Fiscal Service only certifies payments of claims from the Judgment Fund  when the following four tests have been met: (1) claims are final,   (2) claims are monetary, (3) one of the authorities specified in the  Judgment Fund statute permits payment, and (4) payment is not legally  available from any other source of funds (e.g., claims are only paid from  the Judgment Fund when payment is not otherwise provided for in a  specific appropriation or by another statutory provision). Treasury-Provided Information Was Not Fully Responsive and Not Fully Reconciled

In response to the Committee’s request for Schedules of the Judgment  Fund Non-Entity Assets, Non-Entity Costs, and Custodial Revenues  prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and related information,  Treasury provided to the Committee nine “exhibits” that contained  selected information on Judgment Fund payments and other related  information to answer nine questions in the Committee’s request. We  reviewed the Treasury-provided information and found that it did not  provide the Schedules of Judgment Fund Non-Entity Assets, Non-Entity  Costs, and Custodial Revenues for fiscal years 2010 through 2016,  prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, and appropriate note  disclosures or MD&A to the Committee, as requested. We provided Treasury the results of our comparisons and requested  explanations for the differences we identified, and Treasury provided  explanations for some of them. Subsequently, Treasury officials informed  us that they discovered that the exhibits were created in a faulty manner,  and rather than expending resources to reconcile and explain the  numerous differences we identified, they indicated that Fiscal Service  staff would submit new exhibits to the Committee; however, they did not  provide a date by which they would do so. Fiscal Service officials also did not provide us with  documentation indicating that any checks or reviews were performed on  the exhibits—in a manner consistent with Treasury’s written policy and  review procedures for disseminating information to the public—before  Treasury provided them to the Committee. 2  for a depiction of the Judgment Fund claims process.) Further, Treasury  officials stated that the exhibits provided to the Committee were created  in a faulty manner, resulting in an increased risk that they may contain  unreliable information. Without sufficient financial and other information, the Committee’s ability  to effectively oversee Judgment Fund activities, including considering  whether enacting new legislation would benefit the American people by  ensuring better management of the Judgment Fund, may be hampered. Recommendation for Executive Action

We are making the following recommendation to Treasury:  The Commissioner of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service should take steps  to ensure that information provided to Congress undergoes a  documented review to ensure the quality and responsiveness of the  information provided. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our audit were to (1) evaluate the extent to which the  information the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) provided to  the House Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) responds to the  Committee’s May 2017 request for information about Judgment Fund  balances and activities and reconciles to financial information included in  annual, audited financial reports and other selected reports and   (2) describe the Bureau of the Fiscal Service’s (Fiscal Service)  documented procedures and related control activities for processing  agency requests for payments from the Judgment Fund, including how  Fiscal Service ensures that appropriate agency official approve claims  and what reviews are required, if any, to ensure receipt of required  documentation. To determine the extent to which the Treasury-prepared information  responds to the Committee’s request for information about the Judgment  Fund balances and activities, we compared the information provided by  Treasury to the Committee with the Committee’s request letter to  Treasury. Information included in  these exhibits and differences we identified based on comparisons of this  information with information included in certain Treasury annual audited  financial reports and other reports is summarized below.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Treasury Judgment Fund, managed by Fiscal Service, annually pays billions of dollars of claims on behalf of federal agencies. Transparent and reliable information is important for Congress to provide effective oversight of the Judgment Fund. In May 2017, the Committee requested that Treasury provide (1) Schedules of the Judgment Fund for fiscal years 2010 to 2016 prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, including appropriate disclosures to answer nine questions, and (2) information on processes and procedures used when paying claims.
GAO was asked to review the information that Treasury provided to the Committee. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which the Treasury-prepared information responds to the Committee's request and reconciles to financial information included in annual, audited financial reports and other reports and (2) describes Fiscal Service's documented procedures and related control activities for processing agency claims. To address these objectives, GAO compared the information provided by Treasury to other Treasury reports, conducted interviews with agency officials, and reviewed documented procedures for processing claims.

What GAO Found

The Department of the Treasury (Treasury) did not provide the House Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) with the information the Committee requested on the Treasury Judgment Fund. Specifically, Treasury did not provide the Committee the Schedules of the Judgment Fund Non-Entity Assets, Non-Entity Costs, and Custodial Revenues that were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (U.S. GAAP). Treasury also did not include appropriate note disclosures or Management's Discussion and Analysis, as requested by the Committee. Rather, Treasury provided nine exhibits containing selected Judgment Fund information to answer nine questions included in the Committee's request.
In addition, GAO identified numerous differences between amounts included in Treasury's exhibits and its annual Judgment Fund transparency reports to Congress and certain audited financial reports. GAO requested explanations for these differences, and Treasury provided explanations for some of them. Subsequently, Treasury officials discovered and explained that the exhibits were created in a faulty manner, resulting in an increased risk that they may contain unreliable information. Treasury officials stated that rather than expending resources to further explain differences and reconcile the exhibits with the other information, Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) staff planned to submit new exhibits to the Committee; however, they did not provide a date by which they would do so.
GAO found that Treasury did not take appropriate steps consistent with its existing guidance for disseminating information to the public, such as performing appropriate reviews of information in the exhibits prior to providing them to the Committee, to ensure the quality and responsiveness of the information provided. The lack of reliable information on the Judgment Fund impairs the Committee's ability to provide effective oversight, including considering whether enacting new legislation would benefit the American people by ensuring better management of the Judgment Fund.
Fiscal Service has policies and procedures to help ensure that it only certifies payments for awards, judgments, and compromise settlements (claims) from the Judgment Fund that meet the following four tests: (1) claims are final, (2) claims are monetary, (3) one of the authorities specified in the Judgment Fund statute permits payment, and (4) payment is not legally available from any other source of funds (e.g., claims are only paid from the Judgment Fund when payment is not otherwise provided for in a specific appropriation or by another statutory provision).

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Fiscal Service take steps to ensure that information provided to Congress undergoes a documented review to ensure the quality and responsiveness of the information provided. Fiscal Service did not concur or nonconcur with the recommendation but agreed with GAO concerns regarding the reliability of information provided to the Committee.