seq ), as well as bills to amend the Small Tracts Act (16 U S C  §521e) regarding the type and value of FS lands that can be disposed of and the use of related proceeds  Among the provisions to eliminate the use of authorities are those to prevent the disposal of federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, which have been contained in annual Interior appropriations laws since FY1995  In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation authorizing and governing the acquisition or disposal of specific parcels  For example, Title XXX of P L  113-291 contained various provisions to authorize the acquisition and/or disposal of land  Congress may consider such legislation to provide an agency with acquisition or disposal authority in a particular instance because it is lacking  In other cases, Congress directs a particular acquisition or disposal to facilitate the action  For instance, the legislation may seek to direct an acquisition based on Congress's assessment of public needs and priorities  It may expedite the process for acquiring a parcel of land, such as by limiting the assessments and evaluations that ordinarily would be required under law  The legislation also might authorize actions not ordinarily permitted, such as the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost rather than at fair market value  Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally  The extent to which the federal government should own land remains controversial  Many westerners contend that there is excessive federal influence over their lives and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands  Many others support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection  Recent Congresses considered diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership  Among others, 115 th Congress measures would authorize or direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to offer to sell a certain percentage of land in each of several fiscal years  Other bills provide that where a land management agency acquires land, an equal number of acres is to be offered for sale  Another set of issues pertains to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition  The principal financing mechanism for federal land acquisition is discretionary appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)  Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF Act; 54 U S C  §§200301 et seq ) had provided for $900 million in specified revenues to be deposited in the LWCF annually  These provisions expired September 30, 2018  Each year, Congress determines the level of appropriations from the LWCF for federal land acquisition  Total appropriations for land acquisition and the amount provided to each of the federal land management agencies have varied substantially since the program's origin in 1965  In the 115 th Congress, some measures propose permanent reauthorization of the LWCF and/or mandatory appropriations at the authorized level  Advocates of such bills typically seek stable, predictable funding to promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive resources  Other measures would direct a portion of funding to particular purposes, such as acquisitions in areas with restricted access for fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation  Still other proposals would allow LWCF to be used for a broader array of purposes, including nonacquisition purposes, due to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership and the availability of funding for other federal activities  Additional sources of funding are available for some agencies or under certain authorities  For instance, the FWS has a mandatory source of funds for land acquisition through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as discussed below  As another example, the BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the agency to keep the proceeds of land sales and use these proceeds for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes  These authorities are discussed below  The application of mandatory spending authorities, including the uses of the proceeds, has been the subject of congressional debate  As noted above, various laws authorizing and governing specific land acquisitions have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for acquiring lands  In general, all four agencies are authorized to accept land as gifts and bequests  In addition, each generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner  However, this practice is controversial, and it is rarely used by the land management agencies  The primary land acquisition authorities are described below for each of the four federal land management agencies  In general, the agencies are presented in the order of the breadth of their authorities, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have standing authority to acquire lands for new or existing units of the National Park System, except in limited circumstances  Rather, most units have been created by Congress, and the law creating a park unit typically includes specific authority for the NPS to acquire nonfederal inholdings within the identified boundaries of that park  The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make certain boundary adjustments of park units for "proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management" and to acquire the nonfederal lands within the adjusted boundary, under specified provisions and conditions (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Some of these conditions have been interpreted to apply particularly to boundary adjustments requiring land purchases, as opposed to those in which added lands are acquired by donation, transfer, or exchange  The President has authority to create national monuments on federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U S C  §§320301 et seq )  In total, 158 monuments have been created by presidential proclamation  Most are managed by the NPS, but some are managed by the BLM and other agencies  Under law, the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS have responsibilities related to the potential acquisition of lands for the National Park System  Among other requirements, the Secretary is directed "to investigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of" areas that could potentially be added to the system and to report to Congress on possible additions (54 U S C  §100507)  Furthermore, the general management plan for each unit is to include potential changes to the boundaries of the unit and the reasons for such changes (54 U S C  §100502)  The Secretary also is to conduct a "systematic and comprehensive review of certain aspects of the National Park System" and to submit a related report to Congress at least every three years (54 U S C  §100505(a)) that includes a list of all authorized but unacquired lands within the boundaries of park units and a priority listing of these unacquired parcels (54 U S C  §100505(c))  The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire lands for the National Forest System (NFS)  The NFS consists of 284 units covering 232 4 million acres of federal and nonfederal land, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, and other areas  Today, only an act of Congress can create new NFS units, but the Secretary may acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of an NFS unit  The NFS contains substantial acreage of nonfederal lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the system, particularly in the east, where national forests were established after extensive settlement  NFS units in the Eastern and Southern Regions average about 46% nonfederal land within their boundaries, while Western Region NFS units average about 10%  The FS has very limited regulatory authority over the uses of the 39 5 million acres of nonfederal land within the NFS  The FS's primary land acquisition authority is the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U S C  §515), which was used to acquire many of the lands that became the eastern national forests  The Weeks Act authority continues to be the agency's primary authority to acquire lands; however, acquisitions are now limited to lands within (or adjacent to) established NFS unit boundaries  The Weeks Act also authorizes the Secretary to modify the NFS unit boundary as needed to encompass new acquisitions  Other laws authorize the FS to acquire lands for the national forests, typically in specific areas or for specific purposes  For example, Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P L  94-579 ) authorizes the acquisition of access corridors—including easements—to national forests across nonfederal lands (43 U S C  §1715(a))  Another example is the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U S C  §428(a)), which authorizes the FS to acquire lands without any geographical limitations but does require a provision be made in a specific appropriation or other law  Another law authorizes proceeds from certain land sales or exchanges to be used for acquisitions, including for administrative sites and enhancement of recreational access  However, the acquisitions are limited to the state in which FS previously conveyed NFS land under specific disposal authorities, as discussed later in this report  Several other acquisition authorities apply to specific national forests, such as the Act of June 11, 1940, which authorizes the purchase of lands within the Angeles National Forest in California  In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of a military department that has lands within or adjacent to proclaimed NFS land may interchange lands, without reimbursement or transfer of funds  Many of the acquisition authorities also allow the FS to accept donations of land as specified  Within the NFS, the Secretary of Agriculture also is authorized to acquire privately owned lands within or adjacent to designated wilderness areas (16 U S C  §1134(c)), Wild and Scenic River corridors (16 U S C  §1277), and certain segments of designated National Trails (16 U S C  §1244), as specified by the law creating the trail  Lands may be added to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) in a number of ways, including through congressional and administrative actions and donations  A principal FWS land acquisition authority is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U S C  §§715 et seq )  This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas "necessary for the conservation of migratory birds" to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor (or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U S C  §715a and §715c)  In addition, the state in which the purchase is located must have consented to the acquisition by law (16 U S C  §715f and §715k-5)  The Secretary may then purchase or rent areas or interests therein approved by the commission and acquire by gift or devise any area or interest therein (16 U S C  §715d)  The MBCA authority is used frequently because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF, 16 U S

ground_truth: The United States is a member of the OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH, which promote democracy, health care, agricultural development, and scientific exchange. GAO was asked to review U.S. assistance to these four organizations. In this report, GAO (1) assesses the extent to which the organizations' strategic goals align with those of U.S. agencies; (2) examines how the organizations oversee the use of their funds and the extent to which U.S. agencies have supported those efforts; (3) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies included key monitoring provisions as part of assistance agreements; and (4) assesses the extent to which U.S. agencies had documentation of monitoring activities, including those called for by these provisions. GAO analyzed documents and interviewed officials from State, USAID, HHS, USDA, and the organizations. GAO also analyzed a nongeneralizable sample of 12 of the 60 assistance agreements that were awarded by State, USAID, HHS, and USDA to OAS, PAHO, and IICA and were active during calendar years 2014 through 2016. For each agency, GAO selected three agreements with the lowest, median, and highest dollar value. GAO found that strategic goals of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History (PAIGH) are predominantly aligned with the strategic goals of the Department of State (State), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). For example, IICA's strategic goals of a productive agricultural sector, enhancing agricultural development, and food security are aligned with USDA's foreign assistance goals. State, USAID, HHS, and USDA fund activities in the form of assistance agreements (e.g., grants and cooperative agreements) with OAS, PAHO, and IICA, which in 2016 totaled $32 million. According to agency officials, the agencies employ mechanisms to ensure that these agreements align with U.S. strategic goals. OAS, PAHO, IICA, and PAIGH have established mechanisms for overseeing their use of funds, such as external auditors, internal audit boards, and anti-fraud and ethics policies. State and USDA have directly supported these mechanisms. For example, State engaged in the selection process for OAS's Inspector General. GAO's review of 12 selected assistance agreements found that USDA included no financial or performance monitoring provisions in one of its agreements and that State did not include two key monitoring provisions in one of its agreements, called for by applicable guidance. GAO found that the remaining 10 agreements it reviewed contained all key monitoring provisions and that State has since taken corrective action. GAO found that U.S. agencies did not have full documentation of 18 of the 42 monitoring activities required by the 12 assistance agreements GAO reviewed (see table). For example, USDA did not have full documentation, such as for financial reports, of any of its 10 required monitoring activities and USDA officials did not explain their lack of documentation. USAID officials explained that their lack of full documentation was due, in part, to grant officers not always following their document management policies. State and HHS have since taken corrective action. If an agency does not have full documentation of monitoring activities, it may lack information needed to make appropriate budgetary and programmatic decisions. GAO recommends that (1) USDA ensure inclusion of all monitoring provisions as part of agreements and (2) USAID and USDA ensure full documentation of monitoring activities. USDA and USAID concurred with GAO's recommendations.

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



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



Report 2: C  §718d)  The MBCF is supported by multiple sources of funding, including three major sources: the sale of hunting and conservation stamps (commonly known as duck stamps); import duties on arms and ammunition; and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees  MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of receipts and, after paying certain administrative costs, may be used for the "location, ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges    " (16 U S C  §718d(b))  The predictability of funding and permanent authority for use makes the MBCF, and thus the MBCA, particularly important for FWS land acquisition and unique among the four agencies  Other laws provide general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U S C  §§661-667a), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U S C  §§742a et seq ), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U S C  §§1531-1544)  The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U S C  §§668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests therein through donated funds or exchange (16 U S C  §668dd(b))  Further, FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for creating or adding to refuges (which would be an interagency transfer), although withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional approval (43 U S C  §1714(c))  In contrast to NPS and FS land acquisition, where the lands generally must be within the boundaries of established units, the FWS can acquire new lands to create a new refuge or to expand an existing one under the general FWS authorities cited above, as well as under certain other laws  Some national wildlife refuge (NWR) units have been created by specific acts of Congress, such as Protection Island NWR (WA) and Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR (LA) (16 U S C  §668dd note)  Units also can be created by executive order; for example, the Midway Atoll NWR was created by President Clinton in Executive Order 13022  The BLM has broad, general authority to acquire lands, principally under Section 205 of FLPMA  Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase, exchange, donation, or use of eminent domain, lands or interests therein (43 U S C  §1715(a))  The BLM acquires land or interests in land, including inholdings, for a variety of reasons  These include to protect natural and cultural resources, to increase opportunities for public access and recreation, and to improve management of lands  As noted above, various laws directing the disposal of particular lands sometimes have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for disposing of lands  The specific disposal authorities are discussed below for each of the four agencies in the order of their apparent breadth, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have general authority to dispose of National Park System lands  Units and lands of the Park System that were established by acts of Congress can be disposed of only by acts of Congress  Preservation of park units is a management goal and provisions of law limit the power of the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of land in changing park boundaries  Although the Secretary can, under specified conditions, make boundary changes that concurrently add and remove land within the boundary, minor boundary revisions solely to remove NPS acreage can be made only by Congress  Also, the Secretary can acquire by exchange lands that are adjacent to a boundary revision, but the Secretary cannot dispose of NPS land to do so (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Presidents have modified the boundaries of national monuments established by previous presidential proclamations, in some cases reducing the size of the monument  However, no president has terminated a monument established by proclamation  The FWS does not have general authority to dispose of its lands  With certain exceptions, wildlife refuge lands administered by the FWS can be disposed only by an act of Congress (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(5) and (6))  For refuge lands reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U S C  §1714(j))  For acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized land exchange (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves the disposal (16 U S C  §668dd(a)(5))  In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher), and the receipts must be deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund  The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities to convey lands within proclaimed NFS boundaries out of federal ownership—through sale or exchange—although previous, broader authorities have been modified or revoked  Many of the authorities put constraints on land disposal, such as applying only to a specific geographical area or to the disposal of particular administrative properties or facilities  Many of the authorities are used in conjunction with FLPMA and other federal law and as such may place requirements on the sale or exchange of land  This includes obtaining at least fair market value for the sale of federal lands; requiring that nonfederal land exchanged for federal land be in the same state; and requiring exchanged lands to be of equal value, although value may be partially equalized with a cash payment (43 U S C  §1716)  The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U S C  §485) authorizes the exchange of NFS land or timber that was reserved from the public domain if the Secretary determines it will be in the public interest  The nonfederal land must be within the same state and within the exterior boundary of a national forest, and it must be chiefly valuable for national forest purposes, among other provisions  The Weeks Act of 1911 allows for similar exchanges for acquired NFS lands (16 U S C  §516)  The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of NFS land by sale or exchange, generally up to certain specified acreage limits  The disposal may be To improve management efficiencies where NFS lands are interspersed with nonfederal mineral rights owners, or if the Secretary determines the parcels to be inaccessible, physically isolated from other federal land, or to have lost national forest character (40 acres maximum); To relieve encroachments including due to erroneous surveys, or encroachments by a permanent habitable improvement if there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or due to negligence (10 acres maximum); To dispose of unneeded federal rights-of-way substantially surrounded by nonfederal lands (no specified acreage limitation); and If the parcel is used as a cemetery, landfill, or sewage plant pursuant to a special use authorization for the use and occupancy of NFS land (no specified acreage limitation) (16 U S C  §521e)  The conveyance must be determined to be in the public interest and the tracts may not be valued at more than $500,000  The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land (such as an easement), or any combination thereof for at least the value of the land being sold or exchanged (16 U S C  §521d) plus "all reasonable costs of administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance" (16 U S C  §521f)  In some cases, the proceeds may be used for specified land acquisition purposes  The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres of NFS land adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 western states for townsites, if the "indigenous community objectives     outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership" (16 U S C  §478a)  Public notice of the application for such transfer is required, and upon a "satisfactory showing of need," the Secretary may offer the land to a local governmental entity at "not less than the fair market value " The Education Land Grant Act, also known as the Sisk Act (16 U S C  §479a), authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 80 acres of NFS land for a nominal cost upon written application of a public school district  It provides for reversion of the title to the federal government if the lands are not used for the educational purposes for which they were acquired  There are a few other specific authorities that allow for the disposal of NFS lands  For example, the 1911 Weeks Act authorizes the disposal of NFS lands that are "chiefly valuable for agriculture" but were acquired inadvertently or otherwise, if agricultural use will not injure the forests or streamflows and the lands are not needed for public purposes  The lands can be sold as homesteads in parcels of up to 80 acres (16 U S C  §519)  The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U S C  §§1010-1012) also authorizes the disposal of lands acquired under its authority, although the FS has adopted regulations stating that the Bankhead-Jones lands comprising the national grasslands will be held permanently (36 C F R  §213 1(b))  The BLM can dispose of land under several authorities  They include (1) exchanges and sales under FLPMA, (2) sales or exchanges under the FLTFA, (3) transfers to other governmental units or nonprofit entities for public purposes, (4) patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, and (5) geographically limited sale authorities  With regard to exchanges under FLPMA, the exchanges must serve the public interest, and the federal and nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state and be of equal value (with cash equalization payments possible), among other requirements (43 U S C  §1716)  With regard to sales under FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to sell certain tracts of public land that are identified through the land-use planning process  Such tracts must meet specific criteria (43 U S C  §1713(a)): (1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or (2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership  The size of the tracts for sale is determined by "the land use capabilities and development requirements " Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress  Lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value  They generally must be sold through competitive bidding, although modified competition and noncompetitive sales are allowed  FLTFA provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands identified for disposal under BLM land- use plans  The law create s a separate Treasury account for most of the proceeds (96%) from the sale or exchange, and it provide s for the use of those funds by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture  The Secretaries may acquire nonfederal lands, specifically inholdings , lands adjacent to federal lands that contain exceptional resources , and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation  Up to 20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the funds for acquisition are to be in the state in which the funds are generated   The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U S C  §869) authorizes the Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating authority  The lands can be sold or leased, and the act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer  The price of the land depends on the type of entity that will receive it, for instance, whether a state government or a nonprofit organization  The price also depends on the intended use of the land, with some sales and leases made at no cost  Although the BLM can dispose of lands through patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, since FY1995 a series of annual moratoria on issuing mineral patents has been enacted into law  These moratoria, contained in the annual Interior appropriations laws, have effectively prevented this means of federal land disposal  Specifically, the Mining Law allows access to and development of hardrock minerals on federal lands that have not been withdrawn from entry  With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort, the Mining Law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee  Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations can also be patented (30 U S C  §42)  Patented lands may be used for purposes other than mineral development  The BLM also has geographically limited land sale authorities  The program with the largest revenue stream has been the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around Las Vegas  The BLM and the local government unit jointly decide on the lands to be offered for sale or exchange  In general, 85% of the proceeds are deposited into a special account, and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land acquisition in Nevada and other purposes in the state, such as certain capital improvements and development of parks, trails, and natural areas  The other 15% of the proceeds are for state or local purposes, specifically the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%)  Other provisions of law similarly provide for BLM land sales in particular areas (mostly in Nevada), with specific allocations of the proceeds  Further, the BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska as required by law, such as through transfers to the state of Alaska and to Alaska native corporations  A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska will be transferred from federal to state and private ownership  
Report 2:  Although the data included some maintenance periods that began before fiscal year 2008, we counted days of maintenance delays only from periods that were incurred in fiscal years 2008 through 2018  We also tracked the total number of days that the Navy completed maintenance periods ahead of schedule—that is, 153—but we noted these separately instead of subtracting them from the total number of days of maintenance delays  To estimate costs associated with these delays, we analyzed annual data from fiscal years 2011 through 2017 (the most current data available at the time of our review) from the Navy’s Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs system  We also reviewed prior work on determining the operating and support costs of Navy ships  The Navy calculates total operating and support expenditures for each attack submarine on an annual basis, as well as the yearly average expenditure for each attack submarine class, including Los Angeles class, Seawolf class, and Virginia class blocks one and two  For each class, we converted the Navy’s annual class averages into daily average costs by adding the annual class averages together for each year that data were available, fiscal years 2011 through 2017, then dividing that number by the total number of days  We then multiplied the daily class average by the total number of days of maintenance delays and idle time incurred by submarines within that class, according to our calculations outlined above, between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2018, and we added these totals together to produce the total estimated operating and support cost for days of maintenance delays and idle time incurred during this period  The data did not include annual class average costs for fiscal years 2008, 2009, 2010, or 2018  However, the annual class averages for fiscal years 2011 through 2017 did not show significant variation, so we applied these averages to 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2018  To assess the extent to which the Navy has addressed any challenges and developed mitigation plans for any maintenance delays, we reviewed the Navy’s plans to address attack submarine maintenance delays and interviewed Navy headquarters, fleet, and squadron officials, attack submarine crews, and public and private shipyard officials to understand any plans to address attack submarine maintenance delays and idle time  We analyzed data on factors contributing to attack submarine maintenance delays, such as cannibalization rates  We visited three of the four public shipyards, including Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, and Norfolk Naval Shipyard, to observe operations, training, and the condition of the facilities and equipment, and to interview officials about challenges affecting operational efficiency and performance  We also met with Navy maintainers at Naval Station Norfolk and Naval Submarine Base New London, and with the crew of the submarine tenders USS Frank Cable (AS-40) and USS Emory S  Land (AS-39) in Guam  We toured the two private shipyards that conduct attack submarine repair work—General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries-Newport News Shipbuilding—and interviewed executives at both locations  We also toured attack submarines and met with crew leadership, selected according to which submarines and crews were available for tours at each of the sites we visited  We visited the USS Boise (SSN 764) at Naval Station Norfolk and four attack submarines in depot-level maintenance: the USS Albany (SSN 753), the USS Jefferson City (SSN 759), the USS New Mexico (SSN 779), and the USS Springfield (SSN 761)  We met with the crews of two attack submarines assigned to the operating forces at the time of our visit, the USS Missouri (SSN 780) and the USS North Dakota (SSN 784)  We evaluated the Navy’s plans to address any challenges against criteria in federal standards for internal control, which state that agencies should evaluate performance in achieving key objectives and addressing risks; the Department of Defense’s business case analysis guidebook, which provides standards for the process used to conduct analyses of costs, benefits, and risks; the Project Management Book of Knowledge, which provides best practices for project management; and the Secretary of the Navy’s December 2017 Strategic Readiness Review, which calls for the early identification of systemic risks before problems occur  To assess the reliability of the data sources for conducting analyses to address all of the objectives in this report, we reviewed systems documentation and interviewed officials to understand system operating procedures, organizational roles and responsibilities, and error-checking mechanisms  We selected the time frames for each of the data series above after assessing their availability and reliability, to maximize the amount of data available for us to make meaningful comparisons  We assessed the reliability of each of the data sources  The Navy provided information based on our questions regarding data reliability, including information on an overview of the data, data-collection processes and procedures, data quality controls, and overall perceptions of data quality  The Navy provided documentation of how the systems are structured and what written procedures are in place to help ensure that the appropriate information is collected and properly categorized  Additionally, we interviewed Navy officials to obtain further clarification on data reliability, discuss how the data were collected and reported, and explain how we planned to use the data  We also conducted our own error checks to look for inaccurate or questionable data, and we discussed with officials any data irregularities we found  We conducted these assessments on the following data for attack submarines: Navy deployed and surge-ready submarines from fiscal years 2011 through 2018; maintenance timeliness from fiscal years 2000 through 2018; idle time from fiscal years 2008 through 2018; operating and support costs from fiscal years 2011 through 2017; and cannibalization rates from 2012 through 2017  Some of these data were used in prior reports, and their reliability had previously been assessed  After further assessing any data that we had not recently used, we determined that they were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of summarizing attack submarine readiness trends and related information  We interviewed officials, and where appropriate obtained documentation, at the following locations: Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Undersea Warfare Division (N97) Warfare Integration Division (N83) U S  Fleet Forces Command Commander, Submarine Force, U S  Atlantic Fleet Commander, Submarine Squadron 4 Commander, Regional Support Group Groton Commander, Submarine Force, U S  Pacific Fleet Commander, Submarine Squadron 1 Commander, Submarine Squadron 7 Commander, Submarine Squadron 15 Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Logistics, Maintenance, and Industrial Operations (NAVSEA 04) Program Executive Office, Submarines Attack Submarine Program Office (PMS 392) Submarine Maintenance Engineering, Planning, and Procurement (SUBMEPP) Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion, and Repair (SUPSHIP) Newport News, Virginia Navy Education and Training Command Submarine Learning Facility Norfolk Navy Board of Inspection and Survey Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Norfolk, Virginia Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine Newport News Shipbuilding, Virginia, operated by Huntington Ingalls Industries Electric Boat, Groton, Connecticut, operated by General Dynamics The performance audit upon which this report is based was conducted from August 2017 to October 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  We worked with DOD to prepare this unclassified version of the report for public release  This public version was also prepared in accordance with these standards  Report numbers with a C or RC suffix are Classified  Classified reports are available to personnel with the proper clearances and need to know, upon request  Columbia Class Submarine: Immature Technologies Present Risks to Achieving Cost Schedule and Performance Goals  GAO-18-158  Washington, D C : Dec  21, 2017  Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Maintenance, Training, and Other Challenges Affecting the Fleet  GAO-17-809T  Washington, D C : Sept  19, 2017  Naval Shipyards: Actions Needed to Improve Poor Conditions that Affect Operations  GAO-17-548  Washington, D C : Sept  12, 2017  Navy Readiness: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Maintenance, Training, and Other Challenges Facing the Fleet  GAO-17-798T  Washington, D C : Sept  7, 2017  Military Readiness: DOD’s Readiness Rebuilding Efforts May Be at Risk without a Comprehensive Plan  GAO-16-841  Washington, D C : Sept  7, 2016  Navy and Marine Corps: Services Face Challenges to Rebuilding Readiness  GAO-16-481RC  Washington, D C : May 25, 2016  (SECRET//NOFORN) Military Readiness: Progress and Challenges in Implementing the Navy’s Optimized Fleet Response Plan  GAO-16-466R  Washington, D C : May 2, 2016  Navy Force Structure: Sustainable Plan and Comprehensive Assessment Needed to Mitigate Long-Term Risks to Ships Assigned to Overseas Homeports  GAO-15-329  Washington, D C : May 29, 2015  In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne Wren, Assistant Director; Chris Watson, Analyst in Charge; Herb Bowsher; Chris Cronin; Ally Gonzalez; Cynthia Grant; Carol Petersen; Amber Sinclair; and Cheryl Weissman made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12 western states. Four agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands. The extent to which each of these four federal agencies have authority to acquire and dispose of land varies considerably. The BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The agency also has other authorities for disposing of land, including two laws that allow the agency to retain the proceeds for subsequent land acquisition, among other purposes, and a law that allows transfers to governmental units and other entities for public purposes. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The agency frequently uses acquisition authority under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The nature of the acquisition and disposal authorities of the four federal agencies also varies. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow the four agencies to bring into federal ownership lands that many contend could benefit from federal management. Disposal authorities generally are designed to allow agencies to convey land that is no longer needed for a federal purpose or that might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. Some of the authorities specify particular circumstances where they can be used, such as the conveyance of FS land for educational purposes and the disposal of BLM land for recreation and public purposes. Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; and the extent of federal land ownership overall. The current acquisition and disposal authorities form the backdrop for consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate authorities, or to provide for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands. In some cases, Congress enacts bills to provide authority to acquire or dispose of particular parcels where no standing authority exists and, in other cases, to direct or facilitate land transactions. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of debates on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally, and it has considered broader measures to dispose of lands or to promote acquisition. Other issues for Congress pertain to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of funding for land acquisition. Congress has considered diverse measures related to the LWCF, such as legislation to make LWCF funding permanent and bills to direct LWCF monies to additional, nonacquisition purposes. Additionally, the FWS has the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authority supported by revenue from three sources. The BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the proceeds from land sales to be used for land acquisition, among other purposes.