Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) primary mission is to protect investors and maintain the integrity of securities markets. As a part of its responsibility to protect investors, SEC seeks to ensure that individuals who violate federal securities laws and regulations take responsibility for their misdeeds. Specifically, when individuals or firms are found to have violated securities laws, SEC may order civil monetary penalties and seek ill-gotten financial gains, or disgorgement, from the violators. For its enforcement actions to be successful, SEC must have a collection and distribution program for both civil monetary penalties and disgorgement that functions effectively. In 2002, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to address corporate malfeasance and restore investor confidence in the U.S. securities markets. This legislation established numerous reforms to increase investor protection, including Section 308(a), the Federal Account for Investor Restitution provision, commonly known as the Fair Fund provision. This provision allows SEC to combine civil monetary penalties and other donations to disgorgement funds for the benefit of investors who suffer losses resulting from fraud or other securities violations. Fair Funds may be created through either SEC administrative proceedings or litigation in …

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 directed GAO to assess the joint report of the (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on harmonization of their regulatory approaches. In October 2009, CFTC and SEC issued this report in response to the Department of the Treasury's recommendation that the two agencies assess conflicts in their rules and statutes with respect to similar financial instruments. GAO's objectives were to review (1) how CFTC and SEC identified and assessed harmonization opportunities, (2) the agencies' progress toward implementing the joint report's recommendations, and (3) additional steps the agencies could take to reduce inconsistencies and overlap in their oversight. To meet these objectives, GAO reviewed the joint report and related documentation, interviewed agency officials, and obtained and analyzed written comments on the report from market participants."

A letter report issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Cost growth and schedule delays are prevalent problems in acquiring defense weapon systems. Manufacturing systems has proven difficult, particularly as programs transition to production. In December 2008, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued an updated version of its acquisition policy that reflects earlier consideration of manufacturing risks. A joint defense and industry group developed manufacturing readiness levels (MRL) to support assessments of manufacturing risks. Use of MRLs on all weapon acquisition programs has been proposed. In response to a congressional request, this report assesses the manufacturing problems faced by DOD, how MRLs can address manufacturing problems, how MRLs compare to manufacturing best practices of leading commercial firms, and challenges and barriers to implementing MRLs at DOD. In conducting our work, we contacted DOD, military services, and contractors; held interviews with leading commercial firms; reviewed program documents and policy proposals; and spoke with manufacturing experts."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays billions of dollars in compensation and pension benefits to disabled veterans and their dependents. For those beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own affairs, VA appoints a third party, called a fiduciary, to manage their VA funds. Congress, VA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) and GAO have noted that VA does not always have, or adhere to, effective policies for selecting and monitoring fiduciaries and therefore, does not fully safeguard the assets of beneficiaries in the Fiduciary Program. GAO was asked to discuss the Fiduciary Program and possible ways that it could be improved to better serve veterans, their families, and survivors. This statement is based on GAO's February 2010 report (GAO-10-241), which examined (1) VA policies and procedures for monitoring fiduciaries and safeguarding beneficiary assets and (2) challenges VA faces in improving program performance and oversight. To conduct that work, GAO reviewed program policies and relevant federal laws and regulations, analyzed a nationally representative random sample of case files, interviewed Central Office managers and staff, and conducted three site visits to Fiduciary Program offices, which accounted for 25 percent …

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "The U.S. Postal Service's (USPS) financial condition and outlook deteriorated significantly during fiscal years 2007 through 2009. USPS was not able to cut costs fast enough to offset declines in mail volumes and revenues resulting from the economic recession and changes in the use of mail, such as electronic bill payment. In July 2009, GAO added USPS's financial condition to its high-risk list and reported that USPS urgently needed to restructure to improve its financial viability. The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) of 2006 required GAO to evaluate strategies and options for USPS's long-term structural and operational reform and report by December 2011. Because of USPS's financial crisis and the need for urgent action, GAO accelerated its work and issued a report (GAO-10-455) on April 12, 2010. This testimony provides (1) information on USPS's financial condition and outlook and (2) GAO's perspective on the actions that are needed to facilitate progress toward USPS's financial viability. This testimony is based on GAO's recently issued report and recent testimonies on USPS's financial condition and outlook."

Correspondence issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "In the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2010, GAO is required to assess the extent to which the campaign plan for Iraq and supporting documents adhere to military doctrine, including the extent to which they (1) identify and prioritize the conditions that must be achieved in each phase of the campaign plan, (2) report the number of combat brigade teams and other forces required for each campaign phase, and (3) estimate the time needed to reach the desired end state and complete the military portion of the campaign. This report must be provided to Congress no later than 180 days after the enactment of the NDAA, or by April 26, 2010. The NDAA also states that GAO should notify Congress in writing if a previously submitted report meets the requirements to report on the campaign plan for Iraq. Further, the act requires that GAO submit an updated report when the campaign plan is substantially updated or altered, with the requirement ending on December 31, 2011. Our September 2009 classified report--Securing and Stabilizing Iraq: U.S. Drawdown Plans Should Include Contingency Plans for Use If Key Assumptions …

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "As consumer debt has risen to historic levels, a growing number of for-profit debt settlement companies have emerged. These companies say they will negotiate with consumers' creditors to accept a lump sum settlement for 40 to 60 cents on the dollar for amounts owed on credit cards and other unsecured debt. However, there have been allegations that some debt settlement companies engage in fraudulent, abusive, or deceptive practices that leave consumers in worse financial condition. For example, it has been alleged that they commonly charge fees in advance of settling debts or without providing any services at all, a practice on which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently announced a proposed ban due to its harm to consumers. The Committee asked for an investigation of these issues. As a result, GAO attempted to (1) determine through covert testing whether these allegations are accurate; and, if so, (2) determine whether they are widespread, citing specific closed cases. To achieve these objectives, GAO conducted covert testing by calling 20 companies while posing as fictitious consumers; made overt, unannounced site visits to several companies called; interviewed industry stakeholders; and reviewed information …