You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The federal government receives funds from numerous sources in addition to tax revenues, including collections of user fees, fines, and penalties. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, in fiscal year 2017, the U.S. government’s total receipts were $3.3 trillion and collections of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures were more than $350 billion. User fees (fees): Fees are charges assessed to users for goods or services provided by the federal government, such as fees to enter a national park, and charges assessed for regulatory services, such as fees charged by the Food and Drug Administration for prescription drug applications. Fees are an approach to financing federal programs or activities that, in general, are related to some voluntary transaction or request for government services above and beyond what is normally available to the public. By requiring identifiable beneficiaries to pay all or part of the cost of a good or service, fees can promote both equity and economic efficiency. Regularly reviewing fees help ensure that agencies, Congress, and stakeholders have complete information. Fines and penalties: Criminal fines and penalty payments are imposed by courts as punishment for criminal violations. Civil monetary penalties are not a result of criminal proceedings but are employed by courts and federal agencies to enforce federal laws and regulations. For example, civil monetary penalty payments are collected from financial institutions by certain financial regulators, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, from enforcement actions assessed against financial institutions for violations related to anti-money laundering requirements. Reviews and, as needed, adjustments to fines and penalties could help ensure they provide a meaningful incentive for compliance. The design and structure of statutory authorities for fees, fines, and penalties can vary widely. In prior work, we have identified key design decisions related to how fee, fine, and penalty collections are used that help Congress balance agency flexibility with congressional control and oversight. Congress determines the availability of collections by defining the extent to which an agency may obligate and expend them, including the availability of the funds, the period of time the collections are available for obligation, the purposes for which they may be obligated, and the amount of the collections that are available to the agency. Fees, fines, and penalties may be categorized as one of three types of collections based on the structure of their statutory authority: offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, or governmental receipts (see figure 1). Offsetting collections can provide agencies with more flexibility because they are generally available for agency obligation without an additional annual appropriation. In contrast, offsetting receipts and governmental receipts involve greater congressional opportunities for control and oversight because, generally, additional congressional action is needed before the collections are available for agency obligation. For example, Congress must appropriate collections from offsetting receipts before agencies are authorized to obligate these funds. The type of collection also determines how OMB and Treasury report the collections. Offsetting collections and offsetting receipts result from businesslike transactions and are recorded as offsets to spending. Offsetting collections are authorized by law to be credited to appropriation or fund expenditure accounts, while offsetting receipts are deposited in receipt accounts. Because offsetting collections are offsets to spending, an account will generally show the net amount that was collected and spent at any point in time. While there is no statutory requirement for government-wide reporting of data of specific fees, fines and penalties, Congress has enacted legislation to make other data on federal spending and federal programs publicly available: The Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act). The DATA Act built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending. The act significantly increased the types of data that must be reported, and required the use of government-wide data standards and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data. These data are reported on the USAspending.gov website. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). GPRAMA, in part, requires OMB to present a coherent picture of all federal programs by making information available about each federal program on a website, including related budget and performance information. Programs have been defined as an organized set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal that an agency undertakes or proposes to carry out its responsibilities. A federal program inventory would consist of the individual programs identified by the agencies and OMB and information collected about each of them. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, we found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory and made several recommendations to OMB to ensure the effective implementation of federal program inventory requirements and to make the inventories more useful. Further, in September 2017, we found that OMB continued to delay implementation of the program inventory. We recommended that OMB consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory and issue instructions to provide time frames and milestones for its implementation. Although OMB updated its instruction in June 2018, it did not provide any time frames or milestones for implementing the inventory. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory or specific time frames for doing so. There is no source of data that lists all collections of specific fees, fines, and penalties at a government-wide or agency level. Both OMB and Treasury report government-wide budgetary and financial data, including some information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties; however, none of the reports identifies all specific fees, fines, and penalties, and their associated collection amounts at a government-wide level. OMB reports budgetary and financial data in various parts of the Budget of the U.S. Government, including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database. Treasury reports financial data in the Combined Statement. Each source provides information for a broader purpose than reporting on collections of fees, fines, and penalties. OMB and Treasury provide specific instructions for agency submission of the underlying data, as described in table 2. OMB’s reports include budgetary and financial information on federal collections at different levels of detail—from aggregated government-wide data to agency account-level data—depending on the source and its purpose. Analytical Perspectives identifies collections as fees and as fines, penalties, and forfeitures and reports government-wide summary information on these collections. For example, in a table summarizing government-wide governmental receipts in Analytical Perspectives, OMB reported fines, penalties, and forfeitures in federal funds as $20.98 billion and in trust funds as $1.17 billion for fiscal year 2017. These summary data do not provide a government-wide total of all federal collections from fines, penalties, and forfeitures because they do not include those that are categorized as offsetting collections or offsetting receipts, according to OMB staff. OMB staff said that OMB does not publish a government- wide total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. OMB data on governmental receipts include source codes—including a code that identifies fines, penalties, and forfeitures—but data on offsetting collections and offsetting receipts do not include a comparable source code. In the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database, OMB reports account-level information by agency, identified by types of collections, such as offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts. The Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database do not label collections as fees, fines, or penalties and therefore, cannot be used to calculate government-wide totals for fees, fines, or penalties. To assemble Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database, OMB compiles data from federal agencies into OMB MAX. OMB MAX, which is not publicly available, contains government-wide data at the account level and captures information such as the type of collection and the type of fund to which collections are deposited. While the data in OMB MAX help drive reporting in the Budget, not all data compiled in OMB MAX appear in the Budget. For example, OMB MAX includes an indicator for accounts that contain fees, but that information is not made available in the Budget of the U.S. Government. According to congressional staff we spoke with, they do not have open access to OMB MAX, but OMB provides excerpts of OMB MAX data to staff upon request. Treasury’s Combined Statement reports both government-wide totals and agency account-level data for collections classified as receipts, by various source categories—such as proprietary receipts from the public, miscellaneous receipts, and fines, penalties, and forfeitures. Fees. Fees may fall within several source categories. Therefore, Treasury does not have a single government-wide total for fees. It does present government-wide totals for various source categories, including, Sale of Products and Fees for Permits and Regulatory and Judicial Services, for example. Treasury also reports some fees under non-fee categories, such as Miscellaneous Taxes and Excise Taxes. Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures. Treasury reports a government- wide total of receipts of fines, penalties, and forfeitures, which in fiscal year 2017 was $22.2 billion. Treasury’s Combined Statement presents these data, disaggregated by account, in the tables Receipts by Source Categories and Receipts by Department. For example, it identifies total Internal Revenue Service receipts in the category Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures of about $6.8 million in fiscal year 2017. Treasury also reports some fines, penalties, and forfeitures receipts under other categories; these receipts are not included in its total of fines, penalties, and forfeitures. For example, Department of Homeland Security breached bond penalties are reported in two categories labeled as fees: Miscellaneous Receipts – Fees for Permits and Regulatory and Judicial Services and Offsetting Governmental Receipts – Regulatory Fees (see figure 2). In addition to the government-wide data sources, agencies report some data on their collections of specific fees, fines, and penalties in their annual financial reports, congressional budget justifications, and on agency websites. These data are dispersed by agency, are not comprehensive, and cannot be aggregated to create government-wide data because they vary in format and in the level of detail presented. For example: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has an online, searchable database of enforcement and compliance information that includes data on individual fine and penalty assessments for violations of certain, but not all, statutes. The Department of Labor also makes selected enforcement data accessible in an online database collected by the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Wage and Hour Division without Department of Labor-wide data standards on individual fine and penalty assessments. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s 2019 Congressional Budget Justification, on the other hand, is a PDF document that provides annual collection totals for Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Fees, Import-Export User Fees, Phytosanitary Certificate User Fees, Veterinary Diagnostics User Fees, and Other User Fees, rather than disaggregated to individual fee assessments. The government-wide totals for fees that OMB reports in Analytical Perspectives are not presented at a more disaggregated level, such as by agency or program, except for some major fee collections identified by OMB. For example, in Analytical Perspectives for fiscal year 2017, OMB reported $335.4 billion as a government-wide total of fee collections. OMB also reported some disaggregated data for the subset of fees that were offsetting collections and offsetting receipts. Specifically, it listed 11 fees totaling $258.4 billion collected by specific agencies and listed the remaining $72.3 billion as “all other user charges” without identifying the agency or program. As described in table 1 above, clear and accessible data can be aggregated or disaggregated by the user. OMB has more detailed data on collections in OMB MAX, including the agency, account, type of collection, and fund type, which it uses to compile reported totals of fees as well as fines, penalties, and forfeitures. OMB does not publicly report these data disaggregated below the government-wide level, such as at the agency level. OMB staff said that they do not report the disaggregated data because the purpose of Analytical Perspectives is to develop or support the President’s policies and more detailed tables may not be included if they are not considered necessary for that purpose. However, Analytical Perspectives also serves to provide other significant data that place the President’s Budget in context and assist the public and policymakers in better understanding the budget proposals. For example, Analytical Perspectives includes a chapter on aid to state and local governments that presents the President’s budget proposals for grant programs along with crosscutting information on federal grants to state and local governments, including government-wide grant spending, by agency and program. Analytical Perspectives also presents a summary of fee proposals but does not provide comparable crosscutting information about current fees. For fines and penalties, neither proposals nor crosscutting information is presented by agency. Until OMB makes more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties maintained in its OMB MAX database—such as collections by agency—publicly available, Congress has limited information on such collections to inform oversight and decision-making. Analytical Perspectives’ government-wide totals of fees may include inaccurately labeled collections—other collections that are not fees—and may exclude some fee collections. Data that are clear and accessible are presented with known limitations, as shown in table 1. OMB Circular No. A-11 states that all accounts in which more than half of collections are from fees will be designated as containing fees. OMB staff said that the entire account is designated as containing fees because account-level data are the most disaggregated data OMB collects from agencies. OMB calculates its government-wide total for fees by adding collections in all accounts designated in OMB MAX as containing user fees. However, agency accounts can include multiple sources of budget authority. For example, Treasury’s U.S. Mint’s account “United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund” includes offsetting collections from Mint operations and programs; these include the production and sale of commemorative coins and medals, the production and sale of circulating coinage, the protection of government assets, as well as gifts and bequests of property. The United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund is designated as containing fees in OMB MAX. Therefore, budget authority that is not derived from the collection of fees but is still included in this account will be designated as fees as well when calculating a government-wide total. Conversely, accounts in which fees contribute to less than half of collections are not designated as containing fees amounts, and those fees will not be included in the government-wide total OMB calculates. OMB Circular No. A-11 describes the designation of fee accounts, but the data presented in Analytical Perspectives as totals for fees do not disclose OMB’s designation criteria, including the limitations to the accuracy of the data. OMB staff said they do not report this limitation because they consider OMB Circular No. A-11 a more appropriate document for providing technical information like the designation of accounts containing user fees. However, the section on fees in Analytical Perspectives does not direct the reader to OMB Circular No. A-11 for key information related to the data presented on fees. For other topics, including lease-purchase agreements, Analytical Perspectives directs the reader to OMB Circular No. A-11 for further details. Furthermore, for other topics, OMB provided explanatory information along with the data in Analytical Perspectives. For example, OMB explained a recent change to definitions in the research and development section of Analytical Perspectives and the effect of the change on budget authority. Until OMB provides a description of data limitations regarding the criteria used to identify accounts with fees for compiling government-wide totals in Analytical Perspectives, or directs users to the relevant section of OMB Circular No. A-11, some users are likely to be unaware of the potential for the total user fees to be overestimated or underestimated. In addition, OMB does not regularly review and update implementation of its criteria for designating fees. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that agency management should use quality information to achieve the objectives, such as processing data into quality information that is current and accurate. OMB Circular No. A-11 states that the fee designation is applied at the time the account is established. OMB staff told us that when establishing a new account, OMB collaborates with Treasury to determine the legal attributes of the account, including any fee authorities, and whether to designate the account as containing fees. OMB staff further explained they review the designation when new legislation is enacted that would change the attributes of the account, or if an agency informs OMB that the makeup of an account has changed because of programmatic changes. However, OMB Circular No. A-11 does not instruct agencies to regularly review or update this designation and report changes to OMB. Therefore, if the makeup of collections in an account changes so that fees go from being more than half of the collections to less than half, or vice versa, the account’s fee designation may not be updated accordingly. Until OMB instructs agencies to regularly review the fee designation in OMB MAX and update the designation, as needed, OMB cannot provide reasonable assurance that accounts are designated correctly, and that the government-wide totals of fees reported in Analytical Perspectives are accurate. While Analytical Perspectives reports government-wide data labeled as fees, fines, and penalties, the other three sources we reviewed—the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement—report account-level information by agency. Users cannot further disaggregate the data presented to specific fee, fine, and penalty collections. For example, USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is funded in part by six fees: (1) Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fee, (2) Phytosanitary Export Certification fee, (3) Veterinary Services Import Export fee, (4) Veterinary Diagnostics fee, (5) Reimbursable Overtime, and (6) Trust Funds and Reimbursable Funds. However, a user cannot identify collections from each of these APHIS fees in the Budget Appendix. The Budget Appendix specifically identifies AQI fee collections—$768 million in fiscal year 2017—because they are receipts deposited to a trust fund. The other five fees are combined within the total for offsetting collections—$152 million (see figure 3). The Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement report data at the account level because the purposes of these reports are broader than fees, fines, and penalties, and OMB and Treasury instruct agencies to report data at that level. Treasury’s Financial Manual states that agencies post appropriations and spending authorizations by Congress to accounts established by Treasury. OMB’s Circular No. A-11 instructs agencies to report data at the budget account level in OMB MAX, which supports the data in the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database. Because OMB and Treasury do not collect data that can be disaggregated to the level of fee, fine, or penalty, the collections for specific fees, fines, and penalties within accounts are not identifiable within account totals. Both the Budget Appendix and Public Budget Database label and present data within each account by collection type: offsetting collections, offsetting receipts, and governmental receipts. These collection types include fees, fines, and penalties, as well as other sources of collections, as shown in the text box below. Budgetary Collections as Labeled by the Budget of the U.S. Government Include More than Fees, Fines, and Penalties Offsetting Collections and Offsetting Receipts include user fees as w ell as reimbursements for damages, intragovernmental transactions, and voluntary gifts and donations to the government. Governmental Receipts include collections that result from the government’s exercise of its sovereign pow er to tax or otherw ise compel payment, and include taxes, compulsory user fees, regulatory fees, customs duties, court fines, certain license fees, and deposits of earnings by the Federal Reserve System. As a result, the user cannot separate fees, fines, and penalties from other collections. For example, offsetting collections may include fees, reimbursements for damages, gifts or donations of money to the government, and intragovernmental transactions with other government accounts. Analytical Perspectives explains that amounts collected by government agencies are recorded in two ways that broadly affect the formulation of the government-wide budget, but may not provide detail on specific agency collections: (1) governmental receipts, which are compared to total outlays in calculating the surplus or deficit; and (2) offsetting collections or offsetting receipts, which are deducted from gross outlays to calculate net outlay figures. These collections are presented together for budgeting purposes, but cannot be separated to specific fees, fines, or penalties. Therefore, it is not clear what percentage of the reported collections are fees, fines, and penalties as opposed to other collections. Treasury’s Combined Statement and OMB’s Public Budget Database do not identify offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and penalties. Instead, the Combined Statement reports net outlays, which include any offsetting collections as deductions from outlays. Similarly, the Public Budget Database reports budget authority net of any offsetting collections. Treasury clearly describes this presentation of the data in the Combined Statement, but OMB does not in the Public Budget Database. In the “Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures” section of the Combined Statement, Treasury describes that outlays are stated net of collections representing reimbursements as authorized by law, which include offsetting collections. With the description provided in the Combined Statement, the user can understand that fees, fines, and penalties that are offsetting collections are not identifiable in the data. OMB reports receipts and budget authority—which include collections from fees, fines, and penalties—in separate spreadsheets of the Public Budget Database. Similar to outlays reported in Treasury’s Combined Statement, the Budget Authority spreadsheet reports the net budget authority of accounts after agencies have credited offsetting collections from fees, fines, penalties, or other collections. For example, the National Park Service reported net budget authority of $2.425 billion for the Operation of the National Park System account in fiscal year 2017 in both the Budget Appendix and the Public Budget Database, both of which present data compiled in OMB MAX. The Budget Appendix presents additional information, reporting offsetting collections that are at least partially derived from fees of $35 million, and gross budget authority of $2.46 billion, as shown in figure 4. The Public Budget Database, on the other hand, does not identify the amount of offsetting collections in the account or gross budget authority. OMB does not describe this presentation of the data in the Public Budget Database User’s Guide. As shown in table 1, data that are clear and accessible are presented with descriptions of the data. The User’s Guide directs users who may not be familiar with federal budget concepts to Analytical Perspectives and OMB Circular No. A-11. However, OMB does not describe, either in the User’s Guide or in the Budget Authority spreadsheet of the Public Budget Database, that this source reports budget authority net of offsetting collections, such as collections of fees, fines, and penalties. OMB staff said they do not describe the presentation because it is explained in Analytical Perspectives. However, the Public Budget Database is available for download separate from Analytical Perspectives, and the User’s Guide specific to the Public Budget Database includes other information describing the data in the spreadsheets. Describing the presentation of the data in the User’s Guide would help ensure that users of the Public Budget Database can correctly interpret the information and not underestimate agencies’ fee, fine, or penalty collections. No source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements related to fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight of agencies and programs, such as the amount collected annually, account balances, and whether the collection is a fee, fine, or penalty. See figure 5 for the extent to which data elements are included in the Budget Appendix, Public Budget Database, and Combined Statement. See appendix I for more detailed information on the data elements that are useful for congressional oversight. To a limited extent there are some cases where government-wide reports included data elements useful for the purpose of congressional oversight of fees, fines, and penalties. In some cases the Budget Appendix includes information on the fund type receiving collections and the extent to which the collections from fees may be appropriated to the agency collecting the fee. The Budget Appendix, for example, reports that collections for the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) fee are recorded under “Special and Trust Fund Receipts,” as shown previously in figure 3. The user can also identify the appropriation of collections from the AQI fee under “Program and Financing, Budgetary resources,” as shown below in figure 6. As discussed previously, the other five fees the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service(APHIS) collects are not individually identifiable in the Budget Appendix, but fall under offsetting collections. OMB and Treasury reports, and the systems that support them, are designed for budget and financial information and not for an inventory of fees, fines, and penalties that includes the data elements that Congress may use in oversight. OMB staff said the agency does not have a requirement to prioritize reporting fee, fine, and penalty data over more detailed information on other types of funds. OMB staff said while they generally agree that additional data elements would be useful for oversight, there are trade-offs between transparency and the burden of collecting and reporting additional information. According to OMB staff and officials from Treasury, the Congressional Research Service, and external organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and data transparency, there are two primary benefits to government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data: increased transparency and better information for congressional oversight and decision-making. Generally, all congressional staff we spoke with said making additional government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties, such as those data elements described previously, without additional outreach to agencies, would be useful and increase transparency. While some congressional staff said such data elements are available through direct outreach to agencies, other congressional staff told us they could not always obtain the information they wanted. For example, staff from a congressional committee said that one of the most critical data elements for the purpose of congressional oversight is information on agency reporting of obligations and expenditures because, in their view, currently many agencies do not adequately report this information and some agencies do not report this information at all. These data would provide Congress a more complete picture of individual agencies’ activities and any potential overlap or duplication in multiple agencies’ activities. Congressional staff also said having government-wide data on collections of fees could inform efforts that are crosscutting in nature. For example, APHIS and Customs and Border Protection jointly implement the AQI program to help prevent the introduction of harmful agricultural pests and diseases into the United States, and AQI fee collections are divided between the two agencies. Publicly available data on government-wide collections of fines and penalties could inform the public on agency enforcement activities and compliance of regulated parties, such as those related to health or safety. Some officials from external organizations and congressional staff said that it would be useful to have government-wide data on individual fines and penalties levied by agencies. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency publishes an online database on its compliance and enforcement actions, Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO). According to the website, the data available on ECHO allows the public to monitor environmental compliance in communities, corporations to monitor compliance across facilities they own, and investors to more easily factor environmental performance into decisions. Further, an official from an external organization with expertise in data transparency stated that, ideally, a user would be able to link fine and penalty data to spending data on USAspending.gov to increase transparency in instances where an organization receiving a federal grant or contract has also had a fine or penalty levied against it. Last, publicly available government-wide data on collections could inform the public, specifically payers of fees, fines, and penalties, and facilitate their participation in public comment opportunities. For example, OMB staff said government-wide data could provide the public with clear, transparent information across agencies on fee collections and allow the public to analyze differences in fee programs among agencies. Payers of fees may be able to make more informed comments on proposed changes to a fee program if they had information on how it relates to other fee programs across the federal government. Government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data would provide more information to facilitate congressional oversight. These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency’s performance. For example, staff of a Congressional committee stated that fine and penalty data can be used to examine enforcement actions on a particular issue or to identify potential trends over time as an indicator of stronger or weaker enforcement actions by an agency. Congress could also use these data to identify variations in enforcement action among geographic regions or as an indicator of the frequency of violations. Additionally, data on review and reporting requirements can inform congressional oversight of fees, fines, and penalties. We previously reported that regular comprehensive reviews of fees provide opportunities for agencies and Congress to make improvements to a fee’s design which, if left unaddressed, could contribute to inefficient use of government resources. For example, fee reviews could help ensure that fees are properly set to cover the total costs of those activities which are intended to be fully fee-funded. Fee reviews may also allow agencies and Congress to identify where similar activities are funded differently; for example, one by fees and one by appropriations. One such example is the export control system, in which the State Department charges fees for the export of items on the U.S. Munitions List, while the Commerce Department does not charge fees for those items exported under its jurisdiction. Government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data could also inform Congress’s funding decisions by providing a clearer picture of agencies’ total resources. Congressional staff stated that knowing the statutory authority to collect and obligate funding from fees, fines, and penalties—along with any appropriation an agency may have received from an annual appropriation act, which are currently available to congressional staff—would provide a more complete picture of an agency’s total annual funding, including the portion attributed to the taxpayer and the portion attributed to payers of specific fees, fines, and penalties. For example, staff from congressional committees we spoke with said it would be useful to have data to show programs that receive appropriations from both offsetting collections and appropriations not derived from offsetting collections to inform decisions on how the program is funded. Congressional staff also said this would provide more opportunities to track the flow of money in and out of the government. Overall funding decisions may be affected if an agency has an increase in fee collections, for example. Congressional committee staff also said it would be useful to have government-wide data on specific fees, fines, and penalties that are offsetting collections because these collections are available for obligation without going through the annual appropriations process. Our prior work has shown that it is important to consider how the agencies and entities with this authority facilitate oversight to ensure effective management, transparency, and public accountability. Some committee staff said they can request data directly from agencies when they need more disaggregated information on fees, fines, and penalties, and reported different levels of responsiveness from agencies. Publicly available data could reduce potentially overlapping or duplicative requests from staff to agencies. According to officials from agencies and external organizations, there are potential challenges to defining the government-wide data standard or definition of fee, fine, and penalty programs by which agencies could report. Because there is no statutory requirement for government-wide reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data, agencies collect and use these data for their own purposes, and are not using government-wide data elements and standards that are consistent and comparable between agencies. First, an agency may define a fee program as a single fee or a set of related fees. For example, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services charges more than 40 immigration and naturalization fees to applicants and petitioners that could be grouped together as related fees or split into up to 40 different fee programs. Second, officials from external organizations said there are also challenges in defining data standards the level of detail to report. For example, an official from an external organization said, for large financial penalties, it may be useful for oversight for the data to identify each instance of the penalty, including the fined party. However, that level of detail could raise privacy sensitivities. For example, reporting every individual that paid an entrance fee at a national park could present privacy concerns. Finally, for elements that are useful for congressional oversight, one challenge could be the timing of when funds are collected compared to when they are available for obligation. The amount of funds collected in a year does not necessarily equal the amount available to the agency that year. For example, collections of Harbor Maintenance Fees are deposited to the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and are not available for obligation without appropriation. Funds collected in one year may not be necessarily appropriated and obligated until a subsequent year. Our prior work on the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) implementation underscores the importance of standardized and clearly defined data elements. We found inconsistent and potentially confusing instructions from OMB regarding the Primary Place of Performance data elements that resulted in inconsistent reporting among agencies. The standard established by OMB and Treasury defines Primary Place of Performance as “where the predominant performance of the award will be accomplished” while other instructions define it as “the location of the principal plant or place of business where the items will be produced, supplied from stock, or where the service will be performed.” We found some agencies used the first definition and some used the second. In one case, the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services issued contracts to the same company for similar office printers, but one reported the primary place of performance as California, the location of the office where the printers were delivered and used. The other agency reported the primary place of performance as New Jersey, the location of the company that supplied the printers. As a result, the data were not comparable between agencies or across the federal government, limiting the usefulness for congressional oversight. We previously recommended that OMB and Treasury provide additional instruction to agencies on how to report Primary Place of Performance to ensure the definitions are clear and the data standards are implemented consistently by agencies. Staff from one congressional committee cautioned that attempts to present information on budget authorities for fees, fines, and penalties in a simple and accessible database create an unacceptable risk of confusion and legislative error. The staff said an accurate description of the nature of the spending–-including whether there is authority to obligate without further appropriation–-would be labor intensive and require significant legal analysis and research. Government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties could increase transparency and facilitate oversight and decision-making, but would require time and resources to develop given that there is currently no government-wide system or requirements for agencies to collect and report detailed fee, fine, and penalty data. The level of federal investment would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements included and the level of detail reported. Developing a comprehensive and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would likely be resource intensive. We have reported on other federal transparency efforts that could provide strategies for reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data. For example, to create a clear and accessible government-wide data source that includes the data elements we identified that would be useful for congressional oversight, Treasury officials said the process would be similar to the implementation of the DATA Act for spending data. To implement the DATA Act, OMB and Treasury led an intensive effort starting in May 2014 through May 2017 when the first government-wide data were reported under the DATA Act’s new standards. Data Standards: OMB, in coordination with Treasury, established 57 standardized data element definitions and approximately 400 associated sub-elements for reporting federal spending information. OMB and Treasury created opportunities for non-federal stakeholders to provide input into the development of data standards, including publishing a Federal Register notice seeking public comment on the establishment of financial data standards; presenting periodic updates on the status of DATA Act implementation to federal and non-federal stakeholders at meetings and conferences; soliciting public comment on data standards using an online collaboration space; and collaborating with federal agencies on the development of data standards and the technical schema through MAX.gov, an OMB- supported website. Technical Process for Reporting: Treasury developed the initial DATA Act Information Model Schema, which provided information on how to standardize the way financial assistance awards, contracts, and other financial and nonfinancial data would be collected and reported under the DATA Act. System to Collect and Validate Data: Treasury developed a system that collects and validates agency data (the DATA Act Broker), which operationalizes the reporting framework laid out in the schema. In addition, Treasury employed online software development tools to provide responses to stakeholder questions and comments related to the development and revision of the broker. Public Reporting: Treasury created and updated the new USAspending.gov website to display certified agency data submitted under the DATA Act. Agencies also took steps to prepare to report spending data. They reviewed data elements OMB identified, participated in standardizing the definitions, performed an inventory of their existing data and associated business processes, and updated their systems and processes to report data to Treasury. OMB and Treasury issued policy directions to help agencies meet their reporting requirements under the act. They also conducted a series of meetings with participating agencies to obtain information on any challenges that could impede effective implementation and assess agencies’ readiness to report required spending data. Although the steps to developing comprehensive, detailed reporting on government-wide collections of fees, fines, and penalties might be similar to the DATA Act efforts, the dollar amounts of collections would be smaller than those of federal spending. In fiscal year 2017, federal spending was $3.98 trillion compared to about $350 billion in collections of fees, fines, penalties, and forfeitures reported by OMB. On the other hand, defining data elements and standards for fee, fine, and penalty data could be more resource intensive than developing data standards for DATA Act implementation because the DATA Act built on earlier reporting requirements. The DATA Act amended the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), which required OMB to establish the website USAspending.gov to report data on federal awards, including contracts, grants, and loans. The DATA Act required OMB and Treasury to standardize data required to be reported by FFATA. For fee, fine, and penalty data, OMB and Treasury would be starting without the benefit of some data elements already defined. Further, we have previously reported that effective implementation of provisions to make federal data publicly available, including the DATA Act and GPRAMA’s program inventory, especially the ability to crosswalk spending data to individual programs, could provide vital information to assist federal decision makers in addressing significant challenges the government faces. Incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide agency reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources. For example, Congress required agencies to add selected data elements to their annual financial reports on civil monetary penalties. Specifically, the Federal Civil Penalties Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to include information about the civil monetary penalties within the agencies’ jurisdiction, including catch-up inflation adjustment of the civil monetary penalty amounts, in annual agency financial reports or performance and accountability reports. As shown in figure 7, to facilitate agencies’ reporting, OMB provided a table to define the data elements required in the act in its annual instructions, OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. Agencies started reporting these data in their agency financial reports in fiscal year 2016. In July 2018, we reported that 40 of 45 required agencies reported in their fiscal year 2017 agency financial report information on civil monetary penalties as directed by the OMB instructions. Similarly, if Congress sought additional fine and penalty data elements, such as amounts collected and authority to spend collections, OMB could expand this table in Circular No. A-136 to include those data elements. Circular No. A-136 also outlines that agencies may include the results of biennial reviews of fees and other collections in their agency financial reports. OMB could also update this portion of the circular to require agencies to report specific data elements that are useful for oversight, such as review and reporting requirements. While this information reported in agency financial reports would be disaggregated in portable document format, or PDF, documents, it would provide some transparency on agencies’ activities that Congress could use to prioritize its oversight efforts. In another example, if OMB implements the federal program inventory as required by GPRAMA, it could include a data element on whether a program has a fee, fine, or penalty. We previously reported that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs. A program inventory creates the potential to aggregate, disaggregate, sort, and filter information across multiple program facets. For example, from a user’s perspective, a program could be tagged to highlight whether it includes activities to collect fees, fines, or penalties. Then, a user interested in this data facet could select a tag (e.g., fees) that could generate a list of programs that also have fees, fines, or penalties. While the program inventory is broader than agency collections of fees, fines, and penalties and would include programmatic descriptions, it would increase transparency by enabling Congress and the public to identify and isolate all programs that include, as a source of funding or a key data element, a fee, fine, or penalty to inform oversight and target additional requests for information to agencies. Federal agencies are authorized to collect hundreds of billions of dollars from fees, fines, and penalties each year that fund a wide variety of programs, but Congress and the American public do not have government-wide data on these collections that would provide increased transparency and facilitate oversight. OMB’s MAX database contains some disaggregated data labeled as fees, fines, and penalties, but OMB does not make these data publicly available. Without more disaggregated, government-wide, accessible data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties, such as by agency, Congress and the public do not have a complete and accurate picture of federal finances, the sources of federal funds, and the resources available to fund federal programs. In addition, improving the data OMB currently reports related to fees, fines, and penalties could help the user better understand the data and the potential limitations. First, until OMB describes how it identifies accounts with fees including that the government-wide totals of fees it reports in Analytical Perspectives may include collections that are not fees and exclude some fee collections, some users will likely be unaware that reported totals could be over- or under-estimates. Second, without OMB instruction to agencies to regularly review and update implementation of the criteria for designating accounts that contain fees, accounts could be designated incorrectly if the makeup of the collections changes. Therefore, OMB cannot provide reasonable assurance that the total amount of fees it reports is accurate. Third, until OMB describes in the User’s Guide that its Public Budget Database reports budget authority net of offsetting collections, including collections of fees, fines, and penalties, users could misinterpret the information and underestimate collections in some cases. OMB and Treasury do not collect many of the data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that would be useful for congressional oversight, such as review and reporting requirements. There are trade-offs between the potential costs and the potential benefits. While reporting government- wide data on specific fees, fines, and penalties would improve transparency and information for decision-making, more data elements would require greater investment of resources from OMB, Treasury, and agencies. Any new reporting of fee, fine, and penalty data would be most useful if it is designed to be compatible with other transparency efforts— the DATA Act reporting and the federal program inventory. Regardless of the approach taken, linkage of data on fees, fines, and penalties with other government-wide data reporting, such as USASpending.gov, would enhance transparency and facilitate congressional oversight. We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should make available more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties that it maintains in its OMB MAX database. For example, OMB could report data on fee collections by agency in Analytical Perspectives. (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should present, in Analytical Perspectives, the data limitations related to the government-wide fee totals by describing the 50- percent criteria OMB uses to identify accounts with fees or by directing users to the relevant sections of OMB Circular No. A-11. (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should instruct agencies to regularly review the application of the user fee designation in the OMB MAX data and update the designation, as needed, to meet the criteria in OMB Circular No. A-11. (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should describe in the Public Budget Database User’s Guide that budget authority is reported net of any offsetting collections, such as collections of fees, fines, and penalties. (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to Treasury and OMB for review and comment on December 10, 2018. Treasury informed us that they had no comments. As of March 4, 2019, OMB did not provide comments. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report is available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or nguyentt@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 II. This report examines: (1) the extent to which government-wide data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publicly available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight, and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of specific fees, fines, and penalties including data elements that facilitate congressional oversight. To assess the extent and usefulness of publicly available data, we developed criteria for the availability and usefulness for the purpose of congressional oversight of data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties reported in government-wide sources (see table 3). The first three criteria—clear and accessible presentation, complete, and accurate—address the availability of the data and the final criterion, useful for the purpose of congressional oversight, addresses content of the data specific to congressional oversight needs. These criteria are based on: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government related to Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) government-wide instruction from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on public access to data and open government, our prior work on user fees, fines, and penalties, and input from staff of congressional committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight. Using a standard list of semistructured interview questions, we interviewed congressional staff that were available to meet with us on or before November 1, 2018. We shared the criteria with OMB staff and Department of the Treasury (Treasury) officials, and they agreed the criteria are relevant and reasonable. To identify publicly available government-wide sources of data with information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed our prior work on user fees, fines, penalties, and permanent funding authorities, conducted general background research including reviewing Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, and interviewed staff from OMB, and officials from Treasury, CBO, and CRS. We identified the Budget of the U.S. Government—including Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, and the Public Budget Database—produced annually by OMB; the Financial Report of the U.S. Government (Financial Report), the Daily Treasury Statement, the Monthly Treasury Statement, the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances, and USAspending.gov produced by Treasury; and CBO products, such as its budget projections and historical budget tables as containing government-wide federal budget or financial data. Of the sources we identified, we included Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances in our study because they contain government-wide information on collections of fees, fines, and penalties. We excluded the Treasury’s Daily Treasury Statement, Monthly Treasury Statement, Financial Report, and USAspending.gov from this review because we determined that the information presented did not differentiate between types of collections in a way that would allow us to separately identify fees, fines, and penalties. For example, Treasury’s Financial Report reports government-wide information in categories that are broader than fees, fines, and penalties. Specifically, it reports “earned revenue,” which includes collections of interest payments for federal loan programs. Such collections are not fees. The Financial Report also reports fines and penalties combined with interest and other revenues. We also reviewed and excluded CBO products because the data reported are not designed to differentiate between types of collections. We assessed Analytical Perspectives, the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances using the criteria we developed for clear and accessible presentation, accurate, and complete. We also assessed the Budget Appendix, the Public Budget Database, and the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances using the criteria for useful for the purpose of congressional oversight. Further, we assessed relevant portions of OMB and Treasury instructions using Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also used OMB and Treasury data to identify and report government- wide totals for fees, fines, and penalties to the extent that they were reported. To assess the reliability of OMB’s MAX database data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed related documentation, interviewed knowledgeable agency officials, and conducted electronic data testing. To assess Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service data related to the collections of fees, fines, and penalties, we reviewed related documentation and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. In both cases, we found the data to be reliable for our purposes. We did not examine whether agencies accurately report collections as fees, fines, and penalties to OMB and Treasury. In addition, we identified and reviewed other sources of data on fees, fines, and penalties that are specific to federal agencies, including annual financial reports and agency websites. We did not apply the criteria we developed for available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight to these sources because they contain data for an individual agency rather than government-wide data. To determine the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties, we interviewed staff of congressional committees on appropriations, budget, and oversight, OMB staff and Treasury officials, staff of CBO, and external organizations, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Data Coalition, the Data Foundation, the Project on Government Oversight, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the Sunlight Foundation, on the potential benefits and challenges of government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties. In addition, we reviewed our prior work on the DATA Act, federal program inventories, and federal fees, to identify and assess issues to consider in government-wide reporting. We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to March 2019 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. In addition to the contact named above, Susan E. Murphy (Assistant Director), Barbara Lancaster (Analyst in Charge), Michael Bechetti, Jacqueline Chapin, Colleen Corcoran, Ann Marie Cortez, Lorraine Ettaro, John Mingus, and Rachel Stoiko made key contributions to this report.

 

 Report 2:
The Small Business Administration (SBA) administers programs to support small businesses, including loan guaranty programs to encourage lenders to provide loans to small businesses "that might not otherwise obtain financing on reasonable terms and conditions." The SBA's 7(a) loan guaranty program is considered the agency's flagship loan program. Its name is derived from Section 7(a) of the Small Business Act of 1953 (P.L. 83-163, as amended), which authorizes the SBA to provide and guarantee business loans to American small businesses. The SBA also administers several 7(a) subprograms that offer streamlined and expedited loan procedures for particular groups of borrowers, including the SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage Pilot programs (see the Appendix for additional details). Although these subprograms have their own distinguishing eligibility requirements, terms, and benefits, they operate under the 7(a) program's authorization. Proceeds from 7(a) loans may be used to establish a new business or to assist in the operation, acquisition, or expansion of an existing business. Specific uses include to acquire land (by purchase or lease); improve a site (e.g., grading, streets, parking lots, and landscaping); purchase, convert, expand, or renovate one or more existing buildings; construct one or more new buildings; acquire (by purchase or lease) and install fixed assets; purchase inventory, supplies, and raw materials; finance working capital; and refinance certain outstanding debts. In FY2018, the SBA approved 60,353 7(a) loans totaling nearly $25.4 billion. The average approved 7(a) loan amount was $420,401. As will be discussed, the total number and amount of SBA 7(a) loans approved (and actually disbursed) declined in FY2008 and FY2009, increased during FY2010 and FY2011, declined somewhat in FY2012, and have increased since then. Historically, one of the justifications presented for funding the SBA's loan guaranty programs has been that small businesses can be at a disadvantage, compared with other businesses, when trying to obtain access to sufficient capital and credit. Congressional interest in the 7(a) loan program has increased in recent years because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to grow and create jobs. Some Members of Congress have argued that the SBA should be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations with the expectation that in so doing small businesses will create jobs. Others worry about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocate business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to help small businesses further economic growth and job creation. This report discusses the rationale provided for the 7(a) program; the program's borrower and lender eligibility standards and program requirements; and program statistics, including loan volume, loss rates, use of the proceeds, borrower satisfaction, and borrower demographics. It also examines issues raised concerning the SBA's administration of the 7(a) program, including the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the program's lack of outcome-based performance measures. This report also surveys congressional and presidential actions taken in recent years to help small businesses gain greater access to capital. For example, during the 111 th Congress P.L. 111-5 , the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), provided the SBA an additional $730 million, including $375 million to temporarily subsidize the 7(a) and 504/Certified Development Companies (504/CDC) loan guaranty programs' fees ($299 million) and to temporarily increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90% ($76 million). P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, provided $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the fee subsidies and 90% loan guaranty percentage through December 31, 2010; increased the 7(a) program's gross loan limit from $2 million to $5 million; and established an alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan programs to enable more small businesses to qualify for assistance. P.L. 111-322 , the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the SBA to continue the fee subsidies and the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until available funding was exhausted (which occurred on January 3, 2011). During the 112 th Congress, several bills were introduced to expand the 7(a) program: S. 1828 , a bill to increase small business lending (and for other purposes), would have reinstated for one year following the date of its enactment the fee subsidies for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and the 90% loan guaranty percentage for the 7(a) program, which were originally authorized by ARRA. H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, would have extended a one-year increase in the maximum loan amount for the SBAExpress program from $350,000 to $1 million for an additional year. That temporary increase was authorized by P.L. 111-240 and expired on September 27, 2011. S. 532 , the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011, would have provided statutory authorization for the Patriot Express Pilot Program and increased its loan guaranty percentages and its maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million. The Patriot Express Pilot Program was subsequently discontinued by the SBA on December 31, 2013. During the 113 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee and ongoing servicing fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2014 and FY2015 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. H.R. 2462 , the Small Business Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2013, would have made the fee waiver for smaller 7(a) loans permanent. waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for a loan to a veteran or to a veteran's spouse under the SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015 (called the SBA Veterans Advantage Program). waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 up to and including $5 million in FY2015. In addition, P.L. 113-235 , the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, provided statutory authorization for the Veterans Advantage fee waiver in FY2015. During the 114 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2016 and FY2017 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. waived the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2016 (increased to 0.546% in FY2017). waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 to $5 million in FY2016; and 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $150,001 to $500,000 in FY2017. In addition P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, provided statutory authorization and made permanent the veteran's fee waiver under the SBAExpress program, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, FY2018, and is waiving this fee in FY2019. The act also increased the 7(a) program's FY2015 authorization limit of $18.75 billion (on disbursements) to $23.5 billion. P.L. 114-113 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $26.5 billion in FY2016. P.L. 114-223 , the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, authorized the SBA to use funds from its business loan program account "to accommodate increased demand for commitments for [7(a)] general business loans" for the duration of the continuing resolution (initially December 9, 2016, later extended by P.L. 114-254 , the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, to April 28, 2017). During the 115 th Congress, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018 as a means to encourage the demand for smaller 7(a) loans. waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $125,001 to $350,000 in FY2018. is waiving the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less made to small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone and reducing the up-front one-time guaranty fee for these loans from 2.0% to 0.6667% of the guaranteed portion of the loan in FY2019. In addition P.L. 115-31 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $27.5 billion in FY2017 and P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $29.0 billion in FY2018. P.L. 115-189 , the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018, among other provisions, codified the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management; required that office to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; created a lender oversight committee within the SBA; authorized the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management to undertake informal and formal enforcement actions against 7(a) lenders under specified conditions; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; and authorized the SBA Administrator to increase the amount of 7(a) loans not more than once during any fiscal year to not more than 115% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit. The SBA is required to provide at least 30 days' notice of its intent to exceed the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to the House and Senate Committees on Small Business and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations' Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government and may exercise this option only once per fiscal year. P.L. 115-232 , the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, included provisions originally in H.R. 5236 , the Main Street Employee Ownership Act of 2018, to make 7(a) loans more accessible to employee-owned small businesses (ESOPs) and cooperatives. The act clarified that 7(a) loans to ESOPs may be made under the Preferred Lenders Program; allows the seller to remain involved as an officer, director, or key employee when the ESOP or cooperative has acquired 100% ownership of the small business; and authorizes the SBA to finance transition costs to employee ownership and waive any mandatory equity injection by the ESOP or cooperative to help finance the change of ownership. The act also directs the SBA to create outreach programs and an interagency working group to promote lending to ESOPs and cooperatives. President Trump's FY2019 budget request included proposals to offset SBA business loan administrative costs by, among other provisions, (1) allowing the SBA to set the 7(a) program's annual servicing fee at rates below zero credit subsidy; (2) increasing the 7(a) loan program's FY2019 annual servicing fee's cap from 0.55% to 0.625%; and (3) increasing the FY2019 upfront loan guarantee fee on 7(a) loans over $1 million by 0.25%. The Trump Administration estimated that these changes would raise $93 million in additional revenue. The Trump Administration also requested that the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit be increased to $30.0 million in FY2019; that the SBA be allowed to further increase the 7(a) loan program's authorization amount in FY2019 by 15% under specified circumstances "to better equip the SBA to meet peaks in demand while continuing to operate at zero subsidies"; and that the SBAExpress program's loan limit be increased from $350,000 to $1 million. During the 116 th Congress P.L. 116-6 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $30.0 billion in FY2019. This report's Appendix provides a brief description of the 7(a) program's SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage programs. To be eligible for an SBA business loan, a small business applicant must be located in the United States; be a for-profit operating business (except for loans to eligible passive companies and businesses engaged in specified industries, such as insurance companies and financial institutions primarily engaged in lending); qualify as small under the SBA's size requirements; demonstrate a need for the desired credit; and be certified by a lender that the desired credit is unavailable to the applicant on reasonable terms and conditions from nonfederal sources without SBA assistance. To qualify for an SBA 7(a) loan, applicants must be creditworthy and able to reasonably assure repayment. SBA requires lenders to consider the strength of the business and the applicant's character, reputation, and credit history; experience and depth of management; past earnings, projected cash flow, and future prospects; ability to repay the loan with earnings from the business; sufficient invested equity to operate on a sound financial basis; potential for long-term success; nature and value of collateral (although inadequate collateral will not be the sole reason for denial of a loan request); and affiliates' effect on the applicant's repayment ability. Borrowers may use 7(a) loan proceeds to establish a new business or to assist in the operation, acquisition, or expansion of an existing business. 7(a) loan proceeds may be used to acquire land (by purchase or lease); improve a site (e.g., grading, streets, parking lots, landscaping), including up to 5% for community improvements such as curbs and sidewalks; purchase one or more existing buildings; convert, expand, or renovate one or more existing buildings; construct one or more new buildings; acquire (by purchase or lease) and install fixed assets; purchase inventory, supplies, and raw materials; finance working capital; and refinance certain outstanding debts. Borrowers are prohibited from using 7(a) loan proceeds to refinance existing debt where the lender is in a position to sustain a loss and the SBA would take over that loss through refinancing; effect a partial change of business ownership or a change that will not benefit the business; permit the reimbursement of funds owed to any owner, including any equity injection or injection of capital for the business's continuance until the loan supported by the SBA is disbursed; repay delinquent state or federal withholding taxes or other funds that should be held in trust or escrow; or pay for a nonsound business purpose. As mentioned previously, P.L. 111-240 increased the 7(a) program's maximum gross loan amount for any one 7(a) loan from $2 million to $5 million (up to $3.75 million maximum guaranty). In FY2018, the average approved 7(a) loan amount was $420,401, and about 36% of all 7(a) loans exceeded $2 million. A 7(a) loan is required to have the shortest appropriate term, depending upon the borrower's ability to repay. The maximum term is 10 years, unless the loan finances or refinances real estate or equipment with a useful life exceeding 10 years. In that case, the loan term can be up to 25 years, including extensions. Lenders are allowed to charge borrowers "a reasonable fixed interest rate" or, with the SBA's approval, a variable interest rate. The SBA uses a multistep formula to determine the maximum allowable fixed interest rate for all 7(a) loans (with the exception of the Export Working Capital Program and Community Advantage loans) and periodically publishes that rate and the maximum allowable variable interest rate in the Federal Register . The maximum allowable fixed interest rates in February 2019 are 13.50% for 7(a) loans of $25,000 or less; 12.50% for loans over $25,000 but not exceeding $50,000; 11.50% for loans over $50,000 up to and including $250,000; and 10.50% loans greater than $250,000. The 7(a) program's maximum allowable variable interest rate may be pegged to the lowest prime rate (5.50% in February 2019), the 30-day LIBOR rate plus 300 basis points (5.51% in February 2019), or the SBA optional peg rate (3.13% in the second quarter of FY2019). The optional peg rate is a weighted average of rates the federal government pays for loans with maturities similar to the average SBA loan. For 7(a) loans of $25,000 or less, the SBA does not require lenders to take collateral. For 7(a) loans exceeding $25,000 to $350,000, the lender must follow the collateral policies and procedures that it has established and implemented for its similarly sized non-SBA-guaranteed commercial loans. However, the lender must, at a minimum, obtain a first lien on assets financed with loan proceeds, and a lien on all of the applicant's fixed assets, including real estate, up to the point that the loan is fully secured. For 7(a) loans exceeding $350,000, the SBA requires lenders to collateralize the loan to the maximum extent possible up to the loan amount. If business assets do not fully secure the loan, the lender must take available equity in the principal's personal real estate (residential and investment) as collateral. 7(a) loans are considered "fully secured" if the lender has taken security interests in all available fixed assets with a combined "net book value" up to the loan amount. The SBA directs lenders to not decline a loan solely on the basis of inadequate collateral because "one of the primary reasons lenders use the SBA-guaranteed program is for those Applicants that demonstrate repayment ability but lack adequate collateral to repay the loan in full in the event of a default." Lenders must have a continuing ability to evaluate, process, close, disburse, service, and liquidate small business loans; be open to the public for the making of such loans (and not be a financing subsidiary, engaged primarily in financing the operations of an affiliate); have continuing good character and reputation; and be supervised and examined by a state or federal regulatory authority, satisfactory to the SBA. They must also maintain satisfactory performance, as determined by the SBA through on-site review/examination assessments, historical performance measures (such as default rate, purchase rate, and loss rate), and loan volume to the extent that it affects performance measures. In FY2017, 1,978 lenders provided 7(a) loans. The SBA started the Preferred Lenders Program (PLP) on March 1, 1983, initially on a pilot basis. It is designed to streamline the procedures necessary to provide financial assistance to small businesses by delegating the final credit decision and most servicing and liquidation authority and responsibility to carefully selected PLP lenders. PLP loan approvals are subject only to a brief eligibility review and the assignment of a loan number by SBA. PLP lenders draft the SBA Authorization (of loan guaranty approval) without the SBA's review, and execute it on behalf of the SBA. In FY2018, PLP lenders approved 26,497 7(a) loans (43.9% of all 7(a) loans), amounting to $18.8 billion (74.2% of the total amount approved). PLP lenders must comply with all of the SBA's business loan eligibility requirements, credit policies, and procedures. The PLP lender is required to stay informed on, and apply, all of the SBA's loan program requirements. They must also complete and retain in the lender's file all forms and documents required of standard 7(a) loan packages. Borrowers submit applications for a 7(a) business loan to private lenders. The lender reviews the application and decides if it merits a loan on its own or if it has some weaknesses which, in the lender's opinion, do not meet standard, conventional underwriting guidelines and require additional support in the form of an SBA guaranty. The SBA guaranty assures the lender that if the borrower does not repay the loan and the lender has adhered to all applicable regulations concerning the loan, the SBA will reimburse the lender for its loss, up to the percentage of the SBA's guaranty. The small business borrowing the money remains obligated for the full amount due. If the lender determines that it is willing to provide the loan, but only with an SBA guaranty, it submits the application for approval to the SBA's Loan Guaranty Processing Center (LGPC) through the SBA's E-Tran (Electronic Loan Processing/Servicing) website (which is available through SBA One, the SBA's automated lending platform) or, if attachments to the application are too large for E-Tran, by secured electronic file transfer. The LGPC has two physical locations: Citrus Heights, CA, and Hazard, KY. This center has responsibility for processing 7(a) loan guaranty applications for lenders who do not have delegated authority to make 7(a) loans without the SBA's final approval. The SBA has authorized PLP and express lenders to make credit decisions without SBA review prior to loan approval. However, the PLP and express lender's analysis is subject to the SBA's review and determination of adequacy when the lender requests the SBA to purchase its guaranty and when the SBA is conducting a review of the lender. As an additional safeguard against the potential for loan defaults, the SBA now requires all non-express 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less to be SBA credit scored through E-Tran prior to submission/approval. If the credit score is below the minimum set by the SBA (currently 140 for 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less, including Community Advantage loans), the loan must be submitted to the SBA for approval with a full credit write-up for consideration. The loan cannot be processed under delegated authority. If the credit score is acceptable to the SBA, the lender is a PLP lender, and the loan is eligible to be processed under the PLP lender's delegated authority, the lender will receive an SBA loan number indicating that the loan is approved. The PLP lender's documentation, including underwriting, closing, and servicing, must be maintained in their files, and can be reviewed by the SBA at any time. If the lender is not a PLP lender or if the loan is not eligible to be submitted under the PLP lender's delegated authority, the lender must refer the loan to the LGPC for review. The application materials required for a SBA guaranty vary depending on the size of the loan ($350,000 or less versus exceeding $350,000) and the method of processing used by the lender (standard versus expedited/express). The following SBA documentation is required for all 7(a) standard loans of $350,000 or less: Form 191 9: Borrower Information Form . SBA form 1919 provides information about the borrower (name, name of business, social security number, date and place of birth, gender, race, veteran, etc.); the loan request; any indebtedness; the principals and affiliates; current or previous government financing; the applicant's eligibility (e.g., criminal information, citizenship status); the loan's eligibility for delegated or expedited processing (e.g., the borrower is not more than 60 days delinquent in child support payments, not proposed or presently excluded from participation in this transaction by any federal department or agency, has no potential for a conflict of interest due to an owner being a current or former SBA employee, a Member of Congress, or a SCORE volunteer); and, among other disclosures, the firm's existing number of employees, the number of jobs to be created as a result of the loan, and the number of jobs that will be retained as a result of the loan that would have otherwise been lost. Form 912 : Statement of Personal History . SBA form 912 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 an arrest in the past six months for a criminal offense or had ever been convicted, plead guilty, plead nolo contendere, been placed on pretrial diversion, or been placed on any form of parole or probation (including probation before judgment) of any criminal offense. Form 912 requires the borrower to furnish details concerning his or her offense(s) and authorizes the SBA's Office of Inspector General to request criminal record information about the applicant from criminal justice agencies for determining program eligibility. It must be dated within 90 days of the application's submission to the SBA. Form 159 : Fee Disclosure and Compensation Agreement . SBA form 159 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 that he or she used (or intends to use) a packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. to assist in preparing the loan application or any related materials. SBA form 159 is also required if the lender retains the services of a packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. to assist in preparing the loan application or any related materials. Form 159 provides identifying information about the packager, broker, accountant, lawyer, etc. and the fees paid to any such person. Form 601 : Agreement of Compliance (prohibiting discrimination). SBA form 601 is required if the borrower reports on Form 1919 that more than $10,000 of the loan proceeds will be used for construction. Form 601 certifies that the borrower will cooperate actively in obtaining compliance with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and requires affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity in all aspects of employment related to federally assisted construction projects in excess of $10,000. Form 1920 : Lenders Application for Guaranty for all 7(a) Programs . SBA form 1920 provides identifying information about the lender; the loan type (standard, SBAExpress, Export Express, etc.); loan terms; use of proceeds; the business's size and information about affiliates, if any; the applicant's character; if credit is reasonably available elsewhere; the type of business; potential conflicts of interest; and other information such the number of jobs created or retained. PLP lenders complete the form and retain it in the loan file. Other lenders must submit this form electronically to the LGPC. Verification of Alien Status . Documentation of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) status of each alien is required prior to submission of the application to the SBA. Lender's Credit Memo randum . For loans up to and including $350,000, the Lender's Credit Memorandum includes a brief description of the history of the business and its management; the debt service coverage ratio (net operating income compared to total debt service must be at least 1:1); statement that the lender has reconciled financial data (including seller's financial data) against IRS transcripts; an owner/guarantor analysis (including personal financial condition); lender's discussion of life insurance requirements; explanation and justification for any refinancing; analysis of credit, including lender's rationale for recommending approval; for a change of ownership, discussion/analysis of business valuation and how the change benefits the business; discussion of any liens, judgments, or bankruptcy filings; and discussion of any other relevant information. For loans exceeding $350,000, the Lender's Credit Memorandum must also include an analysis of collateral and a financial analysis which includes an analysis of the historical financial statements; defining assumptions supporting projected cash flow; and, when used, spread of pro forma balance sheet, ratio calculations, and working capital analysis. Cash Flow Projections . A projection of the borrower's cash flow, month-by-month for one year, is required for all new businesses, and when otherwise applicable. The following forms and documentation are also required for 7(a) standard loans exceeding $350,000: Form 413 : Personal Financial Statement . SBA form 413 provides detailed information concerning the applicant's assets and liabilities and must be dated within 90 days of submission to the SBA, on all owners of 20% or more (including the assets of the owner's spouse and any minor children), and proposed guarantors. Lenders may substitute their own Personal Financial Statement form. Form 1846 : Statement Regarding Lobbying . SBA Form 1846 must be signed and dated by lender. It indicates that if any funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an officer or employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this commitment, the lender will complete and submit a Standard Form LLL "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities." A copy of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 4506-T, Request for Copy of Tax Return . Lenders must identify the date IRS Form 4506-T was sent to the IRS. For nondelegated lenders, verification of IRS Form 4506-T is required prior to submission of the application to the SBA. For PLP and express lenders, verification of IRS Form 4506-T is required prior the first disbursement. Business Financial Statements or tax returns dated within 180 days of the application's submission to the SBA, consisting of (1) year-end balance sheets for the last three years, (2) year-end profit and loss statements for the last three years, (3) reconciliation of net worth, (4) interim balance sheet, and (5) interim profit and loss statements. Affiliate and Subsidiary Financial Statements or tax returns dated within 180 days of the application's submission to the SBA, consisting of (1) year-end balance sheets for the last three years, (2) year-end profit and loss statements for the last three years, (3) reconciliation of net worth, (4) interim balance sheet, and (5) interim profit and loss statements. A copy of the Le ase Agreement , if applicable. A detailed Schedule of C ollateral . A detailed List of M&E (machinery and equipment) being purchased with SBA loan proceeds, including cost quotes. If real estate is to be purchased with the loan proceeds, a Real Estate Appraisal , Environmental Investigation Report questionnaire, a cost breakdown, and copy of any Real Estate Purchase Agreements . If purchasing an existing business with loan proceeds, a (1) copy of buy-sell agreement, (2) copy of business valuation, (3) pro forma balance sheet for the business being purchased as of the date of transfer, (4) copy of the seller's financial statements for the last three complete fiscal years or for the number of years in business if less than three years, (5) interim statements no older than 180 days from date of submission to the SBA, and (6) if the seller's financial statements are not available, the seller must provide an alternate source of verifying revenues. An explanation of the type and source of applicant's equity injection. Proper evidence of a borrower's equity injection may include the copy of a check together with proof it was processed, or a copy of an escrow settlement sheet with a bank account statement showing the injection into the business prior to disbursement. A promissory note, "gift letter," or financial statement is generally not sufficient evidence. To offset its costs, the SBA is authorized to charge lenders an up-front, one-time guaranty fee and an annual, ongoing service fee for each 7(a) loan approved and disbursed. The SBA's fees vary depending on loan amount and loan maturity. The maximum guaranty fee for 7(a) loans with maturities exceeding 12 months is set by statute and varies depending on the loan amount. The fee is a percentage of the SBA guaranteed portion of the loan. On short-term loans (maturities of less than 12 months), the lender must pay the guaranty fee to the SBA electronically through www.pay.gov within 10 days from the date the SBA loan number is assigned. If the fee is not received within the specified time frame, the SBA will cancel the guaranty. On loans with maturities in excess of 12 months, the lender must pay the guaranty fee to the SBA within 90 days of the date of loan approval. For short-term loans, the lender may charge the guaranty fee to the borrower only after the lender has paid the guaranty fee. For loans with maturities in excess of 12 months, the lender may charge the guaranty fee to the borrower after initial disbursement. Lenders are permitted to retain 25% of the guaranty fee on loans with a gross amount of $150,000 or less. The annual service fee cannot exceed 0.55% of the outstanding balance of the SBA's share of the loan and is required to be no more than the "rate necessary to reduce to zero the cost to the Administration" of making guaranties. The lender's annual service fee to the SBA cannot be charged to the borrower. In an effort to assist small business owners, the SBA waived its annual service fee for all 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved from FY2014 through FY2016 (the annual service fee for other small businesses was 0.52% in FY2014, 0.519% in FY2015, and 0.473% in FY2016); is waiving the annual service fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less made to small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone in FY2019 (the annual service fee for other small businesses is 0.55% in FY2019); waived the up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved from FY2014 through FY2017; waived the up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018; and is reducing the up-front one-time guaranty fee for loans made small businesses located in a rural area or a HUBZone from 2.0% to 0.6667% of the guaranteed portion of the loan in FY2019. Table 1 shows the annual service fee and guaranty fee for 7(a) loans in FY2019. The annual service fee is a percentage of the outstanding balance of the SBA's share of the loan. The guaranty fee is a percentage of the SBA guaranteed portion of the loan. As mentioned previously, the SBA waived its up-front, one-time guaranty fee for all veteran loans under the 7(a) SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015. P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, made this fee waiver permanent, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 and is waiving it in FY2019. The SBA also waived 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $150,001 to $5 million for veterans in FY2015 and FY2016; 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $150,001 to $500,000 for veterans in FY2017; and 50% of the up-front, one-time guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans of $125,001 to $350,000 for veterans in FY2018. The Obama Administration argued that fee waivers for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less were necessary because the demand for smaller 7(a) loans had fallen and the waiver reduction "can be achieved with zero credit subsidy appropriations" because the "annual fees for larger 7(a) loans will cover the cost for those smaller loans." The Administration also contended that waiving the fees on smaller SBA loans would "promote lending to small businesses that face the most constraints on credit access." For context, 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less accounted for about 11.8% of the total amount of 7(a) loan approvals in FY2010 ($1.46 billion of $12.41 billion); 8.3% in FY2011 ($1.63 billion of $19.64 billion); 9.5% in FY2012 ($1.44 billion of $15.15 billion); 8.1% in FY2013 ($1.45 billion of $17.87 billion); 9.7% in FY2014 ($1.86 billion of $19.19 billion); 9.7% in FY2015 ($2.28 billion of $23.58 billion); 9.4% in FY2016 ($2.75 billion of $24.13 billion), and 9.2% in FY2017 ($2.33 billion of $25.45 billion). The SBA also announced that eliminating guaranty fees for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less ($125,000 or less in FY2018) was part of its broader effort to "reduce barriers, attract new lenders, grow loan volumes of existing lenders and improve access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs." Some in Congress questioned whether it is appropriate to require borrowers of larger 7(a) loans to, in effect, subsidize borrowers of smaller 7(a) loans, who might be direct competitors. They have suggested that it might be more appropriate to reduce fees across-the-board without regard to loan size. The lender may charge an applicant "reasonable fees" customary for similar lenders in the geographic area where the loan is being made for packaging and other services. The lender must advise the applicant in writing that the applicant is not required to obtain or pay for unwanted services. These fees are subject to SBA review at any time, and the lender must refund any such fee considered unreasonable by the SBA. The lender may also charge an applicant an additional fee if, subject to prior written SBA approval, all or part of a loan will have extraordinary servicing needs. The additional fee cannot exceed 2% per year on the outstanding balance of the part requiring special servicing (e.g., field inspections for construction projects). The lender may also collect from the applicant necessary out-of-pocket expenses, including filing or recording fees, photocopying, delivery charges, collateral appraisals, environmental impact reports that are obtained in compliance with SBA policy, and other direct charges related to loan closing. The lender is prohibited from requiring the borrower to pay any fees for goods and services, including insurance, as a condition for obtaining an SBA guaranteed loan, and from imposing on SBA loan applicants processing fees, origination fees, application fees, points, brokerage fees, bonus points, and referral or similar fees. The lender is also allowed to charge the borrower a late payment fee not to exceed 5% of the regular loan payment when the borrower is more than 10 days delinquent on its regularly scheduled payment. The lender may not charge a fee for full or partial prepayment of a loan. For loans with a maturity of 15 years or longer, the borrower must pay to the SBA a subsidy recoupment fee when the borrower voluntarily prepays 25% or more of its loan in any one year during the first three years after first disbursement. The fee is 5% of the prepayment amount during the first year, 3% in the second year, and 1% in the third year. As shown in Table 2 , the total number and amount of SBA 7(a) loans approved (before and after cancellations and modifications) declined in FY2008 and FY2009, increased during FY2010 and FY2011, declined somewhat in FY2012, and have increased since then. The number and amount of 7(a) loans approved annually is higher than the number and amount of loans disbursed because some borrowers decide not to accept the loan for a variety of reasons, such as financing was secured elsewhere, the funds are no longer needed, or there was a change in business ownership. The SBA attributed the decreased number and amount of 7(a) loans approved in FY2008 and FY2009 to a reduction in the demand for small business loans resulting from the economic uncertainty of the recession (December 2007-June 2009) and to tightened loan standards imposed by lenders concerned about the possibility of higher loan default rates resulting from the economic slowdown. The SBA attributed the increased number of loans approved in FY2010 and FY2011 to legislation that provided funding to temporarily reduce the 7(a) program's loan fees and temporarily increase the 7(a) program's loan guaranty percentage to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000. The fee subsidies and 90% loan guaranty percentage were in place during most of FY2010 and the first quarter of FY2011. The increased number and amount of 7(a) loans approved since FY2012 are generally attributed to improving economic conditions. Table 2 also provides the 7(a) program's unpaid principal balance by fiscal year. Precise measurements of the small business credit market are not available. However, the SBA has estimated that the small business credit market (outstanding bank loans of $1 million or less, plus credit extended by finance companies and other sources) is roughly $1.2 trillion. The 7(a) program's unpaid principal balance of $92.41 billion at the end of FY2018 was about 7.7% of that amount. One of the SBA's goals is to achieve a zero subsidy rate for its loan guaranty programs. A zero subsidy rate occurs when the SBA's loan guaranty programs generate sufficient revenue through fee collections and recoveries of collateral on purchased (defaulted) loans to not require appropriations to issue new loan guarantees. From 2005 to 2009, the SBA did not request appropriations to subsidize the cost of any of its loan guaranty programs, including the 7(a) program. However, as indicated in Table 3 , loan guaranty fees and loan liquidation recoveries did not generate enough revenue to cover loan losses in the 7(a) loan guaranty program from FY2010 through FY2013 and in the 504/CDC loan guaranty program from FY2012 through FY2015. Appropriations were provided to address the shortfalls. Congress did not approve appropriations for 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty program credit subsidies for FY2016 through FY2019 because the President's budget request indicated that those programs did not require appropriations for credit subsidies in those fiscal years. In FY2017, the SBA spent $82.2 million on the 7(a) program for administrative expenses, including $63.0 million for loan making, $4.1 million for loan servicing, and $15.1 million for loan liquidation. Also, the SBA spent $36.9 million on lender oversight, including oversight of 7(a) lenders. The SBA anticipated that 7(a) program administrative expenses will be about $82.2 million in FY2018 and $84.5 million in FY2019. In addition, the SBA anticipated that it will spend about $36.9 million in FY2018 and $36.6 million in FY2019 for lender oversight of the SBA's various lending programs. In FY2017, borrowers used 7(a) loan proceeds to purchase land or make land improvements (26.62%); purchase a business (17.06%); finance working capital (15.59%); pay off loans, accounts payable or notes payable (13.23%); construct new buildings (6.06%); purchase equipment (5.76%); make leasehold improvements (3.25%); expand or renovate current buildings (2.39%); refinance existing debt (1.40%); and cover other expenses (8.64%). In 2008, the Urban Institute released the results of an SBA-commissioned study of the SBA's loan guaranty programs. As part of its analysis, the Urban Institute surveyed a random sample of SBA loan guaranty borrowers. The survey indicated that most of the 7(a) borrowers responding to the survey rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as either excellent (18%) or good (50%). One out of every five 7(a) borrowers (20%) rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as fair, and 6% rated their overall satisfaction with their 7(a) loan and loan terms as poor (7% reported don't know or did not respond). In addition, 90% of the survey's respondents reported that the 7(a) loan was either very important (62%) or somewhat important (28%) to their business success (2% reported somewhat unimportant, 3% reported very unimportant, and 4% reported don't know or did not respond). The Urban Institute found that about 9.9% of conventional small business loans are issued to minority-owned small businesses, and about 16% of conventional small business loans are issued to women-owned businesses. In FY2018, 32.8% of 7(a) loan approvals ($8.32 billion of $25.37 billion) were to minority-owned businesses (23.0% Asian, 6.0% Hispanic, 3.1% African-American, and 0.7% American Indian) and 13.6% ($3.46 billion of $25.37 billion) were to women-owned businesses. From its comparative analysis of conventional small business loans and the SBA's loan guaranty programs, the Urban Institute concluded the following: SBA's loan programs are designed to enable private lenders to make loans to creditworthy borrowers who would otherwise not be able to qualify for a loan. As a result, there should be differences in the types of borrowers and loan terms associated with SBA-guaranteed and conventional small business loans. Our comparative analysis shows such differences. Overall, loans under the 7(a) and 504 programs were more likely to be made to minority-owned, women-owned, and start-up businesses (firms that have historically faced capital gaps) as compared to conventional small business loans. Moreover, the average amounts for loans made under the 7(a) and 504 programs to these types of firms were substantially greater than conventional small business loans to such firms. These findings suggest that the 7(a) and 504 programs are being used by lenders in a manner that is consistent with SBA's objective of making credit available to firms that face a capital opportunity gap. Congressional interest in the 7(a) loan program has increased in recent years largely because of concerns that small businesses might be prevented from accessing sufficient capital to enable them to assist in the economic recovery. During the 110 th and 111 th Congresses, several laws were enacted to increase the supply and demand for capital for both large and small businesses. For example, in 2008, Congress adopted P.L. 110-343 , the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, which authorized the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Under TARP, the U.S. Department of the Treasury was authorized to purchase or insure up to $700 billion in troubled assets, including small business loans, from banks and other financial institutions. The law's intent was "to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States." P.L. 111-203 , the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, reduced total TARP purchase authority from $700 billion to $475 billion. The Department of the Treasury's authority to make new financial commitments under TARP ended on October 3, 2010. The Department of the Treasury has disbursed approximately $430 billion in TARP funds, including $370 million to purchase SBA 7(a) loan guaranty program securities. In addition, as mentioned previously, in 2009, ARRA provided an additional $730 million for SBA programs, including $375 million to temporarily reduce fees in the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans. Congress subsequently provided another $265 million, and authorized the SBA to reprogram another $40 million, to extend the fee reductions and loan modification through May 31, 2010, and the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 provided another $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the fee reductions and loan modification from September 27, 2010, through December 31, 2010. Also, P.L. 111-322 , the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011, authorized the use of any funding remaining from the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 to extend the fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage through March 4, 2011, or until the available funding was exhausted. Funding for these purposes was exhausted on January 3, 2011. The Obama Administration argued that TARP and the additional funding for the SBA's loan guaranty programs helped to improve the small business lending environment and supported "the retention and creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs." Critics argued that small business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint are the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation. Over the years, the SBA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) have independently reviewed the SBA's administration of the SBA's loan guaranty programs. Although improvements have been noted, both agencies have reported deficiencies in the SBA's administration of its loan guaranty programs that they argue need to be addressed, including issues involving the oversight of 7(a) lenders and the lack of outcome-based performance measures. On December 1, 2000, the OIG released its FY2001 list of the most serious management challenges facing the SBA and included, for the first time, the oversight of SBA lenders. Since then, the OIG has determined that the SBA has made significant progress in improving its oversight of SBA lenders. For example The SBA established an Office of Lender Oversight (renamed the Office of Credit Risk Management in 2007), led by an Associate Administrator, which, in October 2000, drafted a strategic plan to serve as a basis for developing a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for lender oversight and, among other activities, initiated "steps to develop and implement a comprehensive loan monitoring system to evaluate lender performance. The system will collect data on lenders such as delinquency default rates, liquidations, loan payments, and loan originations." In 2004, the SBA's National Guaranty Purchase Center developed a quality control plan "to review the quality of the guaranty purchase process." In 2006, the SBA issued an SOP that established procedures for on-site, risk-based lender reviews and safety and soundness examinations for 7(a) lenders and Certified Development Companies (CDCs) participating the SBA's 504/CDC loan guaranty program. In 2007, the SBA completed the centralization of all 7(a) loan processing activities and, with very limited exception, ended loan making, servicing, liquidation, and guaranty purchase activity at district offices. In 2008, the SBA issued an SOP for 7(a) lender oversight which included uniform policies and procedures for the evaluation of lender performance and the SBA's Office of Financial Program Operations (OFPO) began designing "a comprehensive quality control program across all of its centers." Previously, quality control was conducted within each loan center (Standard 7(a) Loan Guaranty Processing Center, Commercial Loan Service Center, and National Guaranty Purchase Center) "at various levels of sophistication." The SBA issued an interim final rule in the Federal Register on December 1, 2008, incorporating the SBA's risk-based lender oversight program into the SBA's regulations. In 2010, the SBA's OFPO established its agency-wide quality control program, which is designed to improve service and "reduce waste, fraud, and abuse" by ensuring "that centers accurately and consistently apply statutory, regulatory, and procedural loan program requirements." The SBA also developed a "risk-based, off-site analysis of lending partners through its Loan/Lender Monitoring System (L/LMS), a state-of-the-art portfolio monitoring system that incorporates credit scoring metrics for portfolio management purposes." In 2012-2013, the SBA "(1) developed risk profiles and lender performance thresholds, (2) developed a select analytical review process to allow for virtual risk-based reviews, (3) updated its lender risk rating model to better stratify and predict risk, and (4) conducted test reviews under the new risk-based review protocol." In 2013-2014, the SBA "improved its monitoring and verification of corrective actions by lenders by: (1) developing corrective action assessment procedures, (2) finalizing a system to facilitate the corrective action process, and (3) populating the system with lender oversight results requiring corrective action." In 2015, the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) "engaged contractor support to expand on its corrective action follow-up process. Additionally, OCRM issued its FY2015 Risk Management Oversight Plan, which included plans to conduct 170 corrective action reviews between 7(a) and 504 lenders." In 2016, OCRM reported that it conducted 147 corrective action follow-up assessments, established performance measures and risk mitigation goals for the SBA's entire lending portfolio, and "conducted portfolio analyses of problem lenders with heavy concentrations in SBA 7(a) lending and sales on the secondary market." Despite these improvements, the OIG continues to list lender oversight as one of the most serious management challenges facing the SBA because it argues that several issues that it has identified in audits have not been fully addressed. Specifically, the OIG reports that the SBA needs to show that the portfolio risk management program is used to support risk based decisions, implement additional controls to mitigate risks, develop an effective method for tracking loan agents, and update regulations on loan agents. GAO has argued that the 7(a) program's performance measures (e.g., number of loans approved, loans funded, and firms assisted across the subgroups of small businesses) provide limited information about the impact of the loans on participating small businesses: The program's performance measures focus on indicators that are primarily output measures–for instance, they report on the number of loans approved and funded. But none of the measures looks at how well firms do after receiving 7(a) loans, so no information is available on outcomes. As a result, the current measures do not indicate how well the agency is meeting its strategic goal of helping small businesses succeed. The SBA's OIG has made a similar argument concerning the SBA's Microloan program's performance measures. Because the SBA uses similar program performance measures for its Microloan and 7(a) programs, the OIG's recommendations could also be applied to the SBA's 7(a) program. Specifically, as part of its audit of the SBA Microloan program's use of ARRA funds, the OIG found that the SBA's performance measures for the Microloan program are based on the number of microloans funded, the number of small businesses assisted, and program's loan loss rate. It argued that these "performance metrics ... do not ensure the ultimate program beneficiaries, the microloan borrowers, are truly assisted by the program" and "without appropriate metrics, SBA cannot ensure the Microloan program is meeting policy goals." It noted that the SBA does not track the number of microloan borrowers who remain in business after receiving a microloan to measure the extent to which the loans contributed to the success of borrowers and does not determine the effect that technical training assistance may have on the success of microloan borrowers and their ability to repay loans. It recommended that the SBA "develop additional performance metrics to measure the program's achievement in assisting microloan borrowers in establishing and maintaining successful small businesses." In its response to GAO's recommendation to develop additional performance measures for the 7(a) program, the SBA formed, in July 2014, an impact evaluation working group to develop a methodology for conducting impact evaluations of the agency's programs using administrative data sources residing at the SBA and in other federal agencies, such as the U.S. Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Numerous SBA program offices participated in this working group and each office developed its own program evaluation methodology or established program evaluation frameworks. More recently, the SBA indicated in its FY2017 congressional budget justification document that although it "continues to face barriers gathering outcome rich evaluation data with current restrictions in collecting personal identification information (PII) and business identification information (BII)" it "plans to further develop its analytical capabilities, enhance collaboration across its programs, provide evaluation-specific trainings, and broaden use of impact evaluations to support senior leaders and institutionalize the evidence-based process across programs." To encourage evidence-based evaluations across its programs, the SBA has created an annual Enterprise Learning Agenda designed to "help program managers continue to build and use evidence and to foster an environment of continuous learning." As part of this agenda building process, the SBA identifies programs for evidence-based evaluation and undertakes both internal evaluations using available data or contracts with third parties to conduct the evaluations. Congress authorized several changes to the 7(a) program during the 111 th Congress in an effort to increase the number and amount of 7(a) loans. During the 111 th Congress, the Obama Administration supported congressional efforts to temporarily subsidize fees for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and to increase the 7(a) program's loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90%. Congress subsequently provided nearly $1.1 billion to temporarily subsidize fees for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and to increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans. The Obama Administration also proposed the following modifications to several SBA programs, including the 7(a) program: increase the maximum loan size for 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; increase the maximum loan size for the 504/CDC program from $2 million to $5 million for regular projects and from $4 million to $5.5 million for manufacturing projects; increase the maximum loan size for microloans to small business concerns from $35,000 to $50,000; increase the maximum loan limits for lenders in their first year of participation in the Microloan program, from $750,000 to $1 million, and from $3.5 million to $5 million in the subsequent years; temporarily increase the cap on SBAExpress loans from $350,000 to $1 million; and temporarily allow in FY2010 and FY2011, with an option to extend into FY2012, the refinancing of loans for owner-occupied commercial real estate that are within one year of maturity under the SBA's 504/CDC program. The Obama Administration argued that increasing the maximum loan limits for the 7(a), 504/CDC, Microloan, and SBAExpress programs would allow the SBA to "support larger projects," which would "allow the SBA to help America's small businesses drive long-term economic growth and the creation of jobs in communities across the country." The Administration also argued that increasing the maximum loan limits for these programs would be "budget neutral" over the long run and "help improve the availability of smaller loans." Critics of the Obama Administration's proposals to increase the SBA's maximum loan limits argued that higher loan limits might increase the risk of defaults, resulting in higher guaranty fees or the need to provide the SBA additional funding, especially for the SBAExpress program, which has experienced somewhat higher default rates than other SBA loan guaranty programs. Others advocated a more modest increase in the maximum loan limits to ensure that the 7(a) program "remains focused on startup and early-stage small firms, businesses that have historically encountered the greatest difficulties in accessing credit," and "avoids making small borrowers carry a disproportionate share of the risk associated with larger loans." Others argued that creating a small business direct lending program within the SBA would reduce paperwork requirements and be more efficient in providing small businesses access to capital than modifying existing SBA programs that rely on private lenders to determine if they will issue the loans. Also, as mentioned previously, others argued that providing additional resources to the SBA or modifying the SBA's loan programs as a means to augment small business access to capital is ill-advised. In their view, the SBA has limited impact on small businesses' access to capital. They argued that the best means to assist small business economic growth and job creation is to focus on small business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint. As mentioned previously, in 2009, ARRA provided an additional $730 million for SBA programs, including $375 million to temporarily reduce fees in the SBA's 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs ($299 million) and increase the 7(a) program's maximum loan guaranty percentage from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to 90% for all standard 7(a) loans ($76 million). P.L. 111-240 provided $505 million (plus $5 million for administrative expenses) to extend the 7(a) program's 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage and 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs' fee subsidies through December 31, 2010 (later extended to March 4, 2011), or until available funding was exhausted (which occurred on January 3, 2011). The act also made the following changes to the SBA's programs: increased the maximum loan size for 7(a) loans from $2 million to $5 million; temporarily increased for one year (through September 27, 2011) the cap on SBAExpress loans from $350,000 to $1 million; increased the maximum loan size for the 504/CDC loans from $1.5 million to $5 million for regular projects, from $2 million to $5 million for projects meeting one of the program's specified public policy goals, and from $4 million to $5.5 million for manufacturers; increased the maximum loan size for the Microloan program from $35,000 to $50,000; authorized the SBA to establish an alternative size standard for the 7(a) and 504/CDC programs that uses maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards and established an interim size standard of a maximum tangible net worth of not more than $15 million and an average net income after federal taxes (excluding any carryover losses) for the preceding two fiscal years of not more than $5 million; and allowed 504/CDC loans to be used to refinance up to $7.5 billion in short-term commercial real estate debt each fiscal year for two years after enactment (through September 27, 2012) into long-term fixed rate loans. The act also authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF) to encourage community banks to provide small business loans ($4 billion was issued), a $1.5 billion State Small Business Credit Initiative to provide funding to participating states with small business capital access programs, and about $12 billion in tax relief for small businesses. It also contained revenue raising provisions to offset the act's cost and authorized a number of changes to other SBA loan and contracting programs. Congress did not approve any changes to the 7(a) program during the 112 th Congress. However, several bills were introduced during the 112 th Congress that would have changed the program. S. 1828 , a bill to increase small business lending, and for other purposes, was introduced on November 8, 2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. The bill would have reinstated for a year following the date of its enactment the temporary fee subsidies for the 7(a) and 504/CDC loan guaranty programs and the 90% loan guaranty for standard 7(a) loans, which were originally authorized by ARRA and later extended by several laws, including the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010. H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, introduced on September 15, 2011, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business, would have extended a one-year increase in the maximum loan amount for the SBAExpress program from $350,000 to $1 million for an additional year. The temporary increase in that program's maximum loan amount was authorized by P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, and expired on September 27, 2011 (see Appendix ). S. 532 , the Patriot Express Authorization Act of 2011, introduced on March 9, 2011, and referred to the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, would have provided statutory authorization for the Patriot Express Pilot Program. This program was subsequently discontinued by the SBA on December 31, 2013. The bill would have increased the program's maximum loan amount from $500,000 to $1 million, and it would have increased the guaranty percentages from up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000 to up to 85% of loans of $500,000 or less and up to 80% of loans exceeding $500,000. H.R. 2451 , the Strengthening Entrepreneurs' Economic Development Act of 2013, was introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business. It would have authorized the SBA to make direct loans of up to $150,000 to businesses with fewer than 20 employees. It would have also required the SBA to assess, collect, and retain a fee with respect to the outstanding balance of the deferred participation share of each 7(a) loan in excess of $2 million that is no more than is necessary to reduce to zero the SBA's cost of making the loan. H.R. 2461 , the SBA Loan Paperwork Reduction Act of 2013, was introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business. It would have provided statutory authorization for the Small Loan Advantage (SLA) pilot program. The SBA started that program on February 15, 2011. It provided a streamlined application process for 7(a) loans of up to $350,000 if the loan received an acceptable credit score from the SBA prior to the loan being submitted for processing. The SBA adopted the SLA application process as the model for processing all non-express 7(a) loans of $350,000 or less, effective January 1, 2014. As mentioned previously, the Obama Administration waived the up-front, one time loan guaranty fee and ongoing servicing fee for 7(a) loans of $150,000 or less approved in FY2014 (and later extended the fee waiver in FY2015 and FY2016). H.R. 2462 , the Small Business Opportunity Acceleration Act of 2013, introduced on June 20, 2013, and referred to the House Committee on Small Business, would have made the fee waiver permanent. Also, the Obama Administration waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for veteran loans under the SBAExpress program (up to $350,000) from January 1, 2014, through the end of FY2015 (called the Veterans Advantage Program). S. 2143 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act, would have authorized this fee waiver and made it permanent. Also, P.L. 113-235 provided statutory authorization to waive the 7(a) SBAExpress program's guarantee fee for veterans (and their spouse) in FY2015. P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, authorized and made permanent the waiver of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for veterans (and their spouse) in the SBAExpress program beginning on or after October 1, 2015, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The act also increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit from $18.75 billion in FY2015 to $23.5 billion. On June 25, 2015, the SBA informed Congress that the 7(a) program "is on track to hit its authorization ceiling of $18.75 billion well before the end of FY2015." The SBA indicated that "our activity and trend analysis reveal a strong uptick that, if sustained, would exceed our lending authority ceiling by late August." If that were to occur, and in the absence of statutory authority to do otherwise, the SBA reported that it would have to suspend 7(a) loan making for the remainder of the fiscal year. The SBA requested an increase in the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to $22.5 billion in FY2015. On July 23, 2015, citing "unprecedented demand," the SBA suspended 7(a) program lending. The SBA indicated that it would continue to process loan applications "up to the point of approval" and then place approved loans "into a queue awaiting the availability of program authority." Loans would be released "once program authority became available due to Congressional action or as a result of cancellations of loans previously approved this fiscal year." Applications would then "be funded in the order they were approved by SBA, with the exception that requests for increases to previously approved loans will be funded before applications for new loans." The SBA resumed 7(a) lending on July 28, 2015, following P.L. 114-38 's enactment. In addition to increasing the 7(a) program's authorization limit for FY2015, the act added requirements designed to ensure that SBA loans do not displace private sector loans (e.g., the SBA Administrator may not guarantee a 7(a) loan if the lender determines that the borrower is unable to obtain credit elsewhere solely because the liquidity of the lender depends upon the guarantied portion of the loan being sold on the secondary market, or if the sole purpose for requesting the guarantee is to allow the lender to exceed the lender's legal lending limit), and requires the SBA to report, on a quarterly basis, specified 7(a) program statistics to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Small Business. These required statistics are designed to inform the committees of the SBA's pace of 7(a) lending, provide estimates concerning the date on which the program's authorization limit may be reached, and present information concerning early defaults and actions taken by the SBA to combat early defaults. As mentioned previously, P.L. 114-113 increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit from $23.5 billion in FY2015 to $26.5 billion for FY2016. In addition, P.L. 114-223 , the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, authorized the SBA to use funds from its business loan program account "to accommodate increased demand for commitments for [7(a)] general business loans" for the duration of the continuing resolution (initially December 9, 2016, later extended by P.L. 114-254 , the Further Continuing and Security Assistance Appropriations Act, 2017, to April 28, 2017). In a related development, S. 2496 , the Help Small Businesses Access Affordable Credit Act, introduced on February 2, 2016, would have authorized the SBA Administrator, with prior approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, to make loans in an amount equal to not more than 110% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit if the demand for 7(a) loans should exceed that limit. The Obama Administration also requested authorization to allow the SBA Administrator to continue to issue loans should the demand for 7(a) loans exceed the program's authorization limit. Also. S. 2992 , the Small Business Lending Oversight Act of 2016, would have required the Director of the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management (OCRM) to impose penalties on 7(a) lenders who "knowingly and repeatedly" undertake specified activities; required the SBA to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; authorized fees to be used to support OCRM operations; required the SBA to identify potential loan risks by lenders participating in the Preferred Lenders Program by requiring the SBA, at the end of each year, to "calculate the percentage of loans in a lender's portfolio made without a contribution of borrower equity when the loan's purpose was to establish a new small business concern, to effectuate a change of small business ownership, or to purchase real estate"; and, among other provisions, prohibited the SBA from approving any loan if its financing is more than 100% of project costs. Legislation was also introduced ( S. 2125 , the Small Business Lending and Economic Inequality Reduction Act of 2015) to provide permanent, statutory authorization for the Community Advantage Pilot program (see Appendix ). The SBA announced on December 28, 2015, that it was extending the Community Advantage Pilot program through March 31, 2020. It had been set to expire on March 15, 2017. Recognizing that 7(a) loan approvals during the first half of FY2017 were about 9% higher than during the first half of FY2016, Congress included a provision in P.L. 115-31 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017, that increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $27.5 billion in FY2017 from $26.5 billion in FY2016. Congress also approved legislation ( P.L. 115-141 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018) that increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $29.0 billion in FY2018. In addition, as mentioned earlier, P.L. 115-189 , the Small Business 7(a) Lending Oversight Reform Act of 2018, among other provisions, codified the SBA's Office of Credit Risk Management; required that office to annually undertake and report the findings of a risk analysis of the 7(a) program's loan portfolio; created a lender oversight committee within the SBA; authorized the Director of the Office of Credit Risk Management to undertake informal and formal enforcement actions against 7(a) lenders under specified conditions; redefined the credit elsewhere requirement; and authorized the SBA Administrator to increase the amount of 7(a) loans not more than once during any fiscal year to not more than 115% of the 7(a) program's authorization limit. The SBA is required to provide at least 30 days' notice of its intent to exceed the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit to the House and Senate Committees on Small Business and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations' Subcommittees on Financial Services and General Government and may exercise this option only once per fiscal year. Also, P.L. 115-232 , the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, included provisions to make 7(a) loans more accessible to employee-owned small businesses (ESOPs) and cooperatives. The act authorizes the SBA to make "back-to-back" loans to ESOPs to better align with industry practices (the loan proceeds must only be used to make a loan to a qualified employee trust); clarifies that 7(a) loans to ESOPs may be made under the Preferred Lenders Program; allows the seller to remain involved as an officer, director, or key employee when the ESOP or cooperative has acquired 100% ownership of the small business; and authorizes the SBA to finance transition costs to employee ownership and waive any mandatory equity injection by the ESOP or cooperative to help finance the change of ownership. The act also directs the SBA to create outreach programs with Small Business Investment Companies and Microloan intermediaries to make their lending programs more accessible to all eligible ESOPs and cooperatives, an interagency working group to promote lending to ESOPs and cooperatives, and a Small Business Employee Ownership and Cooperatives Promotion Program, administered by Small Business Development Centers, to offer technical assistance and training to small businesses on the transition to employee ownership through cooperatives and ESOPs. Congress did not focus much attention on the Trump Administration's proposal in its FY2019 budget request to "introduce counter-cyclical policies in SBA's business guaranty loan programs and update certain fees structures to offset $155 million in business loan administration." As mentioned earlier, the proposal included raising $93 million in additional revenue by allowing the SBA to set the 7(a) program's annual servicing fee at rates below zero credit subsidy; increasing the 7(a) loan program's FY2019 annual servicing fee's cap from 0.55% to 0.625%; and increasing the FY2019 upfront loan guarantee fee on 7(a) loans over $1 million by 0.25%. The Administration also requested that the 7(a) loan program's authorization limit be increased to $30.0 million in FY2019; that the SBA be allowed to further increase the 7(a) loan program's authorization amount in FY2019 by 15% under specified circumstances "to better equip the SBA to meet peaks in demand while continuing to operate at zero subsidies;" that the SBA be allowed to impose an annual fee, not to exceed 0.05% per year, of the outstanding balance on 7(a) secondary market trust certificates to help offset administrative costs; and that the SBAExpress program's loan limit be increased from $350,000 to $1 million. P.L. 116-6 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, increased the 7(a) program's authorization limit to $30.0 billion in FY2019. The congressional debate concerning the SBA's 7(a) program during the 111 th Congress was not whether the federal government should act, but which federal policies would most likely enhance small businesses' access to capital and result in job retention and creation. As a general proposition, some Members of Congress argued that the SBA should be provided additional resources to assist small businesses in acquiring capital necessary to start, continue, or expand operations with the expectation that in so doing small businesses will create jobs. Others worried about the long-term adverse economic effects of spending programs that increase the federal deficit. They advocated business tax reduction, reform of financial credit market regulation, and federal fiscal restraint as the best means to help small businesses further economic growth and job creation. In terms of specific program changes, increasing the 7(a) program's loan limit, extending the 7(a) program's temporary fee subsidies and 90% maximum loan guaranty percentage, and establishing an alternative size standard for the 7(a) program were all designed to achieve the same goal: to enhance job creation by increasing the ability of 7(a) borrowers to access credit at affordable rates. However, determining how specific changes in federal policy are most likely to enhance job creation is a challenging task. For example, a 2008 Urban Institute study concluded that differences in the term, interest rate, and amount of SBA financing were "not significantly associated with increasing sales or employment among firms receiving SBA financing." The study also reported that the analysis accounted for less than 10% of the variation in firm performance. The Urban Institute suggested that local economic conditions, local zoning regulations, state and local tax rates, state and local business assistance programs, and the business owner's charisma or business acumen also "may play a role in determining how well a business performs after receipt of SBA financing." As the Urban Institute study suggests, because many factors influence business success, measuring the 7(a) program's effect on job retention and creation is complicated. That task is made even more challenging by the absence of performance-oriented measures that could serve as a guide. Both GAO and the SBA's OIG have recommended that the SBA adopt outcome performance-oriented measures for its loan guaranty programs, such as tracking the number of borrowers who remain in business after receiving a loan to measure the extent to which the program contributed to their ability to stay in business. Other performance-oriented measures that Congress might also consider include requiring the SBA to survey 7(a) borrowers to measure the difficulty they experienced in obtaining a loan from the private sector and the extent to which the 7(a) loan or technical assistance received contributed to their ability to create jobs or expand their scope of operations. The 7(a) program has several specialized programs that offer streamlined and expedited loan procedures for particular groups of borrowers, including the SBAExpress, Export Express, and Community Advantage programs. Lenders must be approved by the SBA for participation in these programs. SBAExpress Program The SBAExpress program was established as a pilot program by the SBA on February 27, 1995, and made permanent through legislation, subject to reauthorization, in 2004 ( P.L. 108-447 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005). The program is designed to increase the availability of credit to small businesses by permitting lenders to use their existing documentation and procedures in return for receiving a reduced SBA guaranty on loans. It provides a 50% loan guaranty on loan amounts up to $350,000. As shown in Table A-1 , the SBA approved 27,794 SBAExpress loans (46.1% of total 7(a) program loan approvals), totaling $1.98 billion (7.8% of total 7(a) program amount approvals) in FY2018. The program's higher loan amount in FY2011 was due, at least in part, to a provision in P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which temporarily increased the SBAExpress program's loan limit to $1 million for one year following enactment (through September 27, 2011). During the 112 th Congress, H.R. 2936 , the Small Business Administration Express Loan Extension Act of 2011, would have extended the SBAExpress program's higher loan limit for an additional year (through September 27, 2012). SBAExpress loan proceeds can be used for the same purposes as those of the 7(a) program (expansion, renovation, new construction, the purchase of land or buildings, the purchase of equipment, fixtures, and lease-hold improvements, working capital, to refinance debt for compelling reasons, seasonal line of credit, and inventory); except that participant debt restructure cannot exceed 50% of the project and may be used for revolving credit. The program's loan terms are the same as those of the 7(a) program (the loan maturity for working capital, machinery, and equipment (not to exceed the life of the equipment) is typically 5 years to 10 years; and the loan maturity for real estate is up to 25 years, except that the term for a revolving line of credit cannot exceed 7 years. The SBAExpress loan's interest rates and fees are the same as those used for the 7(a) program. To account for the program's lower guaranty rate of 50%, lenders are allowed to perform their own loan analysis and procedures and receive SBA approval with a targeted 36-hour maximum turnaround time. Also, collateral is not required for loans of $25,000 or less. Lenders are allowed to use their own established collateral policy for loans over $25,000. As mentioned earlier, the SBA waived the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee for 7(a) loans of $125,000 or less approved in FY2018. The SBA also waived 50% of the up-front, one-time loan guaranty fee on all non-SBAExpress 7(a) loans to veterans of $125,001 to $350,000 in FY2018. In addition, P.L. 114-38 , the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, provided statutory authorization and made permanent the veteran's fee waiver in the SBAExpress program, except during any upcoming fiscal year for which the President's budget, submitted to Congress, includes a cost for the 7(a) program, in its entirety, that is above zero. The SBA waived this fee in FY2016, FY2017, and FY2018 and is waiving it in FY2019. The SBA indicated that its fee waivers for veterans are part "of SBA's broader efforts to make sure that veterans have the tools they need to start and grow a business." In a related development, the SBA discontinued the Patriot Express Pilot Program on December 31, 2013. It provided loans of up to $500,000 (with a guaranty of up to 85% of loans of $150,000 or less and up to 75% of loans exceeding $150,000) to veterans and their spouses. It had been in operation since 2007, and, like the SBAExpress program, featured streamlined documentation requirements and expedited loan processing. Over its history, the Patriot Express Pilot Program disbursed 9,414 loans amounting to more than $791 million. Export Express The Export Express program was established as a subprogram of the SBAExpress program in 1998, and made a separate pilot program in 2000. It was made permanent through legislation, subject to reauthorization, in 2010 ( P.L. 111-240 , the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010). The Export Express program is designed to increase the availability of credit to current and prospective small business exporters that have been in business, though not necessarily in exporting, for at least 12 full months, particularly those small businesses needing revolving lines of credit. Export Express loans may not be used to finance overseas operations, except for the marketing or distribution of products or services exported from the United States. The program is generally subject to the same loan processing, making, closing, servicing, and liquidation requirements as well as the same maturity terms, interest rates, and applicable fees as the SBAExpress program. Two key differences between the two programs is that the Export Express program's maximum loan amount is up to $500,000, and its guaranty rate is 90% for loans of $350,000 or less, and 75% for loans exceeding $350,000. There were 215 lenders with approved SBA Export Express loan guaranties at the end of FY2017. These lenders are located in 46 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. As shown in Table A-2 , the SBA approved 59 Export Express loans totaling $15.45 million in FY2018. Community Advantage 7(a) Loan Initiative The SBA's Community Advantage (CA) 7(a) loan initiative became operational on February 15, 2011. Originally announced as a three-year pilot program (through March 15, 2014), it subsequently was extended through March 15, 2017; March 31, 2020; and September 30, 2022. As of September 12, 2018, there were 113 approved CA lenders, 99 of which were actively making and servicing CA loans. The CA loan initiative is designed to increase lending to underserved low- and moderate-income communities. It, along with the now-discontinued Small Loan Advantage program, replaced the Community Express Pilot Program, which also was designed to increase lending to underserved communities. The CA loan initiative provides the same loan terms, guaranty fees, and guaranty as that of the 7(a) program on loan amounts up to $250,000 (85% for loans up to $150,000 and 75% for those greater than $150,000). Loan proceeds can be used for the same purposes as those of the 7(a) program. The loan's maximum interest rate is prime, plus 6%. The program has an expedited approval process, which includes a two-page application for borrowers and a goal of completing the approval process within 5 to 10 days. The CA loan initiative is designed to increase "the number of SBA 7(a) lenders who reach underserved communities, targeting community-based, mission-focused financial institutions which were previously not able to offer SBA loans." These mission-focused financial institutions include the following: nonfederally regulated Community Development Financial Institutions certified by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, SBA's Certified Development Companies, SBA's nonprofit microlending intermediaries, and, added in December 2015, SBA's Intermediary Lending Pilot Program intermediaries. They are expected to maintain at least 60% of their SBA loan portfolio in underserved markets, including loans to small businesses in, or that have more than 50% of their full-time workforce residing in, low-to-moderate income (LMI) communities; Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities; HUBZones; start-ups (firms in business less than two years); businesses eligible for the SBA's Veterans Advantage program; Promise Zones (added in December 2015); and Opportunity Zones and Rural Areas (added in October 2018). The SBA placed a moratorium, effective October 1, 2018, on accepting new CA lender applications, primarily as a means to mitigate the risk of future loan defaults. The SBA also increased the minimum acceptable credit score for CA loans "that satisfies the need to consider several required underwriting criteria" from 120 to 140; increased the wait time for CA lenders ineligible for delegated lender status at the time of approval as a CA lender from 6 months to 12 months and increased the number of CA loans that must be initially dispersed before a CA lender may process applications under delegated authority from five to seven loans; increased the loan loss reserve requirement for CA loans sold in the secondary market from 3% to 5% of the outstanding amount of the guaranteed portion of each loan; modified requirements related to the refinancing of debts with a CA loan; limited fees that can be charged by a CA lender for assistance in obtaining a CA loan to no more than $2,500, with the exception of necessary out-of-pocket costs such as filing or recording fees; and as mentioned previously, added Opportunity Zones and Rural Areas to the list of economically distressed communities that are eligible for a CA loan. As shown in Table A-3 , the SBA approved 1,118 CA loans amounting to $157.5 million in FY2018 and 4,906 CA loans amounting to $643.72 million from the time the program became operational to the end of FY2018. As mentioned previously, legislation was introduced during the 114 th Congress ( S. 2125 , the Small Business Lending and Economic Inequality Reduction Act of 2015) to provide the Community Advantage Pilot program permanent, statutory authorization.

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

Answer: Congress has authorized federal agencies to collect hundreds of billions of dollars annually in fees, fines, and penalties. These collections can fund a variety of programs, including programs related to national security, and the protection of natural resources. Data on collections are important for congressional oversight and to provide transparency in agencies' use of federal resources. GAO was asked to review the availability of government-wide data on fees, fines, and penalties. This report examines (1) the extent to which data on collections of fees, fines, and penalties are publically available and useful for the purpose of congressional oversight; and (2) the benefits and challenges to government-wide reporting of fees, fines, and penalties. GAO assessed government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data against criteria for availability and usefulness based on multiple sources, including prior GAO work and input from staff of selected congressional committees. GAO interviewed OMB staff, Treasury officials, and representatives of organizations with expertise in federal budget issues and reviewed prior GAO work to identify benefits and challenges of reporting these data. There are no comprehensive, government-wide data at the level of detail that identifies specific fees, fines, or penalties. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) report data that include these collections at the budget account level, which generally covers a set of agency activities or programs. OMB and Treasury also report some summary data for budgeting and financial management purposes. In the Budget of the U.S. Government , for example, OMB data showed government-wide fees totaled just over $335 billion in fiscal year 2017. These reports, however, are not designed to inventory or analyze fee, fine, or penalty collections and have significant limitations for that purpose. Although OMB collects more disaggregated data on fees, fines, and penalties, it does not make the data publicly available. OMB uses the disaggregated data in its OMB MAX database—such as the agency and account—to compile reported totals, such as the government-wide fees total in the Budget of the U.S. Government . Until OMB makes more disaggregated data publicly available, Congress has limited information on collections by agency to inform oversight and decision-making. OMB's government-wide total of fees includes collections that are not fees and excludes some fee collections. The total includes all collections for accounts in which fees make up at least half of the account's collections and excludes all others. OMB does not direct agencies to regularly review and update the accounts included in the total. Therefore, if accounts' makeups change such that fee collections drop below, or rise above, the 50 percent threshold, accounts may have incorrect fee designations and the total may be inaccurate. Further, OMB does not disclose the limitation that the total may exclude some fees and include other collections that are not fees. As a result, some users of the data are likely unaware of the potential for the total fees to be overestimated or underestimated. Further, no source of government-wide data consistently reports data elements on fees, fines, and penalties that could help inform congressional oversight. Generally, congressional staff told us that additional data, such as amounts of specific penalties, would increase transparency and facilitate oversight. These data could help Congress identify trends in collections and significant changes that could be an indication of an agency's performance. While reporting government-wide fee, fine, and penalty data provides benefits, there are trade-offs in terms of the time and federal resources it would take to develop and implement a process for agencies to report these data. The level of federal investment would vary depending on factors, such as the number of data elements included and the level of detail reported. Developing a comprehensive and accessible data source would provide greater benefits, but would likely be resource intensive. Alternatively, incorporating a small number of data elements that Congress identifies as most useful for oversight into ongoing government-wide reporting efforts could incrementally improve transparency and information for oversight and decision-making, with fewer resources. GAO is making four recommendations to enhance OMB reporting on fees, fines, and penalties, including making disaggregated data publically available, updating instructions to federal agencies to review accounts designated as containing fees, and disclosing limitations in data reported. OMB did not provide comments.