The CMP originated in 1903 with the establishment of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, which advised the Secretary of War. The general purpose of the program was to encourage individuals to develop marksmanship skills to prepare them in the event that they were called upon to serve during wartime. Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to assume management of the CMP, including authorizing the detail of a Marine or Army officer as director of civilian marksmanship and the detail of Army members to provide weapons instruction to civilians and rifle clubs. The Secretary of the Army was required to provide for such things as (1) the operation and maintenance of rifle ranges, (2) the promotion of firearms practice and the conduct of matches and competitions, and (3) the sale of firearms to affiliated gun clubs that provide firearms training and to U.S. citizens over 18 years of age who are members of those clubs. In response to a request from the then House Armed Services Committee, we issued a 1990 report on the CMP’s mission, purpose, usefulness, and cost. We concluded that the Army’s CMP was of limited value because, among other things, the CMP’s objectives and goals were not linked to Army mobilization and training plans. We also reported that the Army’s proposed CMP budget for fiscal years 1990-94 was about $5 million a year. The Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act required the CMP to be transitioned from a DOD appropriated fund activity to a nonprofit corporation that was established by this act. The act required the Secretary of the Army to transfer to the Corporation all firearms and ammunition under the control of the Army’s CMP Director on February 9, 1996, and to transfer funds derived from sales programs and various other sources. In addition, the 1996 act authorized the Corporation, as the Army previously had been authorized, to sell firearms to U.S. citizens. Under the act, the Corporation was authorized to sell firearms to individuals who (1) have not been convicted of a felony, (2) are U.S. citizens over 18 years of age, and (3) are members of Corporation-affiliated gun clubs. Also, the Corporation was prohibited from selling firearms to individuals who had been convicted of firearms violations under 18 U.S.C. 922; these violations include knowingly shipping or transporting stolen firearms or ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce. The 1996 act also provided that the Corporation’s sales are subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws. These laws include, among others, provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibit certain categories of persons from purchasing firearms. To facilitate the transition of the CMP from the Army to the Corporation, the 1996 act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Army to take a number of actions. For example, the act authorized the Secretary to provide specific support to the program, such as the storage of firearms, without reimbursement by the Corporation. The act also authorized the Secretary to provide other logistical support to the CMP, such as support for competitions and other activities, with reimbursement from the Corporation for incremental direct costs incurred by the Army to provide such support. Also, the act required the Secretary of the Army to prescribe implementing regulations for carrying out this support. The transition of the CMP from the Army to the Corporation was completed on September 30, 1996, in accordance with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act. The Secretary of the Army transferred (1) all property under the control of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship, the Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment, and the National Match Fund, including office equipment, targets and frames, vehicles, supplies, and appliances; (2) control of the leased property that had been occupied by the Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment in Port Clinton, Ohio; and (3) all funds available from sales programs and fees to the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and all funds in a nonappropriated fund account known as the National Match Fund. These transfers were completed by September 30, 1996. Also, the Secretary of the Army, as required, appointed on July 12, 1996, the Corporation’s initial Board of Directors. As required, the Corporation’s Board of Directors appointed in July 1996 a Director of Civilian Marksmanship to be responsible for the daily operations of the CMP. The CMP began operations under the Corporation on October 1, 1996. The Corporation has not routinely ensured that its sales of firearms to individuals complied with the requirements of the 1996 act. The Corporation could make sales under the act to purchasers that (1) had not been convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm, (2) were U.S. citizens over 18 years of age, and (3) were members of gun clubs affiliated with the Corporation. The act also required the Corporation to establish procedures to obtain a criminal records check for purchasers with appropriate federal and state authorities. Corporation officials told us that they had policies and procedures in place to ensure that the requirements of the 1996 act for firearms sales to individuals were met. We reviewed these policies and procedures and found that in some cases the Corporation’s policies were not adequate to ensure that the purchasers met the requirements of the act. In other cases, the Corporation did not adhere to its own procedures that could have ensured that the purchasers met the requirements. As a result, the Corporation sold firearms to individuals without ensuring that purchasers were not convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm, were U.S. citizens, and were members of Corporation-affiliated clubs. According to Corporation officials, the Corporation sold 22,584 firearms in the 2-year period between October 1, 1996, and September 30, 1998. Of these firearms, the Corporation sold 16,637 (74 percent) to individuals and 5,947 (26 percent) to some of its 1,033 affiliated clubs. Over 72 percent of all firearms sold were M1 Garands, a World War II era semiautomatic rifle, for which the Corporation as of September 1998 charged from $400 to $750 each, depending on the rifle’s condition. Figure 1 depicts the .30 caliber M1 Garand. Regarding firearms on loan, Corporation officials said that 905 M14s remained on loan to certain affiliated clubs as of September 30, 1998.These officials told us that the Army had lent the M14s to those clubs when it operated the program but that the Corporation is not lending any additional firearms because of liability issues. Table 1 depicts the number and types of firearms sold by the Corporation. We did not review the sales of firearms to Corporation-affiliated clubs. Many of the clubs had been established when the Army ran the CMP and some of the data needed to determine whether procedures had been followed either were not maintained by the Army or were indecipherable in the microfiche files the Army provided to the Corporation. The Corporation’s application policies were insufficient to ensure that it did not sell firearms to persons who were convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm or who were not U.S. citizens. For example, the Corporation’s policy required a background investigation before a firearm purchase was approved. However, Corporation policy also allowed individual applicants to provide various documents in lieu of a background investigation. Of the 16,637 firearms sales to individuals during fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Corporation officials estimated that they requested background investigations for about 8,000 applicants. The Corporation obtained background investigations from the Defense Security Service (DSS). DSS investigations included a name search and fingerprint check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for felonies and other conditions that would render an individual ineligible to purchase a firearm. As is customary when DSS manages these investigations, DSS made no assessment regarding an individual’s eligibility to purchase a firearm but instead provided the raw results of the investigations to Corporation employees to enable them to make this determination. However, the Corporation had no written guidelines for its employees to use to identify items in the DSS investigation that would disqualify individuals from purchasing firearms. In lieu of a DSS investigation, Corporation policy allowed applicants to provide one of the following documents: a dated letter from the applicant’s security manager verifying that the applicant is a current U.S. servicemember, government employee, or contractor with a current U.S.-issued security clearance; a notarized or certified true copy of an applicant’s current military security clearance if the applicant is active duty military; a letter from the chief of police or sheriff attesting to the applicant’s good character if the applicant is a sworn law enforcement officer; or a notarized copy of a current concealed weapons permit. The first two of these documents are not sufficient to determine whether individuals were convicted of a felony or were otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm. Possession of a current U.S.-issued security clearance does not mean that criminal records checks with appropriate federal and state law enforcement agencies have been conducted recently or that individuals were not convicted of a felony or otherwise ineligible to purchase a firearm. DOD personnel security officials told us that some persons with current security clearances may have had their last criminal records checks as many as 10, 15, or even 20 years ago. Also, these officials told us that organizations issuing security clearances have the discretion to consider mitigating factors to individuals’ past behavior and thus sometimes issue clearances to individuals who have, for example, felony convictions or other criminal behavior on their records. The Corporation’s policies also were insufficient to ensure that purchasers were U.S. citizens. The Corporation required applicants to certify that they were U.S. citizens and accepted as evidence of citizenship a copy of applicants’ birth certificates, voter registration cards, proof of naturalization, passports, or certificates of release/discharge from active duty (DD 214). While most of these documents provide sufficient evidence of citizenship, a certificate of release/discharge from active duty does not. Military personnel may be either U.S. citizens or permanent residents, and because the DD 214 does not contain information on individuals’ citizenship, it does not ensure that the citizenship requirement has been met. The Corporation did not always follow its own procedural requirements and therefore could not ensure that individuals met the statutory requirements for the purchase of firearms. We randomly examined samples of the Corporation’s sales records for three types of firearms sold to individuals: M1 Garand, M1D, and .22 caliber rifles. These firearms accounted for 99 percent of the Corporation’s firearms sales to individuals. Based on all three random samples, we found the following: The Corporation sold firearms without obtaining a DSS background investigation for some purchasers who submitted no substitute documents as evidence that a qualifying background investigation had been conducted. Additionally, investigations were not obtained for some individuals because they had previously purchased firearms through the CMP. The Corporation neither verified that an investigation had been conducted for the prior purchase, some as many as 5 years before, nor conducted a search to account for any prohibited activity in the intervening years. The Corporation also accepted state firearms licenses other than concealed weapons permits in lieu of a background investigation without evidence that an investigation was conducted as a part of issuing the licenses. The Corporation sold firearms to individuals who provided no proof of citizenship or who provided drivers’ licenses as proof of citizenship. The Corporation sold firearms to persons who did not submit any proof of membership in a Corporation-affiliated gun club or submitted an expired membership card or a membership card with no name. Table 2 shows how often the applicants in our three randomly selected samples did not provide an item the Corporation’s policy allowed as proof of meeting the requirements for a firearm purchase. For each type of firearm sale we sampled, documentation was insufficient to ensure the requirements were met. For example, 37 (27 percent) of the 136 M1 Garand sales we reviewed were insufficiently documented. Projecting our sample results to the approximately 6,400 M1 Garand sales over the 14-month period from which we sampled, we estimate that the Corporation sold between 1,200 and 2,200 M1 Garands to individuals without adhering to its procedures designed to ensure that purchasers met the requirements of the 1996 act. We also randomly sampled M1D and .22 caliber rifle sales. Relative to the overall rate for the M1 Garand sales, proportionately fewer M1D and .22 caliber rifle sales met the Corporation’s requirements for ensuring compliance with the act. We could not project the results of our samples for M1D and .22 caliber rifle sales to a universe of those sales because of our small sample sizes. Regarding resales, Corporation officials told us that each individual purchaser of a firearm is required to sign a statement that the firearm is for his or her personal use. These officials told us that, practically speaking, however, they could not control the resale of firearms. According to Army and Corporation officials, the Army’s CMP program allowed an individual only one lifetime purchase of each type of firearm. The Army restriction may have limited the number of firearms available for resale. In contrast, the Corporation has adopted a policy that allows an individual to annually purchase two M1 Garands and one of each other type of firearm sold to individuals by the Corporation. The 1996 act authorized the Corporation to sell firearms but did not specify any external oversight to ensure compliance of these sales with the 1996 act. Thus, the Corporation is not subject to the licensing and oversight requirements of firearms dealers who are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Specifically, these dealers must file an application with the ATF, which reviews the applications and inspects applicants to determine their qualifications for licenses. License holders are then subject to periodic compliance inspections by the ATF. Although not regulated by the ATF, the Corporation is subject to Internal Revenue Service requirements applicable to tax-exempt organizations, including the reporting of its gross income, receipts, and disbursements. Corporation officials told us that to comply with this requirement, the Corporation obtains an independent financial audit each year. While the act required the Army to provide firearms to the Corporation, it did not authorize the Army to oversee the Corporation’s firearms sales. However, a 1996 memorandum of understanding between the Army and the Corporation requires the Corporation to certify in writing that sales have met statutory requirements before the Army ships firearms to a purchaser. According to Army and Corporation officials, however, the Army has never denied a request from the Corporation to ship a firearm, even though the Corporation has not provided the certifications. Corporation officials said that it was logistically impossible to certify every firearm sale in writing. Army officials said that the Corporation is solely responsible for ensuring that firearms recipients have met the statutory requirements. DOD provided more than $19 million in support to the Corporation during the transition and the 2 years of the Corporation’s existence. More than $17.5 million of that support was authorized by the 1996 act to be provided without reimbursement. This included about $7.7 million in assets provided to the Corporation by the Army during the transition of the CMP as required by the 1996 act. These assets included funds, firearms, ammunition, trophies, equipment, and vehicles (see table 3). Since the transition, DOD has provided unreimbursed support worth more than $10.3 million to the Corporation through September 30, 1998. Most of the support provided (more than $9.9 million) was specifically authorized by the 1996 act to be provided on a nonreimbursable basis. This support included firearms, ammunition, and repair parts. According to Army officials, providing these items to the Corporation actually resulted in a cost savings because the alternatives were either to incur costs to continue storing the items or to incur costs to demilitarize them. We were unable to determine the total cost of unreimbursed DOD support because DOD officials did not know the value of some items of support, such as firearms storage. In addition, according to Corporation officials, as of September 30, 1998, DOD had provided more than $1 million in support for which it was reimbursed. This support included the inspection, repair, and shipping of firearms. The 1996 act does not specifically refer to other DOD support that is being provided without reimbursement. For example, DSS has provided background investigations for the Corporation since October 1, 1996. Based on the Corporation’s estimate that it had requested 8,000 investigations in fiscal years 1997 and 1998, DSS officials estimated that the value of the investigations was $440,000. Additionally, since October 1997, the Army has allowed the Corporation to use a building at the Anniston Army Depot. The Corporation uses this building for office space and for workspace to prepare some of the firearms for shipment to purchasers. Army officials told us that although the Corporation has paid for the direct incremental costs of utilities, police services, and refuse collection and disposal, the building itself (a 13,551 square-foot warehouse) has been provided to the Corporation rent free. Table 4 shows the value of unreimbursed direct support provided to the Corporation since October 1, 1996. The Secretary of the Army did not issue regulations relating to the logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and reimbursement for that support as required by the act. The Corporation has separate written agreements with several Army and other DOD organizations, such as Anniston Army Depot and the Defense Logistics Agency’s Defense Reutilization Marketing Service, that provide the Corporation support. However, we found inconsistencies in and confusion among officials responsible for providing such support. Some Army officials responsible for providing support told us they were unsure of what support they should be providing to the Corporation and how to arrange for reimbursement of expenses. For example, the Corporation pays administrative expenses for Army personnel involved with the transfer of firearms from the Army to the Corporation but is not charged administrative expenses for Army personnel involved with the transfer of ammunition. According to Army headquarters officials, new regulations for support to the CMP were not prescribed because they believed existing regulations pertaining to the support of outside organizations were sufficient to cover support to the Corporation. As of September 30, 1998, the Army transferred more than 56,000 firearms to the Corporation. Of this number, the Army transferred about 6,500 firearms at the time of transition, including 401 M16s that the Corporation returned and plans to borrow as needed. Over the 2-year period since the transition, almost 50,000 firearms were transferred to the Corporation. All totaled, more than a dozen different types of firearms have been transferred, including M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M14s, .22 caliber rifles, and pistols. As of September 30, 1998, the Army was storing about 270,000 additional M1 Garands, .22 caliber rifles, M1 Carbines, and other firearms for potential transfer. Table 5 shows the types and numbers of firearms transferred to the Corporation as of September 30, 1998. The majority of the 6,512 firearms transferred at transition (4,581) were on loan to CMP-affiliated clubs, while the remainder (1,931) were under the control of the Civilian Marksmanship Support Detachment in Ohio. Army officials told us that all of the firearms transferred after the transition were stored at Anniston Army Depot and were deemed excess by the Army. The Army transferred firearms either directly to the Corporation or to recipients designated by the Corporation. As of September 30, 1998, the Army had transferred 56,418 firearms to the Corporation, including M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M14s, .22 caliber rifles, and pistols. Under section 1615 of the act, the Secretary of the Army was required to transfer to the Corporation those firearms under the control of the Army’s CMP Director on February 9, 1996, including all M1 Garand and .22 caliber rifles stored at Anniston. These firearms were to be transferred as and when necessary to enable the Corporation to issue, loan, or sell them in accordance with the act. At transition, the Army transferred to the Corporation all of the required firearms except those at Anniston. On September 30, 1996, the Army and the Corporation signed a memorandum of understanding in which the parties agreed that approximately 167,000 M1 Garands and 17,000 .22 caliber rifles were at Anniston under CMP control on February 9, 1996. As of September 30, 1998, the Army was storing more than 230,000 M1 Garands, over 35,000 .22 caliber rifles, and over 4,000 other firearms at Anniston for potential transfer to the Corporation. At that time, the Army and the Corporation were negotiating a new memorandum of understanding that could make these firearms available to the Corporation. However, Army officials told us that some of these firearms were not at Anniston under CMP control on February 9, 1996. Should the Army decide to transfer firearms from Anniston that were not under CMP control on February 9, 1996, legislative authority other than section 1615 of the act will be needed. Table 6 shows the types, numbers, and values of firearms stored at Anniston Army Depot for potential transfer to the Corporation as of September 30, 1998. Corporation officials said that the Army is their only source of firearms. When Congress authorized the transfer of the CMP to a private, nonprofit corporation established by the act, it established specific requirements for the Corporation’s sale of firearms, for continued Army support of the program, and for the number of firearms to be transferred to the Corporation. To ensure that these requirements are met, oversight of Corporation sales of firearms and more specific guidance describing the logistical support to be provided are needed. We recommend that the Secretary of the Army issue regulations, as required by the 1996 act, addressing the logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and the policies for obtaining reimbursement from the Corporation for such support. When Congress established the Corporation as a private nonprofit organization, it did not specify any external oversight to ensure that the Corporation fully comply with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act of 1996 in its sales of firearms. However, because the federal government established the Corporation and continues to provide firearms and other support, the federal government has an interest in ensuring that Corporation assets are being appropriately safeguarded. Therefore, Congress may wish to consider amending the act to require that the Corporation’s annual financial audit include an assessment of, and report on, its compliance with the 1996 act. Such an assessment should include an examination of the Corporation’s relevant internal controls. In addition, Congress may wish to require that the auditor’s report be provided to Congress. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation in principle. DOD stated that existing regulations prescribe guidance to address the logistical support provided by the Army and the policies for obtaining reimbursement for such support. DOD further stated that these regulations were being reviewed for appropriateness and would be provided to the Corporation, along with the memorandum of understanding, in response to the legislative requirement for regulations. DOD stated that existing regulations prescribe guidance to address logistical support provided by the Army. However, DOD did not assert that these regulations were appropriate to address the unique type of logistical support that the Army provides to the Corporation. Instead, DOD stated that they were currently reviewing these regulations for appropriateness. As noted in our draft report, notwithstanding our request, DOD did not identify these regulations until after it received our draft report. Therefore, we were unable to determine their appropriateness. Our review found that some Army personnel responsible for providing logistical support to the Corporation were unsure of what support they should be providing and how to arrange for reimbursement from the Corporation for such support. Additionally, we found inconsistent arrangements for providing support and reimbursement. Our continuing concern is that Army personnel involved with providing support to the Corporation have at their disposal adequate guidance for their dealings with the Corporation. Therefore, we maintain that the Army needs to issue regulations, as required by the 1996 act, addressing the specific type of logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and the policies for obtaining reimbursement from the Corporation for such support. If, during the Army’s review of existing regulations, it finds that parts of these regulations prove appropriate, the Army should make its personnel aware of the specific parts that apply to the Corporation. If existing regulations fall short of fully addressing the logistical support to be provided to the Corporation, we believe the Army should issue regulations to ensure full conformance with the 1996 act. DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix I. DOD also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated as appropriate. In written comments on a draft of this report, the Corporation concurred that improvements were needed and noted that based on our findings it has already taken or is taking action to remedy the deficiencies we identified. For example, the Corporation stated that it has completely revised its policies for background checks and will soon discontinue its reliance on the Defense Security Service. The Corporation also stated that in the future all applications for firearm purchases will be directed to the newly-established National Instant Criminal Check System, with the exception of those individuals exempted by the Brady Act who have demonstrably been cleared by other means. The Corporation observed that our report makes no reference to the remedial actions taken by the Corporation. We have not commented on these actions because they were taken after our review and we did not evaluate them or their impact on CMP operations. The Corporation agreed that its procedures were inadequate and were not always adhered to, although the Corporation believes that we overstated the significance of these deficiencies. Based on our random sample of the Corporation’s sales records for three types of firearms, we reported deficiencies that resulted because the Corporation did not always adhere to its own procedures. We believe these deficiencies were properly characterized. The Corporation agreed that ongoing oversight of its operations would be beneficial. The Corporation further stated that it has retained a firm of independent certified public accountants to perform an annual audit, which will encompass a review of its sales program, including an evaluation of the Corporation’s compliance with the enabling legislation and an assessment of its internal controls. We believe that such oversight will help to ensure that the Corporation’s firearms sales fully comply with the law. In addition to its general comments, the Corporation submitted three detailed comments. First, the Corporation stated that we did not accurately describe its mission. It stated that Congress has given the Corporation a considerably broader statutory objective. Accordingly, the Corporation stated that its declared mission envisions “fostering rifle marksmanship and firearms safety and other types of training to America’s youth and other qualified citizens, emphasizing safety, discipline and dedication to the nation, state and community.” We believe that our report accurately describes the functions of the CMP as set out in section 1612(a) of the 1996 act. We have, however, added in our report a reference to section 1612(b) of the act, which discusses the youth-related priorities the Corporation is statutorily required to consider in carrying out its mission. Second, the Corporation stated that our findings regarding the Corporation’s failures to adhere to its procedures are overstated and no longer applicable to CMP operations. Our randomly selected sample of Corporation sales records for three types of firearms sold to individuals showed that the Corporation sold firearms without adhering to its procedures designed to ensure that purchasers had not been convicted of felonies, were U.S. citizens, and were members of a CMP-affiliated club. We continue to believe that the results of our three samples were properly characterized. Regarding the Corporation’s recent procedural changes, we commend the Corporation for its willingness to respond to our findings immediately. Finally, the Corporation stated that we greatly exaggerated the value of federal support provided to the Corporation by using the Army Master Data File values to determine the value of the rifles, ammunition, and parts that were transferred or were being held by the Army for potential transfer to the Corporation. More specifically, the Corporation stated that the rifles, ammunition, and parts provided by the Army were obsolete, militarily worthless, and would be reduced to scrap at further cost to the Army. We believe that the Army Master Data File values are valid for determining the value of the items transferred or being held for potential transfer to the Corporation. Additionally, we noted in our draft report that, according to Army officials, providing these items to the Corporation actually resulted in a cost savings to the Army because the Army’s alternatives were either to incur costs to continue storing the items or to incur costs to demilitarize them. The Corporation’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II. The Corporation also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate. To evaluate whether the CMP’s transition from the Army to the private Corporation was conducted in accordance with the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety Act, we identified the transition requirements stipulated in that act. We also interviewed Army and Corporation officials and examined their records to compare transition actions with the requirements of the act. To determine the statutory requirements regarding sales of firearms, we reviewed the act and other applicable firearms statutes. We also interviewed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms officials to discuss these statutes. To assess the Corporation’s compliance with the 1996 act in regard to firearms sales, we randomly sampled firearms sales of three of the four types of firearms sold by the Corporation to individuals—M1 Garands, M1Ds, and .22 caliber rifles. Because of the small number of such sales, we did not sample any of the 39 M1903A3s sold. For the M1 Garand, the sampling error is plus or minus 8 percent or less with a 95-percent confidence level. The sample was taken from a universe of approximately 6,400 applications approved for firearm sales between July 1997 and August 1998. We excluded from our universe applications processed from October 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997, to (1) minimize the possibility that the Army processed parts of some applications and (2) provide the Corporation with time to standardize its procedures after taking over the program. We stopped sampling M1D and .22 caliber sales records when the Corporation official who approved the applications confirmed that the application procedures had not been strictly followed; thus, we did not calculate sampling errors for the M1D and .22 caliber sales. To determine the type and number of firearms the Corporation sold to its affiliated clubs and to individuals, we interviewed Corporation officials and obtained Corporation records of sales. To determine the type and number of firearms the Corporation had on loan, we interviewed Corporation officials. We did not review the sales of firearms to Corporation-affiliated clubs because many of the clubs had been established when the Army ran the CMP. In addition, some of the data needed to determine whether procedures had been followed either were not maintained by the Army or were indecipherable in the microfiche files provided to the Corporation by the Army. We were unable to review the information resulting from DSS background investigations, which the Corporation factored into its decisions to approve applicants for firearms purchases. As required by DSS, the results of each investigation were destroyed once the Corporation made its decision. To determine viable alternatives for providing oversight of Corporation firearms sales, we interviewed officials from the Corporation and the Army. We also discussed this issue with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. To identify the value of federal assets transferred to the Corporation at the time of transition, we reviewed an Army report on the assets held by the CMP before the program’s transition and the supporting workpapers for that report. We also reviewed the Army’s files of the transfer. To determine the continuing cost of the program to the federal government, we interviewed officials of the Army, Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Security Service, and the Corporation. We also examined documents they provided related to unreimbursed support for the Corporation and its cost. To determine the types and number of firearms the Army transferred to the Corporation and has stored for potential transfer, we reviewed the supporting workpapers to the Army report on the assets held by the CMP before the program’s transition, Army records of transfers, and Army and Defense Logistics Agency inventory records. We used Army Master Data File values to determine the value of firearms transferred to the Corporation. We conducted our review from April to December 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services; the Secretaries of Defense and the Army; the Directors of the Defense Logistics Agency and the Office of Management and Budget; and the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Richard P. Burkard Maureen A. Murphy The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety's administration of the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP), focusing on: (1) whether CMP's conversion to a private corporation and the Corporation's subsequent firearms sales were conducted in accordance with the 1996 National Defense Authorization Act; (2) the types and value of federal support provided to the Corporation; and (3) the types and number of firearms the Army transferred to the Corporation and was storing for potential transfer. GAO noted that: (1) the Army and the Corporation completed the transition of the CMP to the Corporation on September 30, 1996, in accordance with the 1996 act; (2) the Corporation has not routinely ensured that it complied with the requirements of the 1996 act in its firearms sales to individuals; (3) GAO estimates that the Corporation sold between 1,200 and 2,200 M1 Garand rifles without adhering to its own procedures that were designed to ensure that the purchasers were not convicted of felonies, were U.S. citizens, and were members of a Corporation-affiliated club; (4) the Army and other defense agencies had provided more than $19 million in support to the Corporation as of September 30, 1998; (5) for support provided on a reimbursable basis, Corporation officials told GAO the Corporation reimbursed the Army and other defense organizations more than $1 million; (6) additional support, including obtaining background investigations of prospective gun buyers, was provided to the Corporation at a cost of more than $440,000 but was not specifically referred to in the act and was not reimbursed by the Corporation; (7) the Secretary of the Army has not prescribed regulations relating to the logistical support to be provided to the Corporation and reimbursement for that support, even though the 1996 act required the Secretary to do so; (8) several Army officials told GAO they were uncertain as to what support they should be providing and how to arrange for reimbursement from the Corporation for expenses incurred by the Army; (9) as of September 30, 1998, the Army had transferred more than 56,000 firearms to the Corporation; (10) at transition, the Army transferred to the Corporation all of the required firearms except those at Anniston Army Depot; (11) as of September 30, 1998, the Army was storing more than 230,000 M1 Garands, over 35,000 .22 caliber rifles, and more than 4,000 other firearms at Anniston for potential transfer to the Corporation; (12) at that time, the Army and the Corporation were negotiating a new memorandum of understanding that would make any of these firearms that were surplus to Army requirements available for transfer to the Corporation; (13) Army officials told GAO that some of these firearms were not at Anniston under CMP control on February 9,1996; and (14) should the Army decide to transfer firearms that were not under CMP control on February 9, 1996, legislative authority other than section 1615 of the act would be needed.