You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The Forest Service’s mission includes sustaining the nation’s forests and grasslands; managing the productivity of those lands for the benefit of citizens; conserving open space; enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities; and conducting research and development in the biological, physical, and social sciences. The agency carries out its responsibilities in three main program areas: (1) managing public lands, known collectively as the National Forest System, through nine regional offices, 154 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and over 600 ranger districts; (2) conducting research through its network of seven research stations, multiple associated research laboratories, and 81 experimental forests and ranges; and (3) working with state and local governments, forest industries, and private landowners and forest users in the management, protection, and development of forest land in nonfederal ownership, largely through its nine regional offices. According to the Forest Service, it employs a workforce of over 30,000 employees across the country. However, this number grows by thousands in the summer months, when the agency hires seasonal employees to conduct fieldwork, respond to wildland fires, and meet the visiting public’s needs. The Office of the Chief of the Forest Service is located in Washington, D.C., with 27 offices reporting directly to the Office of the Chief, as illustrated in figure 1. The nine national forest regions, each led by a regional forester, oversee the national forests and grasslands located in their respective regions. Each national forest or grassland is headed by a supervisor, the seven research stations are each led by a station director, and a state and private forestry area is headed by an area director. The Forest Service collectively refers to its forest regions, research stations, and area as RSAs. The RSAs are organized differently according to their operations, and comparable operations within the RSAs, such as collections from reimbursable agreements, may be processed differently in the various regions and stations, resulting in highly decentralized operations. In addition, the offices of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO); Deputy Chief of Business Operations (includes the budget office); and eight other offices located in the Washington, D.C., headquarters also report directly to the Office of the Chief of the Forest Service. The Forest Service receives appropriations for its various programs and for specific purposes to meet its mission goals. Prior to fiscal year 2017, the Forest Service’s budgetary resources consisted primarily of no-year funds. Its budget office in Washington, D.C., initiates apportionment requests and monitors the receipt of Department of the Treasury (Treasury) warrants. Upon receipt of the warrant, the apportionment is recorded in the financial system and then the budget office develops an allocation summary detailing the allocation of its budget authority by fund, programs within the funds, and distribution of funds at the regional, station, and area levels. The Forest Service may also transfer funds from other appropriations to the appropriations account that funds its fire suppression activities when available funds appropriated for fire suppression and the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement (FLAME) fund will be exhausted within 30 days. The Forest Service’s administrative policies, practices, and procedures are issued in its Directive System, which provides a unified system for issuing, storing, and retrieving internal direction that governs Forest Service programs and activities. The Directive System consists of the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks. The manuals contain management objectives, policies, and responsibilities and provide general direction to Forest Service line officers and staff directors for planning and executing their assigned programs and activities. The handbooks provide detailed direction to employees and are the principal source of specialized guidance and instruction for carrying out directions issued in the manuals. Line officers at the national and RSA levels have authority to issue directives in the manuals and handbooks under their respective jurisdictions. The Forest Service’s policy states that the Directive System is the only place where Forest Service policy and procedures are issued. In addition to the Directive System, Forest Service staff have also developed standard operating procedures (SOP) and desk guides to supplement guidance provided in directives. However, the SOPs and desk guides are not part of the Forest Service Directive System and therefore are not official policy and procedures. While the Forest Service had documented processes for allotting its budgetary resources, it did not have an adequate process and related control activities for reasonably assuring that (1) amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated and (2) unobligated no-year appropriation balances from prior years were reviewed for their continuing need. In addition, the Forest Service did not have a properly designed and documented system for administrative control of funds. Finally, the Forest Service had not properly designed control activities for fund transfers for fire suppression activities under its Wildland Fire Management program. While the Forest Service had documented processes for allotting its budgetary resources, it did not have an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated—as required by the purpose statute, which states that “appropriations shall be applied only to the objects for which the appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law.” We reviewed Forest Service documents about its budget authority processes, which included control objectives, related control activities, and processes over the allotment of its budgetary resources. We found that these documents, including manuals and handbooks, did not include an adequate process and related control activities for assuring that appropriated amounts are used for the purposes designated. For example, such a process would include the Forest Service allotting appropriated funds for specific programs or objects as provided in the applicable appropriation act, by either using specific budget line items already defined in the Forest Service’s financial system or creating new budget line items, as needed. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should define objectives clearly to enable the identification of risks and design appropriate control activities to achieve objectives and respond to the risks identified. As a result of the Forest Service not having an adequate process and related control activities for assuring that appropriated amounts are used for the purposes designated, the Forest Service did not properly allocate certain funds for specific purposes detailed in the appropriations acts for fiscal years 2015 and 2016. For example, in fiscal year 2015, the Forest Service did not set aside in its financial system the $65 million specified in the fiscal year 2015 appropriations act for acquiring aircraft for the next- generation airtanker fleet. According to Forest Service documents, as of January 6, 2016, $35 million of the designated funds was used for other purposes. In February 2017, we issued a legal opinion, related to the Forest Service’s use of the $65 million, which concluded that the Forest Service had failed to comply with the purpose statute. According to USDA’s Office of General Counsel, “this lack of any separate apportionment or account for the next-generation airtanker fleet was due to the fact that it was a new item, not included in the agency’s budget request, and added late in the appropriations process.” Similarly, in fiscal year 2016, the Forest Service did not create new budget line items to reserve in its financial system $75 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program specified in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act. Rather than creating a new budget line item for the program specified in the appropriations act, the funds were combined with an existing budget line item, making it difficult to track related budget amounts and actual expenditures. The lack of an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that appropriated amounts are used for the purpose designated also increases the risk that the Forest Service may violate the Antideficiency Act. The Forest Service did not have a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated, no-year funds from prior years were reviewed for continuing need. We reviewed the Forest Service’s budget authority process document and related manuals and handbooks, which documented control objectives and procedures over its budgetary resources and the guidance for administrative control of funds. We found that these documents did not include a process for reviewing the Forest Service’s unobligated, no-year funds from prior years and related control activities to reasonably assure that such funds were reviewed for continuing need. Such reviews, if performed, may identify unneeded funds that could be reallocated to other programs needing additional budgetary resources, if consistent with the purposes designated in appropriations acts. The USDA Budget Manual states as a department policy that “agencies of the Department have a responsibility to review their programs continually and recommend, when appropriate, deferrals or rescissions.” The USDA Budget Manual further states the following: “Agency officials should remain alert to this responsibility since the establishment of reserves is an important phase of budgetary administration. If it becomes evident during the fiscal year that any amount of funds available will not be needed to carry out foreseeable program requirements, it is in the interest of good management to recommend appropriate actions, thereby maintaining a realistic relationship between apportionments, allotments, and obligations.” However, the Forest Service did not develop a directive addressing the control objectives, related risks, and control activities for implementing this USDA policy. Up until fiscal year 2017, Forest Service budgetary resources consisted primarily of no-year funds. At the beginning of each fiscal year, unobligated balances of no-year funds are carried forward and reapportioned to become part of budget authority available for obligation in the new fiscal year. Unobligated balances can increase during the fiscal year due to deobligation of prior years’ unliquidated obligations that the Forest Service determines it no longer needs. These resources are immediately available to the Forest Service to the extent authorized by law without further legislation or action from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) unless the apportionment states otherwise. According to Forest Service officials, unobligated funds reported in the Forest Service’s September 30, 2016, Statement of Budgetary Resources included $351 million in discretionary unobligated no-year funds, appropriated as far back as fiscal year 1999. The Forest Service did not identify and define a process and control objectives related to its review of unobligated no-year funds from prior years for continuing need. As a result, the Forest Service did not have reasonable assurance that prior no-year unobligated balances were properly managed and considered in its annual budget requests. This increased the risk that the Forest Service may make budget requests in excess of its needs. Additionally, the Forest Service could miss opportunities to use its prior year unobligated no-year funds more timely and effectively, for example, using these funds for other Forest Service program needs, if consistent with the purposes designated in appropriations acts. During our work, we brought this issue to management’s attention, and in response, Forest Service officials stated that the Forest Service is planning to develop a quarterly process to review available balances and, as needed, redirect funds to agency priorities. However, as of July 2017, the Forest Service had not yet developed this review process. Further, Congress rescinded about $18 million of the Forest Service’s prior year unobligated balances and required it to report unobligated balances quarterly within 30 days after the close of each quarter and appropriated multi-year funds instead of no- year funds to the Forest Service for fiscal year 2017. The Forest Service issued guidance related to administrative control of funds in manuals and handbooks, which USDA did not review and approve prior to their issuance. Based on our review of these documents, we found that the processes and related control activities over the administrative control of funds were dispersed in numerous manuals and handbooks, which may hamper a clear understanding of the overall system. Further, the system lacked key elements that would allow it to serve as an adequate system of administrative control of funds. For example, in its manuals and handbooks the Forest Service did not identify, by title or office, those officials with the authority and responsibility for obligating the service’s appropriated funds, such as funds for contracts, travel, and training. As a result, the responsibility for obligating funds was not clearly described and properly assigned in Forest Service policy as required by the USDA Budget Manual and OMB Circular No. A-11. OMB Circular No. A-11 states that the Antideficiency Act requires that the agency head prescribe, by regulation, a system of administrative control of funds, and OMB provided a checklist in appendix H to the circular that agencies can use for drafting their fund control regulations. This requirement is consistent with those in the USDA Budget Manual, which prescribes budgetary administration through a system of administrative controls for its component agencies, including the Forest Service. The USDA Budget Manual states that to the extent necessary for effective administration, (1) the heads of USDA component agencies may delegate to subordinate officials responsibilities in connection with the administrative distribution of funds within apportionments and allotments and the monitoring, control, and reporting of the occurrence of obligations and expenditures under apportionments and allotments and (2) the chain of such responsibility shall be clearly defined. In addition, USDA requires its component agencies to promulgate and maintain administrative control of funds regulation and to send such regulation to USDA’s Office of Program and Budget Analysis for review and approval prior to issuance. Because the Forest Service has not developed and issued a comprehensive system for administrative control of funds that considers all aspects of the budget execution processes, it cannot reasonably assure that (1) programs will achieve their intended results; (2) the use of resources is consistent with the agency’s mission; (3) programs and resources are protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement; and (4) laws and regulations are followed. We also found that the Forest Service had not reviewed and updated most of its administrative control of funds guidance in the manuals and handbooks for over 5 years. The USDA Budget Manual requires each component to periodically review its funds control system for overall effectiveness and to assure that it is consistent with its agency programs and organizational structures. Further, Forest Service policy also requires routine review, every 5 years, of policies and procedures in its Directive System. According to Forest Service officials, when directives are up for review and update, a staff from the Office of Regulatory and Management Services (ORMS) sends an e-mail reminder to notify responsible personnel that updates to applicable directives are needed. However, we found that the Forest Service does not have adequate controls in place to monitor the reviews and any updates of the manuals and handbooks in its Directive System to reasonably assure that their efforts resulted in timely updates. As a result, the Forest Service is at risk that guidance for its system for administrative control of funds may lose relevance as processes change over time and control activities may become inadequate. The Forest Service did not have properly designed control activities over its process for fund transfers related to wildland fire suppression activities. The Forest Service receives appropriations for necessary expenses for (1) fire suppression activities on National Forest System lands, (2) emergency fire suppression on or adjacent to such lands or other lands under fire protection agreement, (3) hazardous fuels management on or adjacent to such lands, and (4) state and volunteer fire assistance. Transfer of funds from other Forest Service programs to its fire suppression activities occurs when the Forest Service has exhausted all available funds appropriated for the purpose of fire suppression and the FLAME fund. A key aspect of this process is assessing the FLAME forecast, which the Forest Service uses to predict the costs of fighting wildland fires for a given season, and developing a strategy to identify specific programs and the amounts that may be transferred to pay for fire suppression activities when needed. The process for reviewing the FLAME forecast and strategizing the fund transfers was documented in the Basic Budget Desk Guide created by staff in the Forest Service’s Strategic Planning and Budget Analysis Office. However, the desk guide did not contain evidence of review by responsible officials. As a result, the Forest Service lacked reasonable assurance that the desk guide was complete and appropriate for its use. The Basic Budget Desk Guide included a listing of actions to be performed by the analyst for reviewing the FLAME forecast report and developing a strategy for fund transfer from other programs. However, the desk guide did not specify the factors to be considered when developing the strategy. For example, it did not call for documentation addressing the rationale for the strategy or an assessment of the risk that the fund transfer could have on the programs from which the funds would be transferred. The desk guide also did not describe the review and approval of the strategy by a responsible official(s) prior to the fund transfer request sent to the Chief of the Forest Service. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks and that such control activities should be designed at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure. Further, management may design a variety of transaction control activities for operational processes, which may include verifications, authorizations and approvals, and supervisory control activities. The lack of properly designed control activities for supervisory review of the desk guide and strategy to identify the amounts for fund transfers does not provide the Forest Service reasonable assurance that the objectives of the fund transfers—including mitigating the risk of a shortfall of funding for other critical Forest Service program activities, such as payroll or other day-to-day operating costs—will be efficiently and effectively achieved. The Forest Service enters into various reimbursable agreements with agencies within USDA, other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities to carry out its mission for public benefit. The reimbursable agreements may be for the Forest Service to provide goods and services to a third party or to receive goods and services from a third party, or may be a partnership agreement with a third party for a common goal. According to Forest Service officials, the two distinct types of Forest Service reimbursable agreements are (1) fire incident cooperative agreements and (2) reimbursable and advanced collection agreements (RACA). The Forest Service did not have documented processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure the effectiveness and efficiency of its related fire incident operations. In addition, processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs were not adequately described in applicable manuals and handbooks in the Directive System, to reasonably assure that control activities could be performed consistently and effectively. Further, certain RACA processes in the Directive System had not been timely reviewed by management and did not reflect current processes. Moreover, as previously discussed, SOPs and desk guides developed in field offices related to RACA processes were not in the Forest Service’s Directive System. Finally, the Forest Service lacked control activities segregating incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers in creating reimbursable agreements and the final disposition of related receivables. The Forest Service did not have documented processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure the effectiveness and efficiency of its related fire incident operations and reliable reporting internally and externally. As part of the service’s mission objective to suppress wildland fires, Forest Service officials stated that they enter into 5-year agreements referred to as master cooperative agreements with federal, state, and other entities. These agreements document the framework for commitment and support efficient and effective coordination and cooperation among the parties in suppressing fires, when they occur. The master cooperative agreements do not require specific funding commitments as amounts are not yet known. These agreements vary from region to region because of the differing laws and regulations pertaining to the participating states and other entities. These variations can also result in different billing and collection processes between regions. When a fire occurs, supplemental agreements, which are based on the framework established in the applicable master cooperative agreements, are signed by relevant parties for each fire incident. These agreements establish the share of fire suppression costs incurred by the Forest Service and amounts related to entities that benefitted from those fire suppression efforts. These supplemental agreements require commitment and obligation of funds. As indicated in figure 2, the Forest Service’s obligations for fire suppression activities ranged from $412 million to $1.4 billion over the 10-year period from fiscal years 2007 through 2016. In response to our request for documentation of processes and related control activities over its fire incident cooperative agreements, Forest Service officials stated that processes and related control activities over reimbursable agreements were applicable to both fire incident cooperative agreements and RACAs. However, based on our review of the Forest Service’s processes and related control activities over its reimbursable agreements, we found that the unique features of fire incident cooperative agreements (as compared to features of RACAs) were not addressed in the processes and related controls for reimbursable agreements. For example, there was no process and related control activities over the negotiation and review of (1) a fire incident master cooperative agreement, which is developed before a fire occurs, and (2) supplemental agreements, which are signed by all relevant parties after the start of a fire incident. These supplemental agreements detail, among other things, the terms for (1) fire department resource use, (2) financial arrangements, and (3) specific cost-sharing agreements. Another unique feature of fire incident cooperative agreements, which was not covered in process documents for its reimbursable agreements, was the preparation of the Cost Settlement Package. The preparation of this package does not start until after the fire has ended and the Forest Service has received and paid all bills. According to Forest Service officials, a fire incident is deemed to have ended when there are no more resources (firefighters and equipment) on the ground putting out the fire. However, this definition was not documented in the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks in the Directive System. Based on our review of documentation that the Forest Service provided for four fire incidents, we found that for these incidents the Cost Settlement Packages and the billings took several months to years to complete after the fire incident. According to Forest Service officials, delays in preparing the Cost Settlement Package in many cases were due to parties involved in suppressing the fires taking a long time to submit their invoices to the Forest Service for payment. Because the preparation of Cost Settlement Packages was not included in the process documents, the Forest Service did not have a defined time frame for when, in relation to the end of the fire, the Cost Settlement Package must be completed. For example, in one case we reviewed, the bill for a cost settlement was sent 9 months after the fire occurred, and in another case, settlement occurred approximately 2 years after the fire occurred. For both fire incidents, based on the reports we reviewed, the fires were contained within a week or two, but the Forest Service does not have a policy for documenting the date when the fire incident is deemed to have ended. Because of the complexity of the process for negotiating and determining the reimbursable amounts from all the costs that the Forest Service pays for a fire incident, the reimbursable amounts may take time to negotiate, and subsequent billing to and collection from parties may take much longer. Forest Service officials stated that some receivables that were not going to be collected until after its financial system’s aging process for receivables deemed such receivables uncollectible and a bad debt are tracked in a spreadsheet outside its financial system. We found that the Forest Service did not have a documented process and related control activities to reasonably assure that its Budget Office was informed of these older receivables being tracked in a spreadsheet and the related progress of collection activities that local program managers and line officers perform, which could affect the reliability of the reported reimbursable receivable amounts. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should internally communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Without proper communication, important information, such as amounts that the Forest Service will receive from fire incident cost settlement negotiations, may not be considered in the Forest Service’s strategy for the effective and efficient management of fund transfers for fire suppression activities. Processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs were not adequately described in Forest Service manuals and handbooks in its Directive System. RACAs, which may be for research or other nonemergency purposes, are billed and collected based on previously agreed upon billing and collection terms. In accordance with the Forest Service’s Directive System, policies related to business processes, such as RACAs, are documented in its manuals while procedures for performing specialized activities are documented in its handbooks. We found that the manuals and handbooks in the Directive System did not adequately describe the processes and related control activities over the RACA processes to enable efficient and effective performance of the work by appropriate and responsible personnel. The manuals and handbooks related to RACAs state that a manager review the documentation to ensure that the funding supports the objective of the agreement, the agreement is the correct instrument for funding the project, all relevant terms and conditions have been included in the agreement, the entity’s financial strength and capability are acceptable, and all applicable regulations and OMB circulars have been addressed. However, there was no discussion in the manuals and handbooks about when the manager needs to perform the reviews and how these reviews were to be documented. Further, in response to our inquiry regarding procedures performed to assess the entity’s financial strength and capability are acceptable before a RACA is signed, Forest Service officials stated that there is currently no formal process for determining financial capability for RACAs. For reimbursable agreements, the Forest Service’s process documented in its handbook consisted of completing a creditworthiness checklist. However, the handbook did not describe procedures for (1) completing the checklist and (2) documenting responsible personnel’s review and approval of an entity’s acceptable financial capability. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. Management’s design of internal control establishes and communicates the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel. Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel. Further, the standards also explain that management clearly document internal control in a manner that allows the documentation to be readily available and properly managed and maintained. In addition, the manuals and handbooks applicable to the RACAs have not been timely reviewed by management, and had not been updated to reflect current processes. For example, the document that serves as direction for Forest Service personnel on how to enter into RACAs referred to an outdated financial system that was replaced in fiscal year 2013. Further, the manuals and handbooks for the RACA processes had no indication that they had been reviewed within the past 5 years. Forest Service policy requires routine review, every 5 years, of policies and procedures in its Directive System. According to Forest Service officials, a staff member from ORMS sends an e-mail to officials responsible for updating these policies and procedures. However, appropriate control activities have not been designed to reasonably assure that updates were made, reviewed, approved, and issued as needed for continued relevance and effectiveness. Without adequate descriptions of processes and related control activities in its manuals and handbooks over RACAs, the Forest Service is at risk that processes and related control activities may not be properly, consistently, and timely performed. Further, because it lacks a process and related controls for monitoring and reviewing the updates of the guidance and various process documents in the Directive System, the Forest Service is at risk that its policies and procedures may not provide appropriate agency-wide direction in achieving control objectives, particularly when financial systems change and old processes may no longer be applicable. SOPs and desk guides related to RACA processes were not in the Directive System and are not considered official Forest Service policy and procedures. Forest Service field staff responsible for various processes generally developed SOPs and desk guides to document day-to-day procedures for employees in carrying out RACA processes to supplement the manuals and handbooks. However, the SOPs and desk guides did not reference the applicable manuals and handbooks they supplemented. Further, the SOPs and desk guides did not provide descriptions of (1) review procedures for authorization, completeness, and validity of RACAs and related receivables; (2) detailed review procedures to be performed and by whom; (3) timing of review procedures; and (4) how to document the completion of the review procedures. Finally, SOPs and desk guides did not have evidence that responsible officials reviewed and approved them to authorize their use. These SOPs and desk guides are only available in the field office where these were developed, and if similar SOPs and desk guides were developed in other field offices, control activities and how they are performed could vary. We also noted that these SOPs and desk guides were not timely updated to reflect processes and systems currently in use. For example, there were many instances where the SOPs and desk guides referred to systems that the Forest Service no longer used. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should establish an organizational structure, assign responsibility, and delegate authority to achieve the entity’s objectives. Effective documentation assists in management’s design of internal control by establishing and communicating the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel. Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel and to achieve the entity’s objectives. Management assigns responsibility and delegates authority to key roles throughout the entity. As a result of the issues discussed above, the Forest Service is at risk that control activities may not be properly and consistently performed and its related control objectives may not be achieved efficiently and effectively. In addition, the Forest Service is at risk that knowledge for performing the control activities may be limited to a few personnel or lost altogether in the event of employee turnover. The Forest Service lacked control activities over the segregation of incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers for reimbursable agreements and any adjustments affecting the final disposition of related receivables. Field offices manage the majority of Forest Service projects, including authorizing the agreements and monitoring related collection. The Forest Service line officer for fire incident cooperative agreements and program managers for RACA at the RSA, unit, or field levels initiate and develop the terms of the agreements and are also responsible for any subsequent negotiation of the agreements. In the process of negotiating and settling costs, the line officer or program manager has the authority to cancel or change related receivables that they deemed uncollectible. For example, in a fire incident, the line officer at the region or field level is involved in both developing a Cost Share Agreement and after the fire incident has ended, negotiating the Cost Settlement Package with parties involved in the agreement to determine the final settlement amount that the Forest Service will be reimbursed for expenses paid in suppressing the fire incident. Therefore, the line officer is responsible for initiating the Cost Share Agreement, modifying the Cost Settlement Package, and changing or canceling the related receivable, which represent conflicting duties. We also found that the Forest Service did not have any mitigating controls, such as independent approval of any adjustments affecting the final disposition of receivables, to mitigate the risk of these incompatible duties. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks. Segregation of duties contributes to the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of control activities. To achieve segregation of key functions, management can divide responsibilities among different people to reduce the risk of error, misuse, or fraud. This may include separating the responsibilities for authorizing or approving transactions, processing and recording them, and reviewing the transactions so that no one individual controls all key aspects of a transaction or event. Forest Service officials stated they did not consider segregating the conflicting duties related to reimbursable agreements because these line officers and program managers were most familiar with the terms of the agreement and the activities performed. However, a lack of adequate segregation of conflicting duties or proper monitoring and review of conflicting duties for receivables from reimbursable agreements could result in receivables not being collected, and an increased risk of fraud. The Forest Service’s processes and related control activities over review of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed to reasonably assure optimum utilization of funds and were inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy. Further, Forest Service manuals and handbooks related to the review of unliquidated obligations did not clearly describe control activities and were not timely reviewed by management. The Forest Service reported unliquidated obligations of approximately $2.6 billion and $2.5 billion in its financial statements as of September 30, 2015, and 2016, respectively. In fiscal year 2016, the Forest Service deobligated about $319 million of its unliquidated obligations from prior years. The Forest Service’s procedures related to the review of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed and were inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy. In accordance with USDA Departmental Regulation (Regulation 2230-001) and related Forest Service policy, the Forest Service identifies and reviews unliquidated obligations that have been inactive for at least 12 months to determine whether delivery or performance of goods or services is still expected to occur. Once a determination has been made that an unliquidated obligation can be deobligated, program or procurement personnel are to notify finance personnel, in writing, within 5 days of the determination to process the deobligation. Within 15 days of receipt of the written notification, the unliquidated obligations are to be adjusted in the financial management system. The Forest Service CFO is then to be notified in writing that the deobligation was processed. Within 1 month of the close of each quarter, the Forest Service CFO is to submit to USDA’s Associate CFO for Financial Operations a certification stating that the Forest Service has performed reviews of its unliquidated obligations and taken appropriate actions, such as promptly deobligating an unliquidated obligation that is no longer needed. However, the Forest Service’s quarterly certifications are inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy because the months included in each quarterly review do not line up with the months outlined in policy. For example, as shown in table 1, based on policy the certification due on October 31, covers the months July through September. However in practice, the certification that the Forest Service prepared for October 31 covers May through July. As a result, the review and certification for August and September would be delayed an entire quarter. According to Forest Service officials, it takes considerable time to produce accurate unliquidated obligations reports from USDA’s financial system and then distribute them to field offices. Therefore, there is not sufficient time for the field offices to review and deobligate amounts not needed from the unliquidated obligations balances to meet USDA’s certification timing and requirements. However, the Forest Service has not developed other processes and control activities that could help meet USDA and Forest Service policy and reasonably assure that unliquidated obligations are reviewed timely and appropriate actions are taken. As a result, there is an increased risk that the Forest Service may not achieve its control objectives of optimum utilization of funds and timely adjustments of obligated balances. The Forest Service’s process and related control activities over its review of unliquidated obligations and resulting certifications were not adequately described in manuals and handbooks in its Directive System. Further, the manuals and handbooks were not timely reviewed and updated to reflect processes and systems currently in use. In accordance with the Forest Service’s Directive System, policies are documented in its manuals while procedures for performing specialized activities are documented in its handbooks. However, we found that the Forest Service’s processes and related control activities for reviewing unliquidated obligations were not adequately described and documented in such manuals and handbooks. Although parts of the applicable section of the handbook referred to procedures, there were no detailed descriptions of the processes, and only references to objectives of the procedures for reviewing unliquidated obligations were listed. For example, in identifying unliquidated obligations for review, the narrative description of the procedures in the handbook states that the responsible obligating official must review each selected unliquidated obligation to determine whether (1) delivery or performance of goods or services has occurred or is expected to occur and (2) accounting corrections to the obligation data in the accounting system are necessary. The handbook also refers to an unliquidated obligations report listing the unliquidated obligations that must be reviewed. The narrative does not provide any detailed procedures that obligating officials or responsible personnel need to perform, how to perform those procedures, and how those control activities are to be documented. The guidance in the handbook was supplemented by two desk guides. However, the desk guides are outside the Forest Service’s Directive System and, as previously noted, the Directive System is the only place where the Forest Service’s policy and procedures are issued. In addition, these desk guides did not reference the applicable guidance in the Directive System that they were supplementing. Further, the process and related control activities for adjusting unliquidated obligations within 15 days of receipt of written notification, as stated in USDA’s policy, were not described in either the handbooks or the desk guides. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that management should design control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks to achieve an effective internal control system. Management’s design of internal control establishes and communicates the who, what, when, where, and why of internal control execution to personnel. Documentation also provides a means to retain organizational knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few personnel. Further, the standards also explain that management clearly document internal control in a manner that allows documentation to be readily available and that documentation be properly managed and maintained. In addition, manuals and handbooks for processes related to review and certification of unliquidated obligations had no evidence that they had been reviewed within the past 5 years for ongoing relevance and effectiveness. According to a Forest Service manual, all service-wide directives, except interim directives, shall be reviewed at least once every 5 years. The Forest Service does not have an effective process in place to monitor the reviews and any updates of the manuals and handbooks in its Directive System. As previously discussed, while ORMS sends an e- mail requesting that the applicable officials review and update the guidance in the manuals and handbooks, there is no follow-up process to help ensure that documents were reviewed and updated as needed. Because the Forest Service’s process and related control activities over its review and certification of unliquidated obligations were not adequately described in its manuals and handbooks, the Forest Service is at risk that its control activities may not reasonably assure that control objectives provide (1) optimum utilization of funds and (2) for unliquidated obligations that are no longer needed to be efficiently and effectively deobligated and made available for other program needs. Adequate processes and related control activities over the Forest Service’s budgetary resources are critical in reasonably assuring that these resources are timely and effectively available for its mission operations, including fire suppression. However, we identified deficiencies in the Forest Service’s processes and related controls over allotments, unobligated no-year funds from prior years, administrative control of funds, fund transfers, reimbursable agreements, and available funds from deobligation of unliquidated obligations. Deficiencies ranged from a lack of processes to control activities that were not properly designed, resulting in an increased risk that Forest Service funds may not be effectively and efficiently monitored and used. In addition, the Forest Service’s manuals and handbooks, which provide the directives for the areas we reviewed, had not been reviewed by management in accordance with the Forest Service’s 5-year review policy. Further, Forest Service staff prepared SOPs and desk guides that documented control activities, but they were not issued as official policy and had not been reviewed and approved by responsible officials. As a result, the Forest Service is at increased risk that the control activities may not be consistently performed across the agency and that the guidance in the SOPs and desk guides may not comply with agency policy in the Directive System. To improve internal controls over the Forest Service’s budget execution processes, we are making the following 11 recommendations: The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) revise its process and (2) design, document, and implement related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are properly used for the purposes specifically designated. (Recommendation 1) The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) develop a process and (2) design, document, and implement related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated no-year funds from prior years are reviewed for continuing need. (Recommendation 2) The Chief of the Forest Service should (1) design, document, and implement a comprehensive system for administrative control of funds and (2) submit it for review and approval by USDA before issuance, as required by the USDA Budget Manual. (Recommendation 3) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement control activities over the preparation and approval of a fire suppression fund transfers strategy, to specify all appropriate factors to be considered in developing and documenting the strategy, and incorporate these control activities into the Directive System. (Recommendation 4) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement processes and related control activities for its fire incident cooperative agreements to reasonably assure efficient and effective operations and timely and reliable reporting of reimbursable receivables related to fire incident cooperative agreements, and incorporate them in the Directive System. (Recommendation 5) The Chief of the Forest Service should update the RACA manuals and handbooks to adequately describe the processes and related control activities applicable to RACAs to reasonably assure that staff will know (1) how and when to perform processes and control activities and (2) how to document their performance. (Recommendation 6) The Chief of the Forest Service should design, document, and implement segregation of duties or mitigating control activities over reimbursable agreements and any adjustments affecting the final disposition of related receivables. (Recommendation 7) The Chief of the Forest Service should modify, document, and implement control activities consistent with USDA and Forest Service policy to reasonably assure that unliquidated obligations are reviewed timely and appropriate actions are taken. (Recommendation 8) The Chief of the Forest Service should adequately describe the processes and related control activities for unliquidated obligations review and certification processes in manuals and handbooks within the Directive System. (Recommendation 9) The Chief of the Forest Service should develop, document, and implement a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that manuals and handbooks for allotments, reimbursable agreements, and review of unliquidated obligations are reviewed and updated every 5 years, consistent with Forest Service policy. (Recommendation 10) The Chief of the Forest Service should develop, document, and implement a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that SOPs and desk guides (1) clearly refer to guidance in the Directive System for allotments, reimbursable agreements, and review of unliquidated obligations and (2) are reviewed and approved by responsible officials prior to use. (Recommendation 11) We provided a draft of this report to USDA for comment. In its comments, reproduced in appendix III, the Forest Service stated that it generally agreed with the report and that it has made significant progress to address the report’s findings. Specifically, the Forest Service stated that its financial policies concerning budget execution have been revised to address our concerns with allotments, unliquidated obligations, commitments, and administrative control of funds as prescribed by OMB Circular No. A-11. Further, the Forest Service stated that it has undertaken an in-depth review of its unliquidated obligations and modified the certification process to comply with the USDA requirement. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Chief of the Forest Service. In addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9869 or khana@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 members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which the Forest Service properly designed control activities over (1) allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations; (2) reimbursables and related collections; and (3) unliquidated obligations. We reviewed the Forest Service’s process documents and control activities, policies and procedures from its manual and handbooks in its Directive System, and other guidance in the form of standard operating procedures (SOP) and desk guides to obtain an understanding of internal controls at the Forest Service related to our three objectives. We reviewed the control activities that the Forest Service identified to determine whether the activities would achieve the control objectives that the service identified and whether the activities were consistent with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also reviewed recent relevant GAO and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of Inspector General reports to obtain background information related to the Forest Service’s budget execution processes. We evaluated the design of the Forest Service’s control activities based on data for fiscal year 2016. To address our first objective, we reviewed Forest Service process documents related to allotments and budget authority to obtain an understanding of control activities over the allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any related fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations. The process documents included a list of control objectives and related control activities that the Forest Service had used to assess its internal controls. We also reviewed the related guidance in appendix H to Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget for Administrative Control of Funds, to identify requirements that agencies must meet to ascertain whether their controls over funds management are properly designed. We interviewed key officials from the Forest Service’s Strategic Planning, Budget and Accountability Office to gain an understanding of their processes for allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations for wildland fire suppression activities, including how each of their risk assessments were performed and their plans to mitigate the risks. We reviewed and analyzed the processes documented in the manuals and handbooks collectively referred to as directives to determine whether the processes and control activities were designed to achieve the Forest Service’s stated objectives. Specifically, we examined the Forest Service’s control activities to determine whether these sufficiently communicated the procedures to be performed and the documentation to be prepared. We also reviewed USDA Budget Manual to determine whether Forest Service guidance was consistent with USDA’s requirements for all of its component agencies, specifically requirements related to the administrative control of funds. To address our second objective, we reviewed the Forest Service’s policies, procedures, and other documentation and interviewed agency officials to develop an understanding of its processes related to reimbursable agreements and related collection activities. We first identified, through interviews with Forest Service officials, the different kinds of reimbursable agreements that the Forest Service enters into with other USDA components, other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities to carry out its mission for the benefit of the public. Two distinct types of reimbursable agreements include (1) fire incident cooperative agreements and (2) reimbursable and advanced collection agreements. We reviewed Forest Service process documents and templates related to these two types of reimbursable agreements provided to obtain an understanding of control activities over reimbursable processes. We reviewed the list of control objectives and related control activities that the Forest Service identified to determine whether the control activities were designed to achieve the applicable control objectives. To address our third objective, we reviewed the Forest Service’s policies, procedures, and other documentation related to and interviewed agency officials about unliquidated obligations to develop an understanding of the Forest Service’s review and certification processes for unliquidated obligations balances. We reviewed the Forest Service’s control activities related to its process for reviewing unliquidated obligations to obtain an understanding of control activities around its process and to determine whether the control activities were designed to achieve the applicable control objectives. Based on the results of our evaluation of the Forest Service’s design of internal control activities over the budget execution processes, we did not evaluate the implementation of the control activities or whether they were operating as designed. While our audit objectives focused on certain control activities related to (1) allotments of budgetary resources, the Forest Service’s system for administrative control of funds, and related fund transfers; (2) reimbursables and related collections for reimbursable agreements; and (3) unliquidated obligations, we did not evaluate all control activities and other components of internal control. If we had done so, additional deficiencies may or may not have been identified that could impair the effectiveness of the control activities evaluated as part of this audit. We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides the overall framework for establishing and maintaining internal control. Internal control represents an agency’s plans, methods, policies, and procedures used to fulfill its mission, strategic plan, goals, and objectives. Internal control is a process by an entity’s oversight body, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the entity will be achieved. When properly designed, implemented, and operating effectively, it provides reasonable assurance that the following objectives are achieved: (1) effectiveness and efficiency of operations, (2) reliability of internal and external reporting, and (3) compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Internal control is not one event, but a series of actions that occur throughout an entity’s operations. The five components of internal control are as follows: Control Environment - The foundation for an internal control system that provides the discipline and structure to help an entity achieve its objectives. Risk Assessment - Assesses the risks facing the entity as it seeks to achieve its objectives and provides the basis for developing appropriate risk responses. Control Activities - The actions management establishes through policies and procedures to achieve objectives and respond to risks in the internal control system, which includes the entity’s information system. Information and Communication - The quality information management and personnel communicate and use to support the internal control system. Monitoring - Activities management establishes and operates to assess the quality of performance over time and promptly resolve the findings of audits and other reviews. An effective internal control system has each of the five components of internal control effectively designed, implemented, and operating with the components operating together in an integrated manner. In this audit, we assessed the design of control activities at the Forest Service related to its (1) allotments of budgetary resources and any related fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations, (2) reimbursables and related collections, and (3) review of unliquidated obligations. In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals made key contributions to this report: Roger Stoltz (Assistant Director), Meafelia P. Gusukuma (Auditor-in-Charge), Tulsi Bhojwani, Cory Mazer, Sabrina Rivera, and Randy Voorhees.

 

 Report 2:
Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate." The method by which the Senate provides advice and consent on presidential nominations, referred to broadly as the confirmation process, serves several purposes. First, largely through committee investigations and hearings, the confirmation process allows the Senate to examine the qualifications of nominees and any potential conflicts of interest. Second, Senators can influence policy through the confirmation process, either by rejecting nominees or by extracting promises from nominees before granting consent. Also, the Senate sometimes has delayed the confirmation process in order to increase its influence with the executive branch on unrelated matters. Senate confirmation is required for several categories of government officials. Military appointments and promotions make up the majority of nominations, approximately 65,000 per two-year Congress, and most are confirmed routinely. Each Congress, the Senate also considers approximately 2,000 civilian nominations, and, again, many of them, such as appointments to or promotions in the Foreign Service, are routine. Civilian nominations considered by the Senate also include federal judges and specified officers in executive departments, independent agencies, and regulatory boards and commissions. Many presidential appointees are confirmed routinely by the Senate. With tens of thousands of nominations each Congress, the Senate cannot possibly consider them all in detail. A regularized process facilitates quick action on thousands of government positions. The Senate may approve en bloc hundreds of nominations at a time, especially military appointments and promotions. The process also allows for close scrutiny of candidates when necessary. Each year, a few hundred nominees to high-level positions are regularly subject to Senate investigations and public hearings. Most of these are routinely approved, while a small number of nominations are disputed and receive more attention from the media and Congress. Judicial nominations, particularly Supreme Court appointees, are generally subject to greater scrutiny than nominations to executive posts, partly because judges may serve for life. Among the executive branch positions, nominees for policymaking positions are more likely to be examined closely, and are slightly less likely to be confirmed, than nominees for non-policy positions. There are several reasons that the Senate confirms a high percentage of nominations. Most nominations and promotions are not to policymaking positions and are of less interest to the Senate. In addition, some sentiment exists in the Senate that the selection of persons to fill executive branch positions is largely a presidential prerogative. Historically, the President has been granted wide latitude in the selection of his Cabinet and other high-ranking executive branch officials. Another important reason for the high percentage of confirmations is that Senators are often involved in the nomination stage. The President would prefer a smooth and fast confirmation process, so he may decide to consult with Senators prior to choosing a nominee. Senators most likely to be consulted, typically by White House congressional relations staff, are Senators from a nominee's home state, leaders of the committee of jurisdiction, and leaders of the President's party in the Senate. Senators of the President's party are sometimes invited to express opinions or even propose candidates for federal appointments in their own states. There is a long-standing custom of "senatorial courtesy," whereby the Senate will sometimes decline to proceed on a nomination if a home-state Senator expresses opposition. Positions subject to senatorial courtesy include U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, and U.S. district judges. Over the past decade, Senators have expressed concerns over various aspects of the confirmation process, including the rate of confirmation for high-ranking executive branch positions and judgeships, as well as the speed of Senate action on routine nominations. When the Senate is controlled by the party of the President, this concern has often been raised as a complaint that minority party Senators are disputing a higher number of nominations, and have increasingly used their leverage under Senate proceedings to delay or even block their consideration. These concerns have led the Senate to make several changes to the confirmation process since 2011. The changes are taken into account in the following description of the process and are described in detail in other CRS Reports. The President customarily sends nomination messages to the Senate in writing. Once received, nominations are numbered by the executive clerk and read on the floor. The clerk actually assigns numbers to the presidential messages, not to individual nominations, so a message listing several nominations would receive a single number. Except by unanimous consent, the Senate cannot vote on nominations the day they are received, and most are referred immediately to committees. Senate Rule XXXI provides that nominations shall be referred to appropriate committees "unless otherwise ordered." A standing order of the Senate provides that some nominations to specified positions will not be referred unless a Senator requests referral. Instead of being immediately referred, the nominations are instead listed in a special section of the Executive Calendar , a document distributed daily to congressional offices and available online. This section of the Calendar is titled "Privileged Nominations." After the chair of the committee with jurisdiction over a nomination has notified the executive clerk that biographical and financial information on the nominee has been received, this is indicated in the Calendar. After 10 days, the nomination is moved from the "Privileged Nominations" section of the Calendar and placed on the "Nominations" section with the same status as a nomination that had been reported by a committee. (See " Executive Calendar " below.) Importantly, at any time that the nomination is listed in the new section of the Executive Calendar , any Senator can request that a nomination be referred, and it is then sent to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction. Formally the presiding officer, but administratively the executive clerk's office, refers the nominations to committees according to the Senate's rules and precedents. The Senate rule concerning committee jurisdictions (Rule XXV) broadly defines issue areas for committees, and the same jurisdictional statements generally apply to nominations as well as legislation. An executive department nomination can be expected to be referred to the committee with jurisdiction over legislation concerning that department or to the committee that handled the legislation creating the position. Judicial branch nominations, including judges, U.S. attorneys, and U.S. marshals, are under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee. In some instances, the committee of jurisdiction for a nomination has been set in statute. The number of nominations referred to various committees differs considerably. The Committee on Armed Services, which handles all military appointments and promotions, receives the most. The two other committees with major confirmation responsibilities are the Committee on the Judiciary, with its jurisdiction over nominations in the judicial branch, and the Committee on Foreign Relations, which considers ambassadorial and other diplomatic appointments. Occasionally, nominations are referred to more than one committee, either jointly or sequentially. A joint referral might occur when the jurisdictional claim of two committees is essentially equal. In such cases, both committees must report on the nomination before the whole Senate can act on it, unless the Senate discharges one or both committees. If two committees have unequal jurisdictional claims, then the nomination is more likely to be sequentially referred. In this case, the first committee must report the nomination before it is sequentially referred to the second committee. The second referral often is subject to a requirement that the committee report within a certain number of days. Typically, nominations are jointly or sequentially referred by unanimous consent. Sometimes the unanimous consent agreement applies to all future nominations to a position or category of positions. Most Senate committees that consider nominations have written rules concerning the process. Although committee rules vary, most contain standards concerning information to be gathered from a nominee. Many committees expect a biographical resumé and some kind of financial statement listing assets and liabilities. Some specify the terms under which financial statements will or will not be made public. Committee rules also frequently contain timetables outlining the minimum layover required between committee actions. A common timing provision is a requirement that nominations be held for one or two weeks before the committee proceeds to a hearing or a vote, permitting Senators time to review a nomination before committee consideration. Other committee rules specifically mandate a delay between steps of the process, such as the receipt of pre-hearing information and the date of the hearing, or the distribution of hearing transcripts and the committee vote on the nomination. Some of the written rules also contain provisions for the rules to be waived by majority vote, by unanimous consent, or by the chair and the ranking minority Member. Committees often gather and review information about a nominee either before or instead of a formal hearing. Because the executive branch acts first in selecting a nominee, congressional committees are sometimes able to rely partially on any field investigations and reports conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Records of FBI investigations are provided only to the White House, although a report or a summary of a report may be shared, with the President's authorization, with Senators on the relevant committee. The practices of the committees with regard to FBI materials vary. Some rarely if ever request them. On other committees, the chair and ranking Member review any FBI report or summary, but on some committees these materials are available to any Senator upon request. Committee staff usually do not review FBI materials. Almost all nominees are also asked by the Office of the Counsel to the President to complete an "Executive Personnel Financial Disclosure Report, SF-278," which is reviewed and certified by the relevant agency as well as the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. The documents are then forwarded to the relevant committee, along with opinion letters from ethics officers in the relevant agency and the director of the Office of Government Ethics. In contrast to FBI reports, financial disclosure forms are made public. All committees review financial disclosure reports and some make them available in committee offices to Members, staff, and the public. To varying degrees, committees also conduct their own information-gathering exercises. Some committees, after reviewing responses to their standard questionnaire, might ask a nominee to complete a second questionnaire. Committees frequently require that written responses to these questionnaires be submitted before a hearing is scheduled. The Committee on the Judiciary sends form letters, sometimes called "blue slips," to Senators from a nominee's home state to determine whether they support the nomination. The Committee on the Judiciary also has its own investigative staff. The Committee on Rules and Administration handles relatively few nominations and conducts its own investigations, sometimes with the assistance of the FBI or the Government Accountability Office (GAO). It is not unusual for nominees to meet with committee staff prior to a hearing. High-level nominees may meet privately with Senators. Generally speaking, these meetings, sometimes initiated by the nominee, serve basically to acquaint the nominee with the Members and committee staff, and vice versa. They occasionally address substantive matters as well. A nominee also might meet with the committee's chief counsel to discuss the financial disclosure report and any potential conflict-of-interest issues. Historically, approximately half of all civilian appointees were confirmed without a hearing. All committees that receive nominations do hold hearings on some nominations, and the likelihood of hearings varies with the importance of the position and the workload of the committee. The Committee on the Judiciary, for example, which receives a large number of nominations, does not usually hold hearings for U.S. attorneys, U.S. marshals, or members of part-time commissions. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, on the other hand, typically hold hearings on most nominations that are referred to them. Committees often combine related nominations into a single hearing. The length and nature of hearings varies. One or both home-state Senators will often introduce a nominee at a hearing. The nominee typically testifies at the hearing, and occasionally the committee will invite other witnesses, including Members of the House of Representatives, to testify as well. Some hearings function as routine welcomes, while others are directed at influencing the policy program of an appointee. In addition to policy views, hearings might address the nominee's qualifications and potential conflicts of interest. Senators also might take the opportunity to ask questions of particular concern to them or their constituents. Committees sometimes send questions to nominees in advance of a hearing and ask for written responses. Nominees also might be asked to respond in writing to additional questions after a hearing. Especially for high-level positions, the nomination hearing may be only the first of many times an individual will be asked to testify before a committee. Therefore, the committee often gains a commitment from the nominee to be cooperative with future oversight activities of the committee. Hearings, under Senate Rule XXVI, are open to the public unless closed by majority vote for one of the reasons specified in the rule. Witness testimony is sometimes made available online through the website of the relevant committee and also through several commercial services, including Congressional Quarterly. Most committees print the hearings, although no rule requires it. The number of Senators necessary to constitute a quorum for the purpose of taking testimony varies from committee to committee, but it is usually smaller than a majority of the membership. A committee considering a nomination has four options. It may report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it may choose to take no action at all. It is more common for a committee to take no action on a nomination than to report unfavorably. Particularly for policymaking positions, committees sometimes report a nomination favorably, subject to the commitment of the nominee to testify before a Senate committee. Sometimes, committees choose to report a nomination without recommendation. Even if a majority of Senators on a committee do not agree that a nomination should be reported favorably, a majority might agree to report a nomination without a recommendation in order to permit a vote by the whole Senate. The timing of a vote to report a nomination varies in accordance with committee rules and practice. Most committees do not vote to report a nomination on the same day that they hold a hearing, but instead wait until the next meeting of the committee. Senate Rule XXVI, clause 7(a)(1) requires that a quorum for making a recommendation on a nomination consist of a majority of the membership of the committee. In most cases, the number of Senators necessary to constitute a quorum for making a recommendation on a nomination to the Senate is the same that the committee requires for reporting a measure. Every committee reports a majority of nominations favorably. Most of the time, committees do not formally present reports on nominations on the floor of the Senate. Instead, committee staff prepare the appropriate paperwork on behalf of the committee chair and file it with the clerk. The executive clerk then arranges for the nomination to be printed in the Congressional Record and placed on the Executive Calendar . If a report were presented on the floor, it would have to be done in executive session. Executive session and the Executive Calendar will be discussed in the next section. According to Senate Rule XXXI, the Senate cannot vote on a nomination the same day it is reported except by unanimous consent. It is fairly common for the Senate to discharge a committee from consideration of an unreported nomination by unanimous consent. This removes the nomination from the committee in order to allow the full Senate to consider it. When the Senate discharges a committee by unanimous consent, it is doing so with the support of the committee for the purposes of simplifying the process. It is unusual for Senators to attempt to discharge a committee by motion or resolution, instead of by unanimous consent, and only a few attempts have ever been successful. Senate Rule XVII does permit any Senator to submit a motion or resolution that a committee be discharged from the consideration of a subject referred to it. The discharge process, however, does not allow a simple majority to quickly initiate consideration of a nomination still in committee. It requires several steps and, most notably, a motion or resolution to discharge is debatable. This means that a cloture process may be necessary to discharge a committee. Cloture on a discharge motion or resolution requires the support of three-fifths of the Senate, usually 60 Senators, and several days. The Senate handles executive business, which includes both nominations and treaties, separately from its legislative business. All nominations reported from committee, regardless of whether they were reported favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, are listed on the Executive Calendar , a separate document from the Calendar of Business , which lists pending bills and resolutions. Usually, the majority leader schedules the consideration of nominations on the Calendar. Nominations are considered in executive session, a parliamentary form of the Senate in session that has its own journal and, to some extent, its own rules of procedure. After a committee reports a nomination or is discharged from considering it, the nomination is assigned a number by the executive clerk and placed on the Executive Calendar . Under a standing order of the Senate, certain nominations might also be placed in this status on the Executive Calendar after certain informational and time requirements are met. The list of nominations in the Executive Calendar includes basic information such as the name and office of the nominee, the name of the previous holder of the office, and whether the committee reported the nomination favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation. Long lists of routine nominations are printed in the Congressional Record and identified only by a short title in the Executive Calendar , such as "Foreign Service nominations (84) beginning John F. Aloia, and ending Paul G. Churchill." In addition to reported nominations and treaties, the Executive Calendar contains the text of any unanimous consent agreements concerning executive business. The Executive Calendar is distributed to Senate personal offices and committee offices when there is business on it. It is also available online by following the link to "Calendars and Schedules" on the Virtual Reference Desk under the Reference tab of the Senate website (www.Senate.gov) . Business on the Executive Calendar , which consists of nominations and treaties, is considered in executive session. In contrast, all measures and matters associated with lawmaking are considered in legislative session. Until 1929 executive sessions were also closed to the public, but now they are open unless ordered otherwise by the Senate. The Senate usually begins the day in legislative session and enters executive session either by a non-debatable motion or, far more often, by unanimous consent. Only if the Senate adjourned or recessed while in executive session would the next meeting automatically open in executive session. The motion to go into executive session can be offered at any time, is not debatable, and cannot be laid upon the table. All business concerning nominations, including seemingly routine matters such as requests for joint referral or motions to print hearings, must be done in executive session. In practice, Senators often make such motions or unanimous consent requests "as if in executive session." These usually brief proceedings during a legislative session do not constitute an official executive session. In addition, at the start of each Congress, the Senate adopts a standing order, by unanimous consent, that allows the Senate to receive nominations from the President and for them to be referred to committees even on days when the Senate does not meet in executive session. The majority leader, by custom, makes most motions and requests that determine when or whether a nomination will be called up for consideration. For example, the majority leader may move or ask unanimous consent to "immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination on the Executive Calendar.... " By precedent, the motion to go into executive session to take up a specified nomination is not debatable. The nomination itself, however, is debatable. It is not in order for a Senator to move to consider a nomination that is not on the Calendar, and, except by unanimous consent, a nomination on the Calendar cannot be taken up until it has been on the Calendar at least one day (Rule XXXI, clause 1). A day for this purpose is a calendar day. In other words, a nomination reported and placed on the Calendar on a Monday can be considered on Tuesday, even if it is the same legislative day. If the Senate simply resolved into executive session, the business immediately pending would be the first item on the Executive Calendar . A motion to proceed to another matter on the Calendar would be debatable and subject to a filibuster. For this reason, the Senate does not begin consideration of executive business this way. Instead, the motion made to call up a nomination is a motion to proceed to executive session to consider that specific nomination. If the Senate is already in executive session, and the Leader wishes to call up a nomination, the Leader will first move that the Senate enter legislative session and then that the Senate enter executive session to take up the nomination. Both motions (to enter legislative session and to enter executive session) are not subject to debate and are decided by a simple majority. Typically they are approved by voice vote. The question before the Senate when a nomination is taken up is "will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?" The Senate can approve or reject a nomination. A majority of Senators present and voting, a quorum being present, is required to approve a nomination. According to Senate Rule XXXI, any Senator who voted with the majority on the nomination has the option of moving to reconsider a vote on the day of the vote or the next two days the Senate meets in executive session. Only one motion to reconsider is in order on each nomination, and often the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, by unanimous consent, shortly after the vote on the nomination. This action prevents any subsequent attempt to reconsider. After the Senate acts on a nomination, the Secretary of the Senate attests to a resolution of confirmation or disapproval and transmits it to the White House. Many nominations are brought up by unanimous consent and approved without objection; routine nominations often are grouped by unanimous consent in order to be brought up and approved together, or en bloc . A small proportion of nominations, generally to higher-level positions, may need more consideration. When there is debate on a nomination, the chair of the committee usually makes an opening speech. For positions within a state, Senators from the state may wish to speak on the nominee, particularly if they were involved in the selection process. Under Senate rules, there are no time limits on debate except when conducted under cloture or a unanimous consent agreement. Senate Rule XXII provides a means to bring debate on a nomination to a close, if necessary. Under the terms of Rule XXII, at least 16 Senators sign a cloture motion to end debate on a pending nomination. The motion proposed is "to bring to a close the debate upon [the pending nomination]." A Senator can interrupt a Senator who is speaking to present a cloture motion. Cloture may be moved only on a question that is pending before the Senate; therefore, absent unanimous consent, the Senate must be in executive session and considering the nomination when the motion is filed. After the clerk reads the motion, the Senate returns to the business it was considering before the presentation of the motion. Unless a unanimous consent agreement provides otherwise, the Senate does not vote on the cloture motion until the second day of session after the day it is presented; for example, if the motion was presented on a Monday, the Senate would act on it on Wednesday. One hour after the Senate has convened on the day the motion "ripened," the presiding officer can interrupt the proceedings during an executive session to present a cloture motion for a vote. If the Senate is in legislative session when the time arrives for voting on the cloture motion, it proceeds into executive session prior to taking action on the cloture petition. According to Rule XXII, the presiding officer first directs the clerk to call the roll to ascertain that a quorum is present, although this requirement is often waived by unanimous consent. Senators then vote either yea or nay on the question: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" In April 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII in order to allow cloture to be invoked on all nominations by a majority of Senators voting (a quorum being present), including Supreme Court justice nominations. This expanded the results of similar actions taken by the Senate in November 2013, which changed the cloture vote requirement to a majority for nominations except to the Supreme Court. Once cloture is invoked, for most nominations there can be a maximum of two hours of post-cloture consideration. The two hour maximum includes debate as well as any actions taken while the nomination is formally pending, including quorum calls. If cloture is invoked on nominations to the highest ranking executive branch positions, or on nominations to the Supreme Court or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then the maximum time for consideration after cloture is invoked is 30 hours (see Table 1 ). Under the rule, the 2 or 30 hours is floor time spent considering the nomination in the Senate, not simply the passage of time. Thus, for time to count against the 2 or 30-hour maximum, the Senate must be in session and the question must be pending. Time spent in recess or adjournment does not count, and if the Senate were to take up other business by unanimous consent, the time spent on that other business also would not count against the post-cloture time. A hold is a request by a Senator to his or her party leader to prevent or delay action on a nomination or a bill. Holds are not mentioned in the rules or precedents of the Senate, and they are enforced only through the agenda decisions of party leaders. A standing order of the Senate aims to ensure that any Senator who places a hold on any matter (including a nomination) make public his or her objection to the matter. Senators have placed holds on nominations for a number of reasons. One common purpose is to give a Senator more time to review a nomination or to consult with the nominee. Senators may also place holds because they disagree with the policy positions of the nominee. Senators have also admitted to using holds in order to gain concessions from the executive branch on matters not directly related to the nomination. The Senate precedents reducing the threshold necessary to invoke cloture on nominations, and the recent precedent reducing the time necessary for a cloture process, could affect the practice of holds. In some sense, holds are connected to the Senate traditions of mutual deference, since they may have originated as requests for more time to examine a pending nomination or bill. The effectiveness of a hold, however, ultimately has been grounded in the power of the Senator placing the hold to filibuster the nomination and the difficulty of invoking cloture to overcome a filibuster. Invoking cloture is now easier because the support of fewer Senators is necessary, and in most cases, the floor time required for a cloture process is less. The large number of nominations submitted by the President for Senate consideration, however, might still lead Senators to seek unanimous consent to quickly approve nominations. On April 3, 2019, the Senate reinterpreted Senate Rule XXII to reduce, from 30 hours to 2 hours, the maximum time allowed for consideration of most nominations after cloture is invoked. The Senate took this step by reversing two rulings by the Presiding Officer. The first vote established that "postcloture time under rule XXII for all executive branch nominations other than a position at level 1 of the Executive Schedule under section 5312 of title 5 of the United States Code is 2 hours." On the second vote, the Senate established that "postcloture time under rule XXII for all judicial nominations, other than circuit courts or Supreme Court of the United States, is 2 hours" (see Table 1 ). It is uncommon for the Senate to reverse a decision by the Presiding Officer. Any Senator can attempt to reverse a ruling by making an appeal, and except in specific cases, appeals are decided by majority vote. In most circumstances, however, appeals are debatable, and therefore supermajority support (through a cloture process) is typically necessary to reach a vote to reverse a decision of the Presiding Officer. In the April 3 proceedings, however, the appeal was raised after cloture had been invoked. Senate Rule XXII states that after a successful cloture vote, "appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate." Therefore, when the Majority Leader appealed the rulings of the Presiding Officer, the questions on whether the ruling should stand as the judgment of the Senate received a vote without an opportunity for extended debate. The Senate voted that the ruling should not stand, and thereby upheld instead the position of the Majority Leader. The future impact of these decisions on the nominations process is difficult to assess. The immediate and obvious expected impact is that the time between a cloture vote and a confirmation vote will decrease. In recent years, a vote to confirm a nominee has typically occurred the day after cloture was invoked (or on the next day of Senate session). Usually, Senators did not spend all of the time between the votes debating the nomination. Instead, Senators typically debated the nomination for some time post-cloture, but also usually entered into unanimous consent agreements that affected when the vote would occur. For example, it became common in recent Congresses for the Senate to agree, by unanimous consent, to consider the time the Senate spent in adjournment or recesses (e.g., overnight) to count as post-cloture time. The cloture rule affected the time of the vote set by unanimous consent: the rule provided for up to 30 hours of consideration of the nomination, and the Senate would agree to vote on the nomination a day later—reflecting the approximate time that the Senate could have debated the nomination under the rule. Assuming the Senate continues to establish times for voting on nominations by unanimous consent, those negotiations will be affected by the reinterpretation of the rule. In the absence of a unanimous consent agreement, most nominations can now receive a vote two hours after a vote to invoke cloture. The two hours is not formally divided between the parties pursuant to the rule (or pursuant to the reinterpretation of the rule), but it might be divided, by unanimous consent, between the Majority and Minority Leader. Even without an explicit unanimous consent agreement, the Majority and Minority Leaders are recognized before any other Senators. In addition, a Senator can speak for a maximum of one hour post-cloture. As a result, the Majority Leader could claim the first hour, and the Minority Leader the second, or vice versa. (Of course, Senators could speak on a nomination at times other than after cloture has been invoked, even when the nomination is not formally pending before the Senate. ) It is also possible that the recent reinterpretation of the rule will affect how often the Senate relies on the cloture process to approve nominations. After the first reinterpretation of the cloture rule in 2013, the number of nominations subjected to cloture motions increased significantly in both of the Congresses when the Senate was controlled by the same party as the President (113 th (2013-2014) and 115 th (2017-2018) Congresses). Nominations that are not confirmed or rejected are returned to the President at the end of a session or when the Senate adjourns or recesses for more than 30 days (Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6). If the President still wants a nominee considered, he must submit a new nomination to the Senate. The Senate can, however, waive this rule by unanimous consent, and it often does to allow nominations to remain "in status quo" between the first and second sessions of a Congress or during a long recess. The majority leader or his designee also may exempt specific nominees by name from the unanimous consent agreement, allowing them to be returned during the recess or adjournment. The Constitution, in Article II, Section 2, grants the President the authority to fill temporarily vacancies that "may happen during the Recess of the Senate." These appointments do not require the advice and consent of the Senate; the appointees temporarily fill the vacancies without Senate confirmation. In most cases, recess appointees have also been nominated to the positions to which they were appointed. Furthermore, when a recess appointment is made of an individual previously nominated to the position, the President usually submits a new nomination to the Senate in order to comply with a provision of law affecting the pay of recess appointees (5 U.S.C. 5503(a)). Recess appointments have sometimes been controversial and have occasionally led to inter-branch conflict.

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

Answer: The Forest Service, an agency within USDA, performs a variety of tasks as steward of 193 million acres of public forests and grasslands. Its budget execution process for carrying out its mission includes (1) allotments, which are authorizations by an agency to incur obligations within a specified amount, and (2) unliquidated obligations, which represent budgetary resources that have been committed but not yet paid. Deobligation refers to an agency's cancellation or downward adjustments of previously incurred obligations, which may result in funds that may be available for reobligation. GAO was asked to review the Forest Service's internal controls over its budget execution processes. This report examines the extent to which the Forest Service properly designed control activities over (1) allotments of budgetary resources, its system for administrative control of funds, and any fund transfers between Forest Service appropriations; (2) reimbursables and related collections; and (3) review and certification of unliquidated obligations. GAO reviewed the Forest Service's policies, procedures, and other documentation and interviewed agency officials. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Forest Service received discretionary no-year appropriations of $5.1 billion and $5.7 billion, respectively. It is critical for the Forest Service to manage its budgetary resources efficiently and effectively. While the Forest Service had processes over certain of its budget execution activities, GAO found the following internal control deficiencies: Budgetary resources . The purpose statute requires that amounts designated in appropriations acts for specific purposes are used as designated. The Forest Service did not have an adequate process and related control activities to reasonably assure that amounts were used as designated. In fiscal year 2017, GAO issued a legal opinion that the Forest Service had failed to comply with the purpose statute with regard to a $65 million line-item appropriation specifically provided for the purpose of acquiring aircraft for the next-generation airtanker fleet. Further, the Forest Service lacked a process and related control activities to reasonably assure that unobligated no-year appropriation balances from prior years were reviewed for their continuing need; did not have a properly designed system for administrative control of funds, which keeps obligations and expenditures from exceeding limits authorized by law; and had not properly designed control activities for fund transfers to its Wildland Fire Management program. These deficiencies increase the risk that the Forest Service may make budget requests in excess of its needs. Reimbursable agreements . To carry out its mission, the Forest Service enters into reimbursable agreements with agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), other federal agencies, state and local government agencies, and nongovernment entities. The Forest Service (1) did not have adequately described processes and related control activities in manuals and handbooks for its reimbursable agreement processes and (2) lacked control activities related to segregating incompatible duties performed by line officers and program managers. For example, line officers may be responsible for initiating cost sharing agreements, modifying cost settlement packages, and changing or canceling the related receivable, which represent incompatible duties. As a result, programs and resources may not be protected from waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Unliquidated obligations . The Forest Service's processes and control activities over the review and certification of unliquidated obligations were not properly designed to reasonably assure the best use of funds and that unliquidated obligations would be efficiently and effectively deobligated and made available for other program needs. Further, the current process, as designed, was inconsistent with USDA and Forest Service policy. In addition, the Forest Service's manuals and handbooks, which provide directives for the areas that GAO reviewed, had not been reviewed by management in accordance with the Forest Service's 5-year review policy. Further, standard operating procedures and desk guides prepared by staff to supplement the manuals and handbooks were not issued as directives and therefore were not considered official policy. This increases the risk that control activities may not be consistently performed across the agency. GAO is making 11 recommendations to improve processes and related internal control activities over the management of the Forest Service's budgetary resources, reimbursable receivables and collections, and its process for reviewing unliquidated obligations. The Forest Service generally agreed with the report and stated that it has made significant progress to address the report findings.