Security Assistance: Better Records Management and More Reporting Needed on Presidential Drawdowns
Published: 2016-04-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The President has special legal authorities that allow him to direct the drawdown of defense articles, such as vehicles, food, or medical equipment, and services, such as airlift support, as well as military education and training, to provide assistance in response to an international crisis. Since 2011, there have been 13 drawdowns. The President may authorize up to $325 million each year in drawdowns.
A House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision for GAO to conduct a review of drawdown authority. This report examines, since 2011, (1) the U.S. government's process for planning and executing drawdowns, (2) State efforts to manage records on decisions to use drawdown authorities, and (3) the status of drawdowns and DOD efforts to report to Congress on defense articles and services delivered through drawdowns to recipient countries or international organizations. GAO analyzed documents relevant to drawdowns and interviewed State and DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Drawdown proposals to provide U.S. assistance for an international crisis are typically developed through an interagency process led by the Departments of State (State) and Defense (DOD), and involving the National Security Council and the Executive Office of the President. State and DOD work with other agencies to determine whether to use a drawdown authority and identify the assistance to be provided. Based on the estimated value and availability of the articles and services, the agencies agree on the parameters of the drawdown. State prepares a justification package, and the President signs a Presidential Determination to authorize the drawdown. DOD then executes the drawdown by working with the military services to provide the articles and services.
State policy specifies that the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs leads State and interagency processes for presidential drawdowns. Key documents for this process include a memorandum of justification containing background information about the drawdown. However, inconsistent with federal internal control standards, State lacked readily available documents related to drawdowns, and there is no central office or official responsible for maintaining key drawdown documents. As a result, it took several months for State to fully respond to our request for drawdown documents. For example, State officials initially did not provide documentation for the 2011 drawdown to Libya, but provided the documents over 4 months later. Without a mechanism to ensure that key documents relating to the use of drawdown authorities are readily available, State is unable to produce documents in a timely manner.
DOD provided some reports to Congress on the execution of drawdowns in 2011 and 2013. However, DOD has not submitted certain reports to Congress since 2011 despite a legal requirement to keep Congress fully and currently informed regarding assistance provided through drawdowns under one specific authority. DOD officials said that they have not submitted these reports because they have not closed any of the 13 drawdowns since 2011— articles and services are still to be delivered. Nevertheless, without periodic reports to indicate the status of drawdowns, Congress may not have detailed information about the extent of the President's use of drawdown authority.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that (1) State should assign responsibility or establish a mechanism to maintain key drawdowns documents and (2) DOD report more frequently on defense articles and services provided through drawdowns. State did not concur with GAO's recommendation to establish a mechanism to maintain documents, but GAO stands by its recommendation, as discussed in the report. DOD agreed that it should report more frequently on drawdowns.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since 1961, the President has had special statutory authority to order the  drawdown of defense articles and services from the stocks of the  Department of Defense (DOD) when it is vital to the security of the United  States. Drawdowns of defense articles may include items such as  vehicles, spare parts, clothing, food, and medical equipment. Defense  services may include a range of efforts, such as airlift support, and  drawdowns may also provide for military education and training.  Drawdowns give the President the ability to respond to U.S. foreign policy  and national security objectives, such as unforeseen military and  nonmilitary emergencies, by providing assistance without first seeking  additional legislative authority or appropriations from Congress. Congress  has expressed interest in receiving reports on the President’s use of  drawdown authority.
A House Armed Services Committee report accompanying a bill for the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a  provision for GAO to conduct a review of drawdown authority. This report  examines, since 2011, (1) the U.S. government’s process for planning  and executing drawdowns; (2) Department of State (State) efforts to  manage records related to decisions to use drawdown authorities; and (3)  the status of drawdowns and DOD efforts to report to Congress on  defense articles, defense services, and military education and training  delivered through drawdowns to recipient countries or international  organizations.
To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant documentation, such  as DOD and State guidance. We also interviewed DOD and State officials  about the process for planning and executing drawdowns, and their  efforts to maintain information on drawdowns and provide reports to  Congress on the status of drawdowns. Our scope and methodology are  discussed in more detail in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to April 2016 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: There are certain statutory authorities under which the President may  draw down articles and services from the inventory and resources of U.S.  government agencies. Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of  1961, as amended, allows for drawdowns of defense articles from the  stocks of DOD and defense services of DOD and for military education  and training to foreign countries or international organizations in  emergency situations. Before exercising this authority, the President must  determine and report to Congress that an unforeseen emergency exists,  requiring immediate military assistance that cannot be met under any  other law. This special authority was more recently used in 2013 to  provide airlift and refueling support for counterterrorism efforts in Mali; in  2014 to provide defense articles and services, as well as military  education and training to assist the government of Iraq in combating the  Islamic State of Iraq and Syria; and in 2015 to provide military assistance  to Ukraine. (See fig. 1.) The maximum aggregate value of drawdowns  under Section 506(a)(1) cannot exceed $100 million in any fiscal year.
Section 506(a)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, authorizes  the President to draw down articles and services from the inventory and  resources of any U.S. government agency and military education and  training from DOD and use them to assist foreign countries or  international organizations in a number of nonemergency situations.  Before exercising this authority, the President must first determine and  report to Congress that any such drawdown is in the national interest of  the United States. The maximum aggregate value of drawdowns under  Section 506(a)(2) is $200 million in any fiscal year, with no more than $75  million provided from DOD inventory and resources.
Section 552(c)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, authorizes  the President to direct the drawdown of commodities and services from  the inventory and resources of any U.S. government agency. In order to  exercise this authority, the President must determine that an unforeseen  emergency exists, that providing assistance in amounts in excess of  funds otherwise available is important to the national interests of the  United States, and that the unforeseen emergency requires the  immediate provision of such assistance. The maximum aggregate value  of drawdowns under Section 552(c)(2) in any fiscal year is $25 million.
Since 2011, there have been 13 drawdowns of defense articles and  services pursuant to the three authorities cited above (see table 1). None  of these drawdowns used the Section 506(a)(2) authority.
section_title: Interagency Process for Drawdowns Involves State, DOD, National Security Council, and Executive Office of the President
paragraphs: State and DOD are the government agencies primarily charged with  planning and executing uses of drawdown authority. State officials said  they typically begin the process by developing drawdown proposals under  the above authorities when an international crisis arises. Since 2011,  officials said they have used drawdowns in conflict situations, such as in  Ukraine and Syria. State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs along with  DOD’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), the National  Security Council, the Executive Office of the President, and in some  cases other executive branch agencies participate in an interagency  process to develop a recommendation for articles and services that the  U.S. government should provide under the drawdown authorities (see fig.  2). Based on the estimated value and availability of the articles and  services, the agencies agree on the parameters of the drawdown to  recommend to the President, and State prepares a justification package  that includes the Presidential Determination for the President’s signature,  which is published in the Federal Register. The President may also  delegate authority to make the determination to the Secretary of State,  and documents this delegation in a memorandum that is published in the  Federal Register. State notifies Congress of the President’s intent to  exercise his authority before the President signs the determination and  then notifies Congress once the determination has been made. According  to State, the steps described above can be completed in about 2 weeks  but usually require about 2 months before the implementation of a  drawdown can begin.
DSCA officials said they execute drawdowns after the President signs the  determination by working with the military services and other DOD entities  to determine what specific assistance the military services will provide  and which of the services will provide it. A DSCA country program director  creates an execution order with a maximum number of the articles or  services to be provided through the drawdown, which may be updated  over time. The country program directors work directly with the military  services to track the execution of the drawdown, and the military services  are responsible for providing execution data to update an automated  database. The military services provide the defense articles and services  they have available in their existing inventories. The military services  cover the costs of the drawdown from their existing funds and without  new appropriations. State officials said that the authority for a drawdown  does not expire, and that the drawdown can be used until the maximum  authorized dollar amount established for it in the Presidential  Determination is reached, or until the crisis has been dealt with or the  foreign policy goal has been met.
section_title: State Lacked Readily Available Documents Related to Presidential Use of Drawdown Authority
paragraphs: State did not have a means to readily access justification package  documents related to presidential use of drawdown authority because it  had not assigned responsibility or established a process for centrally  managing these documents. Although State policy specifies that the  Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security and Arms  Transfers, leads State and interagency processes for presidential  drawdowns, the bureau does not manage all of the key documents  associated with the use of drawdown authority, nor is there a mechanism  to centrally manage such documents. Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government also indicates that all documentation and  records should be properly managed and maintained, and that  documentation should be readily available for examination.
Consequently, it took several months for State to fully respond to our  request for key documentation on drawdowns, which includes  memorandums to the Secretary of State and Office of the President, and  a memorandum of justification containing background information about  the crisis a drawdown is intended to address. State officials had to  contact individual bureaus that worked on the drawdowns in fiscal years  2011 to 2015 to recover the justification packages that contained  background information and context for why the drawdowns were  authorized. In addition, State officials initially were not able to readily  provide documentation for several drawdowns, such as the 2011  drawdown to Libya, for which State produced documents over 4 months  later. State produced documents for a drawdown to Iraq 8 months after  our original request. State officials also confirmed that they do not  maintain drawdown documents in one centralized place, but that  individuals in each of State’s six regional bureaus may maintain  documents on drawdowns affecting countries within their purview. We  found that there was no single point of contact responsible for  consolidating all the drawdown documentation and no mechanism  established to maintain key documents related to the President’s  drawdown. Without a mechanism to ensure that key documents relating  to the use of drawdown authorities are readily available, State is unable to  produce documentation on drawdowns in a timely manner, consistent  with federal internal control standards.
section_title: DOD Has Not Closed Any Presidential Drawdowns and Submitted Few Reports on Defense Articles and Services Provided
paragraphs: DOD has not closed and has not provided certain reports to Congress on  the execution of drawdowns since 2011 despite congressional interest in  receiving information regarding assistance provided through drawdowns.  In particular, Section 506(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as  amended, requires that the President keep Congress fully and currently  informed of all defense articles, defense services, and military education  and training provided under Section 506, including providing a report to  Congress detailing what was delivered. The requirement to provide a  report does not specify a date by which the reports must be submitted,  but instead states that these reports shall be provided upon delivery of  such articles, or upon completion of the services or education and  training. DOD has provided no Section 506 reports for the eight  presidential drawdowns undertaken pursuant to this authority in fiscal  years 2013 through 2015. From 2010 until the end of calendar year 2013,  DOD was also responsible for providing an annual report to Congress on  drawdowns under Section 1247 of the National Defense Authorization Act  for Fiscal Year 2010. DOD provided reports to Congress in response to  this requirement.
Under DOD guidance, DSCA is primarily responsible for preparing  Section 506 reports. DSCA practice has been that this reporting  requirement arises when all articles, services, or both have been  delivered, according to DSCA officials. DSCA officials noted that all of the  drawdowns since 2011 are still being executed, meaning that there are  still articles and services to be delivered. DSCA officials also noted that  they work with State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs to determine the  best time to close a drawdown as completed, and noted that State has  not determined to close out any drawdowns since 2011. State officials  said that they do not have an active role in DSCA’s reporting to Congress  but that they would expect to review Section 506 reports before DOD  submits them to Congress.
According to DSCA’s guidance, a termination date of not more than 18  months after the initial execution order will be stated in the execution  order, unless otherwise directed by the country program director. DSCA  officials stated that the termination date and the closure date that would  trigger the reporting requirement are not the same. They also stated that  if a particular drawdown reached its termination date with authority left  (for example, only $10 million of the $25 million authorized has been  used), DSCA would not terminate the drawdown if a crisis is still ongoing.  For example, in December 2013 the President authorized $60 million in  assistance to support African Union-led operations in the Central African  Republic, and as of 2015, over $26 million remained undelivered, and the  drawdown remains active more than 2 years later. In addition, DSCA  officials stated that they may choose not to close a drawdown, even if all  the available authority has been used, if a subsequent related drawdown  is still active. For example, in 2013, the President authorized $50 million  under Section 506(a)(1) to provide airlift support to Chad and France to  assist in their operations in Mali. According to DSCA officials and  documents, this drawdown has reached its authorization level but has not  been closed because DSCA is waiting on subsequent drawdowns of the  same nature to be completed before it reports to Congress.
Although DOD has not submitted Section 506 reports, it submitted  Section 1247 reports until this reporting requirement terminated at the  end of calendar year 2013. The Section 1247 reports contain information  about all the articles or services delivered, as well as the military service  that is implementing the drawdown, the quantity of items delivered, and  the value. They addressed elements related to those required under  Section 506(b)(2) and included drawdowns that DOD still considers to be  in an active status. As noted earlier, State also notifies Congress of the  President’s intent to exercise his authority before the President signs the  determination and then notifies Congress once the determination has  been made. These notifications, however, do not address the information  required in Section 506 reports. Table 2 shows the status of notifications  of and reports to Congress on presidential drawdowns of defense articles  and services since 2011.
Although State has consistently notified Congress of each drawdown in  advance of the authority being used, without receiving Section 506  reports on the assistance delivered during the course of the drawdown,  Congress is not receiving comprehensive and current information about  the extent of the President’s use of drawdown authority.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Drawdowns give the President the flexibility to provide defense articles  and services, and military education and training, to foreign countries and  international organizations in a time of crisis without first seeking specific  appropriations from Congress. Federal internal control standards note  that documents should be readily available for examination. However,  while State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs leads State and  interagency processes for presidential drawdowns, the bureau does not  manage all of the key documents associated with the use of drawdown  authority, nor is there a mechanism to centrally manage such documents.  State’s lack of a single point of contact or centralized mechanism for  maintaining drawdown documents weakens its ability to make key  documents associated with the justification for drawdowns readily  available. Furthermore, in making the accommodation in the Foreign  Assistance Act that allows drawdowns to occur without first seeking  specific appropriation from Congress, Congress required in Section  506(b)(2) that the President keep it fully and currently informed on the use  of Section 506 authority. While Congress prescribed no specific  frequency for providing Section 506 reports, DSCA has not submitted any  Section 506 reports since 2011 to Congress on drawdowns because,  according to DSCA, the drawdowns have not yet been closed as  completed. Without periodic reports to indicate the status of the  drawdowns under this authority, Congress does not have detailed  information on the extent of the President’s use of drawdown authority.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following two recommendations:
To help ensure that key State documents and records on the  presidential use of drawdowns are readily available, the Secretary of  State should assign responsibility or develop a mechanism for  maintaining State’s justification package documents.
To help ensure that Congress has the information it needs on the  President’s use of drawdown authority, the Secretary of Defense  should direct DSCA to report more frequently to Congress on  information outlined in Section 506(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance  Act, as amended, even if delivery of all the articles and services  authorized has not been completed, or if the crisis is still ongoing.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD and State for comment. DOD  agreed with our recommendation, but State did not.  DOD’s and State’s  written comments are reprinted in appendices II and III, respectively.
In its written comments, DOD concurred with our recommendation that it  report more frequently to Congress on the information outlined in Section  506(b)(2) of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended. DOD also provided  us with technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as  appropriate.
In its written comments, State did not concur with our recommendation  that the Secretary of State should assign responsibility or develop a  mechanism for maintaining State’s justification package documents.   State noted that there are officials responsible for maintaining key  drawdown documents.  State also noted that the Office of Regional  Security and Arms Transfers is the lead office for security related  drawdowns and maintains the key drawdown documents. In our report,  we do note that State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of  Regional Security and Arms Transfers, leads State and interagency  processes for presidential drawdowns. However, we found that the  bureau was unable to readily produce a complete list of uses of  presidential drawdown authorities. We further noted that the bureau does  not manage all the key documents within the office associated with the  use of drawdown authority, nor is there a mechanism to centrally manage  such documents. We based this information on multiple interviews with  State officials, including those who confirmed on December 4, 2015, that  they do not maintain a central drawdown repository or office dedicated to  drawdowns. For example, an Office of Regional Security and Arms  Transfers official said that she had knowledge of and documentation for  only the specific drawdowns that she worked on. Other Bureau of  Political-Military Affairs officials concurred with her statement.  As such,  there has been no one point of contact within the Bureau of Political- Military Affairs or State to consolidate all of the information and  documentation regarding drawdowns. The State officials also said that  State had to contact individuals who worked on the documents to make  them available.
State’s written comments further state that it is more useful to have a  single Regional Security and Arms Transfers officer responsible for  leading the entirety of the response to an emergency, including any  drawdowns and the documents related to them, rather than having a  single officer responsible for all drawdowns. We believe it would be  beneficial for State to ensure that key documentation for presidential  drawdowns is centrally maintained. According to federal internal control  standards, documentation provides a means to retain organizational  knowledge and mitigate the risk of having that knowledge limited to a few  personnel, as well as a means to communicate that knowledge as  needed to external parties, such as external auditors. By not  implementing this standard and relying on individual officials to maintain  drawdown documentation, State could not readily identify and provide us  with documentation for drawdowns if those officials responsible for  specific drawdowns were no longer with the bureau. The lack of a central  office or official responsible for maintaining documents relevant to  drawdowns apparently accounted, at least in part, for State’s not  providing us with a list of all drawdowns since 2002, or with  documentation for drawdowns prior to 2011.
State also disagreed with the amount of time it took to provide  documents. However, we stand by our finding that it took State several  months to fully respond for our request for key documents. Specifically,  on July 29, 2015, we requested a list of all the uses of presidential  drawdown authorities and associated documents. We followed up with  another written request for these same documents on August 4, 2015. On  September 8, 2015, State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs provided  documents for seven drawdowns, noted it had some additional classified  documents related to the original seven drawdowns, and said that it had  no additional documentation.  At that time State still had not provided a  complete list of its uses of drawdown authorities. We subsequently  identified five other uses of drawdown authorities by examining Federal  Register notices and sent requests for the documentation for these  drawdowns. In one case (Libya) that we highlighted in the report, in  November 2015 we again requested that State provide key documents  related to this drawdown. State did not provide the key documents until  January 2016—over 4 months after the original document request.  Overall, it took State 8 months, from August 4, 2015—the date of our  written request—until March 17, 2016, to provide the documents related  to all 13 uses of drawdown authority since 2011.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the  GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7331 or johnsoncm@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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines, since 2011, (1) the U.S. government’s process for  planning and executing drawdowns; (2) Department of State (State)  efforts to manage records related to decisions to use drawdown  authorities; and (3) the status of drawdowns and Department of Defense  (DOD) efforts to report to Congress on defense articles, defense services,  and military education and training delivered through drawdowns to  recipient countries or international organizations.
To assess the U.S. government’s process for planning and executing  drawdowns, we interviewed officials from State and DOD, two agencies  charged with planning and executing uses of drawdown authority,  particularly with respect to defense drawdowns. We contacted the  National Security Council to determine whether it had a listing of the uses  of drawdown authority during the current administration, but the official  who replied indicated that the agency did not have any such information.  We reviewed the White House website on Presidential Actions and  Presidential Memorandums for drawdowns and Delegation of Authority  memorandums. We reviewed the Federal Register notices on drawdowns  from fiscal years 2002 to 2015 as the source of publically available  information on drawdowns. We chose 2002 because that was the date of  publication of our prior report on drawdowns, but we found that there  was a period from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2010 when there were no  uses of drawdown authority, so we focused this report on drawdowns in  fiscal years 2011 to 2015. To assess the reliability of the data, we  interviewed cognizant officials at State and DOD, and compared the data  in the Federal Register to documents we obtained from DOD, and  determined that they were sufficiently reliable for showing the drawdowns  in fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
To assess State efforts to manage records related to decisions to use  drawdown authorities, we interviewed State officials and reviewed their  available documentation on drawdowns. We also reviewed Federal  Register notices on drawdowns to determine whether the documents  State provided on drawdowns represented all drawdowns from 2011  through 2015. We also reviewed State’s Foreign Affairs Manual and  Foreign Affairs Handbook to determine who within State is responsible for  presidential drawdowns and to review State’s policies on records  management.
To assess the status of drawdowns and DOD efforts to report to  Congress on defense articles, defense services, and military education  and training delivered through drawdowns to recipient countries or  international organizations, we requested copies of all Section 506  reports submitted to Congress, of which there were none, and of any  other reports or information from 2011 through 2015. This included a  review of DOD’s Section 1247 reports to see which were submitted and  what reporting elements they contained. We also interviewed DOD  officials about how they collect and maintain data on drawdowns under  presidential authorities and their rationale for not submitting any Section  506 reports. We reviewed DOD data on drawdowns from 2011 to 2015 to  determine the status of drawdowns, including the termination date and  the amount of authorization left on the drawdowns. To assess the  reliability of these data, we interviewed cognizant DOD officials about how  they collect and maintain data on drawdowns, and determined that the  data were sufficiently reliable for reporting on the status of drawdowns.  We reviewed a sample Section 506 report in the Defense Security  Cooperation Agency’s (DSCA) Handbook for Foreign Assistance Act  (FAA) Drawdown of Defense Articles and Services to see what reporting  elements it would contain if one were submitted. The handbook also  provided information about DSCA’s process for executing drawdowns,  such as setting a termination date for drawdown execution orders and  congressional reporting requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from July 2015 to April 2016 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contacts named above, Jeff Phillips (Assistant Director),  Tom Gosling (Assistant Director), Leah DeWolf (analyst in charge), David  Dayton, Martin de Alteriis, Susannah Hawthorne, Jeff Isaacs, Amie  Lesser, Eddie Uyekawa, and Alex Welsh made key contributions to this  report.