GAO reviewed the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program to determine whether: (1) planned testing would demonstrate operational effectiveness before a significant number of units are produced for deployment; and (2) missile target resources are adequate to support testing plans. GAO noted that: (1) the current THAAD program review and evaluation provides the Department of Defense (DOD) with the opportunity to: (a) reduce risk and minimize the number of initial quantities of unproven system hardware by reexamining the schedule for operational testing and production; and (b) ensure that realistic targets will be used for testing; (2) the last approved THAAD acquisition plan calls for significant production of deployment hardware almost 2 years before beginning independent operational testing to assess the system's operational effectiveness; (3) the Army maintains that it needs to buy a number of THAAD systems during low-rate initial production to "ramp-up" to the full rate of production; (4) delaying production until after completing sufficient testing that provides assurance that key performance requirements can be met reduces the risk of buying unproven systems and facilitates production of proven systems at more efficient rates; (5) a suitable target for testing the THAAD system against longer range missiles does not exist, and funds have not been requested for target development and production; and (6) without a longer range test target to represent the more formidable, higher velocity missiles that THAAD could face, the system's operational effectiveness will remain in doubt and DOD will not have reasonable assurance that it could rely on THAAD in an actual conflict.

GAO provided information regarding the Air Force's progress in achieving and sustaining full operational capability for the Peacekeeper missile force. GAO found that the Air Force: (1) delayed its plans to start full operational capability testing, citing congressional directions, basing mode redirections, gaps between developmental and operational flight testing, and production delays; (2) believes that developmental flight testing has demonstrated the system's capability; (3) plans to conduct only three phase I flight tests a year until fiscal year 1994 in order to meet the scheduled full operational capability milestone for the Peacekeeper in Minuteman Silo Program; (4) plans phase II testing to consist of 84 flight tests over 12 years; (5) plans to sustain required alert rates for a force of 50 Peacekeeper missiles with an inventory of 61 serviceable units and 20 units in repair; (6) had accepted 81 units by December 1988, although only 71 were fully operational; (7) improved its mean recycling time from 2,444 to 2,839 hours, but had not attained its planned level of 3,000 hours; and (8) will have difficulty sustaining its average 30-day repair time.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the effects of leveraged buyouts (LBO) and hostile business takeovers, focusing on: (1) what happened to companies that had been taken over through LBO; (2) how those companies have performed since the takeover; and (3) the effect on communities. GAO found that: (1) in five LBO that GAO reviewed, purchasers bought out the target companies' equity holders with money from loans and bond issues; (2) the capitalization of the companies studied changed from primarily equity to primarily long-term debt after LBO or recapitalization; (3) employment at the companies declined after LBO and recapitalization as a result of asset divestitures and cost reduction efforts; (4) the overall performance of three of the five companies reviewed diminished after LBO, while one company's performance initially was mixed but then improved, and the last company's fluctuated; (5) since of the companies had locations across the country and were generally a small part of the economic base of any one community, communities were not adversely affected, but one company's headquarters formed a major part of the economic base for the local community and layoffs affected the overall earning power of the community; (6) financial success of the companies after LBO depended largely on their ability to meet the service requirements when due, which was dependent upon the initial price paid, future economic conditions, the value of the company's assets, and management's ability to cut costs, reduce debt, and improve profits afterwards; and (7) in these highly leveraged transactions the purchasers had little to lose if they paid too much and a lot to gain if they could make the surviving company a success, while their advisers earned large fees regardless of the price paid or ultimate fate of the surviving company.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed investments in European aerospace vehicle research and technological development efforts. GAO found that: (1) France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are developing the required technologies to secure independent manned access to space, reduce the cost of launching payloads into orbit, and ensure a competitive role in high-speed commercial transport aircraft markets; (2) the United States was ahead of European countries in developing such critical technologies as air breathing engines and materials and advanced high-speed computer programs; (3) only the United States has tested major large-scale components of an air-breathing aerospace plane; (4) U.S. government and industry invested almost $1.8 billion in the National Aero-Space Plane Program (NASPP) between fiscal years (FY) 1986 and 1990 and the U.S. government anticipates spending about $2.7 million on NASPP between FY 1991 and 1997; (5) France, Germany, and the United Kingdom invested a total of about $125 million between 1982 and 1990 for various air-breathing aerospace plane studies and anticipate spending about $217 million between 1990 and 1992 on such programs; (6) although the United States was a leader in terms of facility size, productivity, and testing techniques, the Europeans' progress rate in renovating old facilities and building new facilities was significantly greater than that of the United States; (7) European governments and industries were developing vehicle concepts on a national basis first before seeking international partners; and (8) the convergence of national interests, expertise, approaches, and funding among the European countries, Japan, and the Soviet Union could prove to be competitive with NASPP.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observing System (EOS) Data Information System (EOSDIS), focusing on EOSDIS estimated funding requirements. GAO found that: (1) EOS program costs will total $8.3 billion through fiscal year (FY) 2000; (2) the EOSDIS Core System contract is expected to cost $826 million through FY 2003; (3) about one-third of EOS costs will go to EOSDIS, which will operate EOS satellites and instruments, provide ground acquisition, processing, storage, management, and distribution of EOS data, and make the enormous quantity of data accessible to as many as 10,000 scientists and other users; and (4) NASA has developed an interim system to make current earth science data from disparate systems available to users.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (FinCEN) products and services in support of law enforcement, focusing on: (1) trends in the types and quantities of products and services provided by FinCEN to the law enforcement community; (2) the extent to which FinCEN's products and services have been considered useful by the law enforcement community in identifying, developing, or prosecuting money laundering and other financial crime cases; (3) the extent to which FinCEN evaluates the states' compliance with applicable controls over access to and use of information when state law enforcement officials directly access FinCEN's resources; and (4) FinCEN's efforts to provide Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Form 8300 information to the law enforcement community.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the United States Information Agency's (USIA) Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), focusing on the: (1) OCB reinvention plan; (2) role and use of OCB research analysts; (3) reasons behind a former OCB director's resignation; (4) extent to which Radio Marti is in compliance with Voice of America (VOA) broadcast standards; and (5) investigation into allegations of management reprisals at OCB. GAO found that: (1) the OCB plan to reduce costs and eliminate nonessential staff was consistent with overall executive branch goals and the recommendations of the Radio Marti/TV Marti advisory panel, but was not based on a comprehensive cost-benefit assessment of key OCB departments and support functions; (2) the former director of OCB resigned because of frustration stemming from his unsuccessful attempts to further streamline OCB or implement the reinvention plan; (3) in 1992, OCG removed research analysts from on-air programming, and questions began to surface about their policy compliance role; (4) current news and program officials believe that the analytical unit's services have diminished in importance; (5) the USIA Office of Inspector General (OIG) is investigating allegations of management reprisals in OCB, but the investigation has been controversial because of the release of partial information and affidavits during the investigation; and (6) USIA referred the conduct of the OIG investigation to the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency for investigation.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act gives Native American Indian tribes the option to administer Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs, either alone or as part of a consortium with other tribes, rather than receiving benefits and services from state TANF programs. Because of the difficult economic circumstances on many reservations, the law also gives tribal TANF programs more flexibility than it gives to states. Tribes have used various strategies to stimulate economic development, but despite these efforts, unemployment and poverty rates on reservations remain high and prospects for economic growth may be limited. To improve economic conditions on reservations, tribes operate enterprises in a range of commercial sectors. Nationally, the number of American Indian families receiving TANF assistance has declined in recent years; however, in some states, American Indians represent a large and increasing share of the state TANF caseload. To date, 174 tribes, either alone or as part of a consortium, are administering their own TANF programs and have used the flexibility in the act to tailor their tribal TANF programs to meet TANF requirements. However, many tribes have found that TANF caseload and unemployment data on American Indians is inaccurate, complicating the determination of TANF grant amounts for tribal programs and making it difficult to design and plan such programs. Tribes also lack the infrastructure, such as automated information systems, to administer their programs efficiently. Because tribes lack experience administering welfare programs, they have turned to both states and the federal government for assistance.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

The consensus of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the World Health Organization, and other major health agencies is that the research to date does not show radiofrequency energy emitted from mobile phones has harmful health effects, but there is not yet enough information to conclude that they pose no risk. Although most of the epidemiological and laboratory studies done on this issue have found no adverse health effects, the findings of some studies have raised questions about cancer and other health problems that require further study. The Cellular Telecommunication & Internet Association (CTIA) and FDA will jointly conduct research on mobile phone health affects. Although the initiative is funded solely by CTIA, FDA's active role in setting the research agenda and providing scientific oversight should help alleviate concerns about the objectivity of the report. The media has widely reported on the debate over whether mobile phones can cause health problems. Thus, the federal government's role in providing the public with clear information on this issue is particularly important. FDA has a consumer information update on mobile phone health issues but has not revised that data since October 1999. Consequently FDA does not discuss the significance of major, recently published research studies that have been reported in the press. FDA said that it has not revised the update because the scientific picture has not changed significantly.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO determined the potential U.S. financial obligations to the Philippines when the United States closes two military facilities there, focusing on: (1) the costs of separation allowances and contract termination; (2) whether the United States can recover any equipment for reuse elsewhere; and (3) whether the United States has any obligation for environmental cleanup or restoration. GAO found that: (1) U.S. liabilities for separation allowances totalled approximately $71.3 million, as of March 31, 1991; (2) Air Force and Navy activities underfunded severance pay liabilities by $12.9 million; (3) with the exception of Navy industrial fund's $10.1-million liability, the Department of Defense (DOD) stated that it had sufficient resources available to cover the shortfall; (4) most activities had not set aside funds for the $15.5 million in sick and annual leave liabilities because, under DOD policy, those liabilities are not funded until they are ready to be paid; (5) U.S. liabilities for contract termination costs are estimated to be $3.7 million; (6) the United States has invested $2.199 billion in military facilities in the Philippines, and the Air Force plans to remove 75 percent of the removable property and declare the balance excess to U.S. requirements; and (7) the Air Force and Navy have identified significant environmental damage at the bases, basing agreement does not impose responsibility upon the United States.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the National Endowment for Democracy's procedures for selecting, monitoring, and evaluating its grantee programs. GAO found that the Endowment: (1) relied on its grantees to select, monitor, and evaluate their own programs in 1984 and 1985; (2) did not implement a comprehensive planning process or develop an overall plan reflecting its priorities in terms of geographic areas or project types, thereby limiting its selection process to funding projects that its grantees developed and submitted; (3) did little independent verification of financial and other program information; and (4) evaluated only a few projects during the first 2 years of operation, since they were the only projects that were completed by then. GAO noted that in March 1986, the Endowment approved a policy statement clarifying its responsibilities for oversight of appropriated funds and defining its relationship with grantees.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the status of the Department of Defense's (DOD) Small Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) Program. GAO found that: (1) although DOD anticipated deploying the Small ICBM weapon system in 1997, it is reconsidering that goal due to changes in the international environment, the reduced threat in a post-Strategic Arms Reduction Talks environment, and the high cost to procure and operate mobile ICBM; (2) although the DOD ICBM budget for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 will not support achievement of initial deployment in 1997, DOD stated that it is proceeding with ICBM development to provide a possible replacement for another missile, provide a survivable basing option for ICBM, and protect an option for basing ICBM; (3) until DOD provides updated direction, program funding needs are uncertain; (4) although DOD has made progress in developing ICBM, such unresolved issues remained as the missile's capability, viability of the missile's design, and availability of parts; (5) the Air Force failed to provide sufficient information to Congress in its ICBM selected acquisition report regarding information on the status of weapon system acquisitions to permit meaningful congressional oversight; and (6) DOD anticipates deploying ICBM with most of the design improvements in 1993.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

In response to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) joint test-and-evaluations (JT&E) program, which was established in 1971, to determine how well the military services can perform their missions and roles in joint operations under combat conditions. GAO found that the office responsible for JT&E of DOD weapon systems has been dependent on organizations with vested interests in JT&E results. Joint tests have been managed, carried out, and partially funded by the individual services, which have vested interests in the results. It is not yet clear how new legislation will affect the organization of the program or alter JT&E dependence on the services for resources and capabilities. Most of the JT&E that have been completed were requested by organizations within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) while the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the services have been infrequent requesters of joint tests. In the three JT&E which GAO analyzed in depth, it found that: (1) factors important to judging operational effectiveness were omitted; (2) the validity of the test data could seriously be questioned; (3) the data were often not qualified with respect to the tests' constraints; (4) conclusions and recommendations were not always supported by test results; (5) the reports did not always address the concerns of the requesters; and (6) the requesters made little use of the tests. GAO believed that the reasons for the flaws of the joint tests could lie in the organizational structure of the program including: (1) its organizational placement; (2) its limited staff size; (3) failure to choose staff members for their testing expertise; (4) its limited budget; (5) its dependence on the services for resources; and (6) the absence of a strategic plan that sets priorities.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

An assessment of trends in hardrock mining in the United States is provided and recommendations are made to reform the Mining Law of 1872 so that current needs and values associated with public land mineral resources can be accommodated. This report is particularly concerned with promoting reform that will provide for social and environmental necessities while not adversely affecting mineral availability in the United States. Objectives of resource development and environmental protection can be reasonably compatible. However, adequate protection of environmental quality must be included in the cost of doing business. The most feasible approach to mining law reform includes legislation containing provisions to assure compliance with today's needs relating to equity, environmental quality, and sound land-use planning, while retaining provisions to encourage exploration.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is an independent agency that works for Congress. The GAO watches over Congress, and investigates how the federal government spends taxpayers dollars. The Comptroller General of the United States is the leader of the GAO, and is appointed to a 15-year term by the U.S. President. The GAO wants to support Congress, while at the same time doing right by the citizens of the United States. They audit, investigate, perform analyses, issue legal decisions and report anything that the government is doing. This is one of their reports.

The status of the Appalachian Development Highway System in West Virginia is described, and factors preventing its timely completion are identified. The Highway System was authorized to overcome the region's isolation and to encourage economic growth. Estimated costs rose from $618 million in 1966 to $1,573 million by January 1976, and, although all West Virginia highway corridors were to be completed or under construction by June 30, 1976, only 57 percent of the State's participating miles were completed or under construction. More than 140 new plants were located in West Virginia between 1969 and 1975 and 83 plants were expanded from 1973 to 1975. Cost increases and delays are attributed to: (1) highway construction cost inflation; (2) changed highway design and safety standards; (3) revised relocation assistance requirements; (4) delays associated with environmental protection; (5) lack of matching funds in other states; and (6) federal funding limitations. Continued funding limitations appear inconsistent with the purpose of the Appalachian Regional Development Act.