Since 2011, there have been 13 drawdowns of defense articles and  services pursuant to the three authorities cited above (see table 1). Interagency Process for Drawdowns Involves State, DOD, National Security Council, and Executive Office of the President

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. 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 military services provide the defense articles and services  they have available in their existing inventories. 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. 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. 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. 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. DOD Has Not Closed Any Presidential Drawdowns and Submitted Few Reports on Defense Articles and Services Provided

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. 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. 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. 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. DOD  agreed with our recommendation, but State did not. 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. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.

What GAO Recommends

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.