United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Government 

Reform House of Representatives

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Greater Clarity and 

Consistency Are Needed in 

Reporting Federal Climate 

Change Funding 

Statement of John B. Stephenson, Director 

Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, September 21, 2006 

 

GAO-06-1122T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

CLIMATE CHANGE

Greater Clarity and Consistency Are 

Needed in Reporting Federal Climate 

Change Funding 

Highlights of GAO-06-1122T, testimony 

before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

The Congress has required annual

reports on federal climate change

spending. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

reports funding for: technology (to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions), 

science (to better understand the 

climate), international assistance

(to help developing countries), and 

tax expenditures (to encourage 

emissions reduction). The Climate 

Change Science Program (CCSP),

which coordinates many agencies’ 

activities, also reports on science 

funding. 

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

August 2005 report Climate 

Change: Federal Reports on 

Climate Change Should Be Clearer 

and More Complete (GAO-05-461). 

GAO examined federal climate

change funding for 1993 through 

2004, including (1) how total 

funding and funding by category

changed and whether funding data 

are comparable over time and (2) 

how funding by individual agencies

changed and whether funding data 

are comparable over time. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended, among other 

things, that OMB include data on 

existing climate-related tax 

expenditures. OMB agreed with 

most of GAO’s recommendations 

and has implemented several of 

them. CCSP agreed with all of 

GAO’s recommendations and has 

begun explaining changes in report 

format or content when they are 

introduced. 

According to OMB, from 1993 to 2004, federal funding for climate change 

increased from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for 

inflation. During this period, reported inflation-adjusted funding increased 

for technology and science, but decreased for international assistance.

However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as reported 

because changes in the format and content of OMB and CCSP reports make

it difficult to compare funding data over time. For example, over time, OMB 

expanded the definitions of some accounts to include more activities, but 

did not specify how it changed the definitions. OMB officials stated that it is

not required to follow a consistent reporting format from year to year. 

Further, CCSP’s science funding reports were difficult to compare over time 

because CCSP introduced new methods for categorizing funding without 

explaining how they related to previous methods. The Director of CCSP said 

that its reports changed as the program evolved. These and other limitations

make it difficult to determine actual changes in climate change funding. 

Similarly, OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that funded climate 

change programs in 2004 increased such funding between 1993 and 2004, but 

unexplained changes in the reports’ contents limit the comparability of data 

on funding by agency. For example, reported funding for the Department of 

Energy (DOE), the agency with the most reported climate-related funding in 

2004, increased from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent) after adjusting

for inflation. DOE and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

accounted for 81 percent of the reported increase in funding from 1993 

through 2004. However, because agency funding totals are composed of 

individual accounts, changes in the reports’ contents, such as the 

unexplained addition of accounts to the technology category, make it 

difficult to compare agencies’ funding data over time and, therefore, to 

determine if this is a real or a definitional increase. Furthermore, GAO found 

that OMB reported funding for certain agencies in some years but not in 

others, without explanation. OMB told GAO that it relied on agency budget 

offices to submit accurate data. These data and reporting limitations make

determining agencies’ actual levels of climate change funding difficult. 

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2004 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Inflation-adjusted discretionary budget authority in billions of dollars

International Assistance

Science

Technology

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1122T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841, or

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Increases in the earth’s average temperature that have already occurred 

over the last 100 years, combined with additional future increases 

projected by a consensus of scientists, have the potential to dramatically 

change life on earth. For example, changes in the frequency and intensity 

of rainfall, both possible effects of climate change, could affect agriculture

and forest health in certain locations. Effects on planetary biodiversity are 

projected to be even more pronounced. For more than a decade, the 

federal government has funded programs to study the earth’s climate and 

to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked

to climate change. According to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), 9 of the 15 cabinet-level executive departments, along with 5 other 

federal agencies, received funding for climate change activities in 2004. 

In annual reports and testimony before the Congress, OMB reported 

climate change funding for 1993 through 2004 using the following four 

categories: 

• Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment

of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or 

increase energy efficiency. Funding for this category focuses on programs 

for energy conservation, renewable energy, and related efforts. 

• Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand 

climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover. 

• International assistance, which helps developing countries to address 

climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency 

programs. 

• Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income 

tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage emission 

reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to promote the use of 

renewable energy.1

 1

The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws may, in effect, be viewed 

as expenditures channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the budget include the level 

of tax expenditures under existing law. Like the annual lists of tax expenditures prepared

by the Department of the Treasury, this testimony considers only tax expenditures related 

to individual and corporate income taxes and does not address excise taxes. 

Page 1 GAO-06-1122T 
Over the same time period, the administration also reported annually on 

funding specifically for climate change science, one of the four categories 

used in OMB reports. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)—a 

multiagency coordinating group—is currently responsible for preparing 

the climate change science reports, which duplicate to some extent OMB’s 

science funding reports. 

My remarks today are based on our August 2005 report on federal climate 

change funding from 1993 through 20042

 and will focus on (1) how total 

funding and funding by category changed and the extent to which data on 

such funding are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency 

changed and the extent to which data on such funding are comparable 

over time. We also examined whether OMB reports on climate change

funding provided the data required by the Congress. It is important to note 

that in April 2006, OMB issued its fiscal year 2007 report to the Congress 

on federal climate change expenditures and has implemented several of 

GAO’s August 2005 recommendations in that report. Likewise, in 

November 2005, CCSP issued its fiscal year 2006 report to the Congress 

and has also implemented a GAO recommendation in that report. My 

testimony today addresses only climate change spending and reporting 

through fiscal year 2004.

To determine how federal climate change funding by category and agency 

changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports, as well as 

congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on 

climate change funding were comparable, we analyzed and compared the 

contents of the reports and interviewed responsible officials. To determine 

whether OMB and CCSP reports provided the data the Congress required, 

we reviewed the reporting requirements, the legislative history of these 

requirements, and the data OMB and CCSP presented in their reports. The 

term “funding” in this testimony reflects discretionary budget authority, or

the authority provided in law to incur financial obligations that will result 

in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in their reports.3

 Unless 

otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for 

 2

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate

Change Funding Should be Clearer and More Complete. GAO-05-461 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 25, 2005). 

3

An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority for climate change

programs. 

Page 2 GAO-06-1122T 
inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years.4

 This testimony is based on 

work that was conducted between July 2004 and August 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

In summary, federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, 

increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), 

or from $3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for 

inflation. OMB reports show that, during this period, funding increased for 

technology and science. CCSP, which reports only science funding, 

generally presented totals that were consistent with OMB’s, but provided 

more detail. However, changes in reporting methods used by both OMB 

and CCSP limit the comparability of funding data over time, and therefore 

it was unclear whether total funding actually increased as much as 

reported. Furthermore, we were unable to compare changes in the fourth

category–climate-related tax expenditures–because OMB reported 

estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures from 1993 to 

2004. Specifically, for 1993 through 2004: 

• Technology funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $845 million to

$2.87 billion (239 percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion (183 

percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. The share of total climate change 

funding devoted to technology increased from 36 percent to 56 percent. 

However, we identified several ways that technology funding presented in

OMB’s more recent reports may not be comparable to previously reported 

technology funding. For example, OMB added accounts to the technology 

category that were not reported before or were presented in different 

categories, but it did not explain whether these accounts reflected the 

creation of new programs, or a decision to count existing programs for the 

first time. OMB also expanded the definitions of some accounts to include 

more activities without clarifying how the definitions were changed. 

Furthermore, OMB reports include a wide range of federal climate-related

 4

When we adjusted for inflation, we used a fiscal year price index that we calculated based 

on a calendar year price index published by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of

Economic Analysis. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual funding (not

estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004, where we present estimated funding 

reported by CCSP because actual data are not available. For the purposes of this testimony, 

the term “agency” includes executive departments and agencies, and we use the term

“account” to describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in 

OMB and CCSP reports. Throughout this testimony, we characterize all climate change

science reports from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports, even though CCSP has been in

existence only since 2002, and reports prior to 2002 were published by a predecessor 

organization. Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding.

Page 3 GAO-06-1122T 
programs and activities, some of which–such as scientific research on 

global environmental change–are explicitly climate change programs, 

whereas others–such as technology initiatives promoting emissions 

reduction or encouraging energy conservation–are not solely for climate 

change purposes. 

• Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51 percent), 

according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to $1.98 billion (9 

percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, its share of total climate 

change funding decreased from 56 percent to 39 percent. OMB and CCSP 

generally presented consistent climate change science funding totals from 

1993 through 2004. CCSP reports also presented more detailed data, but

these data were difficult to compare over the entire period because CCSP 

periodically introduced new categorization methods without explaining 

how the new methods related to the ones they replaced. Specifically, over 

the period CCSP used seven different methods to present detailed science 

funding data, making it impossible to develop consistent funding trends of 

the entire timeframe. 

• International assistance funding reported by OMB increased from $201 

million to $252 million (25 percent), but decreased from $280 million to 

$252 million (10 percent) in inflation-adjusted dollars. Moreover, its share 

of total climate change funding decreased from 9 percent to 5 percent.

International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally 

comparable over time, although several new accounts were added without 

explanation.

• Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even 

though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of millions 

of dollars in revenue forgone by the federal government in fiscal year 2004. 

Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed climate-related

tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for 

existing climate change-related tax expenditures. Whereas OMB reported 

no funding for existing climate change-related tax expenditures in 2004, 

the federal budget for that year listed four tax expenditures related to 

climate change in that year, including estimated revenue losses of $330 

million for incentives to develop certain renewable energy sources. 

OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors 

contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For 

example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the 

report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the 

upcoming fiscal year’s budget for the three most recent reports) limited 

OMB’s ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. They also noted that 

Page 4 GAO-06-1122T 
they were not directed to use the same report format over time or explain 

differences in methodology from one report to another. Regarding tax 

expenditures, OMB officials said that they consistently included in the 

reports those proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was 

specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They also stated that they 

had not included existing tax expenditures that may have greenhouse gas 

benefits but were enacted for other purposes, and that the Congress had 

not provided any guidance to suggest that additional tax expenditure data

should be included in the annual reports. However, in response to a 

recommendation we made in our 2005 report, OMB in its fiscal year 2007

report to the Congress included existing tax expenditures that could 

contribute to reducing greenhouse gases. Because of these and other 

limitations, determining actual changes in federal climate change funding

is difficult. 

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies receiving funding for climate 

change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had 

in 1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as much as OMB 

reported because unexplained changes in what was defined as climate 

change funding. Reported funding for the Department of Energy (DOE), 

the agency with the most reported climate-related funding in 2004, 

increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 

billion to $2.52 billion (88 percent) after adjusting for inflation. DOE and 

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) accounted for 

81 percent of the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. 

However, because agency funding totals are composed of individual 

accounts, the changes in the reports’ contents discussed earlier, such as 

the unexplained addition of accounts to the technology category, limit the 

comparability of agencies’ funding data over time, making it difficult to 

determine if these are real or definitional increases. 

We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority, 

not—as required by the Congress—on expenditures. The Congress has 

required that information be provided on expenditures and obligations, the 

amounts actually spent or committed to be spent, while OMB reports 

generally have presented information on a different measure, budget 

authority, or the amount of funding provided by the Congress. OMB 

officials told us that they adopted their approach because the relevant 

congressional committees generally use budget authority. They told us 

that they reported on this basis because these committees have not 

objected to OMB’s approach. 

Page 5 GAO-06-1122T 
We recommended that OMB and CCSP, from year-to-year, use the same 

format for presenting data, explain changes in report content or format 

when they are introduced, and provide and maintain a crosswalk 

comparing new and old report structures when changes in report format 

are introduced. We also recommended that OMB include data on existing 

climate-related tax expenditures in future reports. Finally, we

recommended that OMB request that the Congress clarify whether future 

reports should be presented in terms of expenditures and obligations or in

terms of budget authority, and if the Congress prefers the former, OMB 

should request the necessary time to prepare reports on that basis. 

We received oral comments from OMB on August 1, 2005, and written 

comments from CCSP in a letter dated July 28, 2005. OMB agreed with the

recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was 

studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our 

recommendations. 

After our report was issued in August 2005, OMB released its fiscal year 

2007 report to Congress on climate change expenditures. Several of our 

recommendations were implemented in that report. For example, OMB 

included data on existing climate-related expenditures. OMB also labeled 

its tables for the major types of funding with respect to fiscal year and

budgetary metric (actual budget authority, enacted budget authority, 

obligations, outlays, and proposed budget authority). CCSP has 

implemented our recommendation about explaining changes in report 

content or format. 

In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act. 5

 This act, 

among other things, required the administration to (1) prepare and at least 

every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a national global change 

research plan, including an estimate of federal funding for global change 

research activities to be conducted under the plan; (2) in each annual 

budget submission to the Congress, identify the items in each agency’s 

budget that are elements of the United States Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP), an interagency long-term climate change science 

research program; and (3) report annually on climate change 

Background 

 5

Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated pursuant to the Federal 

Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995)). 

Page 6 GAO-06-1122T 
“expenditures required” for the USGCRP.6

 In 1992, the United States 

signed and ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, which was intended to stabilize the buildup of greenhouse gases 

in the earth’s atmosphere, but did not impose binding limits on emissions. 

In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration 

reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change

science in reports titled Our Changing Planet.

7

 From 1990 through 2001, 

the reports presented detailed science funding data for the USGCRP. 

Federal climate change science programs were reorganized in 2001 and 

2002. In 2001, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was created 

to coordinate short-term climate change research focused on reducing 

uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and integrate 

USGCRP and CCRI activities. CCSP is a collaborative interagency program 

designed to improve the government wide management of climate science 

and research. Since 2002, CCSP has been responsible for meeting the 

reporting requirement and has published the Our Changing Planet reports. 

The most recent report in this series was published in November 2005. 

The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multiagency 

technology research and development coordinating structure similar to 

CCSP. Its overall goal is to attain, on a global scale and in partnership with 

other entities, a technological capability that can provide abundant, clean, 

secure, and affordable energy and related services needed to encourage 

and sustain economic growth, while achieving substantial reductions in 

emissions of greenhouse gases and mitigating the risks of potential climate 

change. 

In March 1998, OMB, in response to a congressional requirement for a 

detailed account of climate change expenditures and obligations, issued a 

brief report summarizing federal agency programs related to global 

climate change. OMB produced another climate change expenditures 

report in March 1999 and, in response to a request at a 1999 hearing, OMB 

provided climate change funding data for 1993 through 1998 for the 

 6

The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures was terminated 

effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had called for “(A) the amounts spent 

during the fiscal year most recently ended; (B) the amounts expected to be spent during

the current fiscal year; and (C) the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the

budget is being submitted.” 

7

To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from 1993 to 2004, we 

reviewed reported science funding from 1993 to 2004. 

Page 7 GAO-06-1122T 
hearing record. Each year since 1999, the Congress has included a 

provision in annual appropriations laws requiring OMB to report in detail 

all federal agency obligations and expenditures, domestic and 

international, for climate change programs and activities. As a result of 

these reporting requirements, OMB annually publishes the Federal 

Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress, which presents federal 

climate change funding for the technology, science, and international 

assistance categories, and tax expenditures. The climate change activities

and associated costs presented in OMB reports must be identified by line 

item as presented in the President’s budget appendix. OMB has interpreted 

this to mean that the data in the reports must be shown by budget account. 

For the last 3 years for which we reviewed data, the Congress had required 

that the administration produce reports for climate change expenditures 

and obligations for the current fiscal year within 45 days after the 

submission of the President’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year.

OMB’s most recent report was released in April 2006. 

OMB reports include a wide range of federal climate-related programs and 

activities. Some activities, like scientific research on global environmental 

change by USGCRP, are explicitly climate change programs, whereas 

others, such as many technology initiatives, are not solely for climate 

change purposes. For example, OMB reports included some programs that 

were started after the United States ratified the Framework Convention in

1992 and were specifically designed to encourage businesses and others to

reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, for example, by installing more 

efficient lighting. OMB reports also included programs that were expanded 

or initiated in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo to support such activities 

as energy conservation (to use energy more efficiently), renewable energy

(to substitute for fossil fuels), and fossil energy (to make more efficient 

use of fossil fuels), all of which can help to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions, but were not initially developed as climate change programs. 

Page 8 GAO-06-1122T 
Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 

billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from $3.28 billion to

$5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. Funding also 

increased for technology, science, and international assistance between 

1993 and 2004, as shown in table 1. However, changes in reporting 

methods have limited the comparability of funding data over time; 

therefore it is unclear whether funding increased as much as reported by 

OMB.8

 OMB did not report estimates for existing climate-related tax 

expenditures during this period, although climate-related tax expenditures 

amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue forgone by the 

federal government in fiscal year 2004. OMB officials told us that changes 

in reporting methods were due to such reasons as the short amount of 

time available to prepare the report, the fact that the reporting

requirement is not permanent law, but appears each year in their 

appropriations legislation, and changes in administration policy and 

priorities. As a result of our recommendations, however, OMB made 

changes in its report on climate change funding for fiscal year 2007, which 

was published in April 2006. For example, OMB more clearly labeled data

throughout the report and added information on existing tax provisions 

that can contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected Years 

Reported Federal 

Climate Change 

Funding Increased for 

Three of the Four 

Funding Categories, 

but Data May Not Be 

Comparable Over 

Time

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Category 1993 1997 2001 2004

Technology $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868

Science 1,306 1,656 1,728 1,976

International assistance 201 164 218 252

Tax expenditures a a a a

Total $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $5,090

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

a

OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax expenditures for this year.

 8

Technology funding increased as a share of total funding over time, while science and

international assistance funding declined as shares of the total because technology funding 

increased at a faster rate than the other categories. 

Page 9 GAO-06-1122T 
Technology From 1993 through 2004, technology funding increased as a share of total

federal climate funding from 36 percent to 56 percent, as reported by 

OMB. Over this period, technology funding increased from $845 million to

$2.87 billion (239 percent), or adjusted for inflation, from $1.18 billion to 

$2.87 billion (143 percent). For example, funding for energy conservation 

increased from $346 million to $868 million, and funding for renewable 

energy increased from $249 million to $352 million. Table 2 presents 

funding data for selected years for the seven largest accounts, which 

accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004. 

Table 2: Reported Technology Funding for Selected Accounts and Years

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

Department of Energy Energy Conservation $346 $414 $810 $868

Energy Supply — Fossil 

Energy Research and 

Development (R&D) 250 201 292 455

Energy Supply —

Renewable Energy 249 244 370 352

Science (Fusion,

Sequestration, and 

Hydrogen)a b b

35 333

Energy Supply – Nuclear c b b39 309

National Aeronautics 

and Space 

Administration

Exploration, Science, and 

Aeronautics b b b

227

Environmental

Protection Agency 

Environmental Programs 

and Management b

70 96 89

Other b127 33 235

Total $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

a

Sequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases that otherwise could contribute to

global climate change. 

b

OMB did not report a value in the technology category for this account for this year. 

c

For 2001 Energy Supply — Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and 

Energy Supply — Nuclear budget accounts as presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present 

these accounts for 2004, and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative within the 

Energy Supply—Nuclear account.

We identified three ways that the data on technology funding presented in

three of OMB’s recent reports may not be comparable to the data 

presented in previous reports. First, OMB added accounts that were not 

previously presented. For example, OMB reported that NASA had $152 

Page 10 GAO-06-1122T 
million in funding for technology-related activities, which included 

research to reduce emissions associated with aircraft operations in 2003. 

OMB did not report this account in the technology category in 2002. In 

addition, OMB included and removed some accounts, without explanation, 

from reports in years other than 2003. For example, OMB reported 

combined funding of $195 million in 1999, and $200 million in 2000, for biobased products and bio-energy at the Departments of Energy and of 

Agriculture. No funding for these accounts was reported from 1993 

through 1998 or from 2001 through 2004. In each of these cases, OMB did 

not explain whether the new accounts reflected the creation of new 

programs, a decision to count an existing program for the first time, or a 

decision to re-classify funding from different categories as technology 

funding. 

According to OMB officials, these changes in report structure and content

for technology funding, as well as similar changes in science and 

international assistance funding, were the result of time constraints and 

other factors. They told us that the short timeline required by the Congress 

for completing the report (within 45 days of submitting the upcoming 

year’s budget) limited OMB’s ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. 

They said that they must rely on funding estimates quickly developed by 

agencies in order to produce the report within the specified timeframe, 

and that the reports are often compilations of agency activities and 

programs, some of which may or may not have been presented separately

in prior years. Moreover, these officials told us that the presentation of 

data has changed over time for a variety of reasons other than short time 

limits, including changes in administration priorities and policy, changes in 

congressional direction, changes to budget and account structures, and 

attempts to more accurately reflect the reporting requirement as specified

in the annual appropriations language. The officials also stated that in 

each report they ensured consistency for the 3 years covered (prior year, 

current year, and budget year). 

Furthermore, OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts

in the technology category, as well as the international assistance 

category, was due to the establishment of new programs and the inclusion 

of existing programs. They told us that the account-by-account display in

the reports has been changed over time as the CCSP and the Climate 

Change Technology Program (CCTP), a multiagency technology research 

and development coordinating structure similar to the CCSP, have become 

better defined. 

Page 11 GAO-06-1122T 
Second, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts

to include more activities but did not specify how the definitions were 

changed. We found that over 50 percent of the increase in technology 

funding from 2002 to 2003 was due to increases in two existing DOE 

accounts: nuclear energy supply and science (fusion, sequestration, and 

hydrogen). OMB reported funding of $32 million in 2002 and $257 million 

in 2003, for the nuclear energy supply account9

 and reported funding of 

$35 million in 2002, and $298 million in 2003, for the science (fusion, 

sequestration, and hydrogen) account. Although OMB stated in its May 

2004 report that 2003 funding data included more activities within certain 

accounts, including the research and development of nuclear and fusion 

energy, the report was unclear about whether the funding increases for 

these two existing accounts were due to the addition of more programs to 

the accounts or increased funding for existing programs already counted

in the accounts. Finally, if new programs were counted in these accounts,

OMB did not specify what programs were added and why. 

OMB officials told us that the definitions of some accounts were changed 

to include more nuclear programs because, while the prior administration 

did not consider nuclear programs to be part of its activities relating to 

climate change, the current administration does consider them to be a key 

part of the CCTP. 

Third, OMB did not maintain the distinction that it had made in previous 

reports between funding for programs whose primary focus is climate 

change and programs where climate change is not the primary focus. As a 

result, certain accounts in the technology category were consolidated into

larger accounts. From 1993 through 2001, OMB presented funding data as 

directly or indirectly related to climate change. The former programs are 

those for which climate change is a primary purpose, such as renewable 

energy research and development. The latter are programs that have

another primary purpose, but which also support climate change goals. 

For example, grants to help low-income people weatherize their dwellings 

are intended primarily to reduce heating costs, but may also help reduce

the consumption of fossil fuels. OMB did not maintain the distinction 

between the two kinds of programs for 2002, 2003, and 2004 funding data.

For example, OMB presented energy conservation funding of $810 million 

 9

We counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) account as Nuclear Energy

Supply funding for 2002. The NERI line item is counted in the aggregate Energy Supply – 

Nuclear budget account in OMB’s 2004 and 2005 reports, and is no longer presented 

separately. 

Page 12 GAO-06-1122T 
in 2001, including $619 million in direct research and development 

funding, and $191 million in indirect funding for weatherization and state 

energy grants. In contrast, 2002 funding data presented by OMB reflected 

energy conservation funding of $897 million, including $622 million in 

research and development, $230 million for weatherization, and $45 

million for state energy grants, but did not distinguish between direct and 

indirect funding. OMB presented energy conservation funding of $880 

million in 2003 and $868 million in 2004 as single accounts without any 

additional detail. 

OMB officials stated that they had adopted a different approach to 

reporting climate change funding to reflect the new program structures as 

the CCSP and CCTP were being established. They stated that the result 

was, in some cases, an aggregation of activities that may have previously 

been reported on separate accounts. According to the officials, the 2003 

and 2004 data more accurately reflect the range of climate change-related 

programs as they are now organized. OMB included a crosswalk in its May 

2004 report that showed 2003 funding levels as they would have been 

presented using the methodology of previous reports. While the crosswalk 

identified funding for accounts that were presented in previous reports, it 

did not identify new funding reported by OMB or specify whether such 

funding was the result of counting new programs, a decision to start 

counting existing programs as climate change-related, or shifts between 

categories. OMB officials told us that the reporting methodology has 

changed since the initial reports and that it may be difficult to resolve the 

differences because of changes in budget and account structure. Finally,

they noted that each report has been prepared in response to a one-time 

requirement and that there has been no requirement for a consistent 

reporting format from one year to the next or for explaining differences in

methodology from one report to another. However, in its fiscal year 2007 

report to the Congress, OMB responded to our recommendations by 

labeling the data more clearly and reporting changes were footnoted. 

According to both OMB and CCSP, the share of total climate change

funding devoted to science decreased from 56 percent in 1993 to 39 

percent in 2004, even though science funding increased from $1.31 billion 

to $1.98 billion (51 percent), or from $1.82 billion to $1.98 billion (9 

percent) after adjusting for inflation. For example, according to OMB, 

funding for NASA on activities such as the satellite measurement of 

Science 

Page 13 GAO-06-1122T 
atmospheric ozone concentrations increased from $888 million to $1.26 

billion.10

OMB reported new science funding for 2003 and 2004 to reflect the 

creation of CCRI. Funding for CCRI increased from $41 million in 2003, the 

first year funding for CCRI was presented, to $173 million in 2004, and

included funding by most of the agencies presented in table 3. We present 

funding for CCRI as a separate program to illustrate the new organization’s 

role in increasing reported climate change funding. Table 3 presents 

funding as reported by OMB for the eight largest agencies and programs in 

the science category, which accounted for 99 percent of the science total

for 2004. 

Table 3: Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program for Selected Years 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Agency or program Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

NASAa Science, Aeronautics, 

and Technology $888 $1,218 $1,176 $1,256

National Science 

Foundation 

Research and 

Related Activities 124 166 181 185

CCRI Various accounts for 

eight agencies b b b

173

DOE Science (Biological

and Environmental 

Research) 118 109 116 102

Department of 

Commerce - National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Operations, 

Research, and 

Facilities 

66 60 93 82

Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research 

Service and four 

other accounts 55 57 51 64

Department of Health and 

Human Services 

National Institutes of 

Health (NIH) b b

54 62

Department of Interior – 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Surveys and 

Research 22 26 27 28

Other 33 20 30 24

Total $1,306 $1,656 $1,728 $1,976

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

 10The $1.26 billion includes NASA’s reported funding for the United States Global Change 

Research Program. NASA funding for CCRI is reported separately. 

Page 14 GAO-06-1122T 
Note: OMB generally presented climate science funding with one account per agency. 

a

Beginning in 2004, NASA funding reflects full-cost accounting, meaning institutional activities such as

personnel and facilities (which had been held in separate accounts) are included. NASA’s climate 

change funding varies based on changes in its budget for space-observing platforms, the natural 

development cycle of its satellites, and revisions to mission profiles.

b

OMB did not report a value in the science category for this agency or program for this year. 

Science funding data from 1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB and 

CCSP, were generally comparable, although there were more 

discrepancies in earlier years than in later years.11 Science funding totals 

reported by CCSP from 1993 through 1997 were within 3 percent of the

OMB totals for all years except 1996 and 1997. Science funding totals 

reported by CCSP in 1996 and 1997 were $156 million (9 percent) and $162 

million (10 percent) higher than those reported by OMB. Over 90 percent 

of the difference for those years occurred because CCSP reported greater

funding for NASA than OMB reported. CCSP stated in its fiscal year 1998 

report that it increased its 1996 and 1997 budget figures to reflect the 

reclassification of certain programs and activities in some agencies that 

were not previously included in the science funding total. 

Total science funding reported by OMB and CCSP from 1998 through 2004 

was identical for 4 of the 7 years. The largest difference for the 3 years that

were not identical was $8 million in 2001, which represented less than 1 

percent of the science funding total reported by OMB for that year. The 

other differences in total science funding were $3 million in 2002, and $1 

million in 1999, and each represented less than 1 percent of the OMB 

science total for those years. 

Science funding by agency, as presented by OMB and CCSP from 1993 

through 1997, differed in many cases, with the exception of funding for the 

National Science Foundation (NSF), which was nearly identical over that

time period. For example, CCSP reported $143 million more funding for 

NASA in 1996 than OMB reported, and OMB reported $24.9 million more 

funding for DOE in 1994 than CCSP reported. The greatest dollar 

difference related to NASA’s funding in 1997. Whereas OMB reported 

funding of $1.22 billion, CCSP reported funding of $1.37 billion—$151 

million, or 12 percent more than the OMB amount. The greatest 

 11CCSP’s most recent report (July 2004) presents estimated 2004 funding, whereas OMB’s 

most recent report (March 2005) presents actual 2004 funding. Whenever we compare 2004 

science funding as reported by OMB and CCSP, we are comparing estimated 2004 funding 

presented in OMB’s May 2004 report and CCSP’s July 2004 report. 

Page 15 GAO-06-1122T 
percentage difference related to the Department of the Interior’s funding 

in 1993. Whereas OMB reported funding of $22 million, CCSP reported 

funding of $37.7 million—$15.7 million, or 71 percent more than reported 

by OMB. Further, from 1993 through 1997, OMB did not report science 

funding by some agencies that were reported by CCSP. For example, 

CCSP reported that DOD’s funding ranged from $5.7 million to $6.6 million 

from 1993 through 1995, and that the Tennessee Valley Authority received 

funding of $1 million or less per year from 1993 through 1997, but OMB did

not report any such funding. 

OMB officials told us that data used for the 1993 to 1997 science funding 

comparison with CCSP were collected too long ago to be able to identify

the differences. However, they stated that the data from early years were 

produced in a very short period for use in testimony or questions for the 

record. According to OMB, this quick turnaround did not allow time for a 

thorough consistency check with other data sources. 

From 1998 through 2004, OMB and CCSP data on funding by agency were 

nearly identical. Both OMB and CCSP reported science funding for nine 

agencies over the entire 7-year period, for a total of 63 agency funding 

amounts. Of these, 52, or 83 percent, matched exactly. Of the 11 

differences, there was one difference of $8 million, one of $2 million, and 

nine of $1 million or less. The greatest difference from 1998 through 2004 

was $8 million in funding for the Department of Commerce in 2001, which 

was 9 percent of the Department of Commerce total, or less than 1 percent 

of total science funding as reported by OMB for that year. 

The director of CCSP told us that changes to reports, such as the creation

and deletion of different categorization methods, were made because 

CCSP is changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and that categorization 

methods changed as the program evolved. The director also said that 

future reports will explicitly present budget data as they were reported in 

prior reports to retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. 

Another CCSP official told us that CCSP now works with OMB to ensure 

that consistent funding information is presented in Our Changing Planet 

reports and OMB reports, and that, beginning with the fiscal year 2006

report (which was published in late 2005), CCSP would attempt to explain

when and why changes are made to reporting methods. In its 2006 fiscal 

year report, CCSP did explain changes to its reporting. 

From 1993 through 2004, international assistance funding decreased from 

9 percent to 5 percent of total federal funding on climate change, as 

reported by OMB. Over the same time period, international assistance 

International Assistance 

Page 16 GAO-06-1122T 
funding increased from $201 million to $252 million (an increase of 25 

percent), but after adjusting for inflation, decreased from $280 million to 

$252 million (a decrease of 10 percent). For example, reported funding for 

the Department of the Treasury to help developing countries invest in 

energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the development of clean energy 

technologies, such as fuel cells, increased from zero in 1993 to $32 million 

in 2004. Table 4 presents funding as reported by OMB for the three largest 

accounts in the international assistance category. 

Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding for Selected Accounts and

Years 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

U.S. Agency for 

International Development 

(USAID) 

Development Assistance 

$200 $147 $112 $125

Assistance for the

Independent States of the 

Former Soviet Union b b

31 47

Department of the Treasury Global Environment 

Facilitya b

14 41 32

Other 1 3 34 48

Total $201 $164 $218 $252

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

a

OMB did not include the Department of the Treasury’s funding for the Global Environment Facility

(GEF) in the international assistance category from 1994 through 2001. OMB presented GEF funding 

in the international assistance category from 2002 through 2004. To maintain consistency, we 

included GEF funding in the international assistance category from 1994 through 2004 for the 

purposes of this testimony. 

b

OMB did not report a value in the international assistance category for this account for this year. 

International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally 

comparable over time, although some new accounts were added without 

explanation. In its reports, OMB did not provide an explanation of whether 

such new accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to 

count existing programs as climate change-related for the first time. OMB 

officials told us that the presentation of new accounts in the international

assistance category was due to the establishment of new programs and the 

inclusion of existing programs. They told us that the account-by-account 

display in the reports has been changed over time as climate change

programs have become better defined. 

Page 17 GAO-06-1122T 
Although not required to provide information on tax expenditures related 

to climate change, OMB reported certain information related to climaterelated tax expenditures for each year. Specifically, it listed proposed 

climate-related tax expenditures appearing in the President’s budget, but it

did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax 

expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Based on the Department of the 

Treasury’s tax expenditure list published in the 2006 budget,12 we 

identified four existing tax expenditures that have purposes similar to 

programs reported by OMB in its climate change reports. In 2004, 

estimated revenue losses amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars for 

the following tax expenditures:13

Tax Expenditures 

• $330 million in revenue losses was estimated for new technology tax 

credits to reduce the cost of generating electricity from renewable 

resources. A credit of 10 percent was available for investment in solar and 

geothermal energy facilities. In addition, a credit of 1.5 cents was available 

per kilowatt hour of electricity produced from renewable resources such 

as biomass, poultry waste, and wind facilities. 

• $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded interest on 

energy facility bonds to reduce the cost of investing in certain

hydroelectric and solid waste disposal facilities. The interest earned on 

state and local bonds used to finance the construction of certain 

hydroelectric generating facilities was tax exempt. Some solid waste 

disposal facilities that produced electricity also qualified for this 

exemption. 

• $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded income from 

conservation subsidies provided by public utilities to reduce the cost of 

purchasing energy-efficient technologies. Residential utility customers 

could exclude from their taxable income energy conservation subsidies 

provided by public utilities. Customers could exclude subsidies used for 

installing or modifying certain equipment that reduced energy 

consumption or improved the management of energy demand. 

 12The Department of the Treasury reported 2004 tax expenditures in the Budget of the U.S. 

Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 19. 

13The Department of the Treasury calculated each tax expenditure estimate assuming other 

parts of the tax code remained unchanged. Because tax provisions can be interdependent, 

we do not report the mathematical sum of the revenue losses estimated for the four 

climate-related tax expenditures, and instead present this general gauge of the magnitude 

of revenue forgone for climate-related tax expenditures. 

Page 18 GAO-06-1122T 
• $70 million in revenue losses was estimated for tax incentives for the 

purchase of clean fueled vehicles to reduce automobile emissions. A tax 

credit of 10 percent, not to exceed $4,000, was available to purchasers of 

electric vehicles. Purchasers of vehicles powered by compressed natural 

gas, hydrogen, alcohol, and other clean fuels could deduct up to $50,000 of

the vehicle purchase costs from their taxable income, depending upon the 

weight and cost of the vehicle. Similarly, owners of refueling properties 

could deduct up to $100,000 for the purchase of re-fueling equipment for 

clean fueled vehicles. 

OMB officials said that they consistently reported proposed tax 

expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. They also stated that they did not include existing tax 

expenditures that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for 

other purposes, and that the Congress had provided no guidance to 

suggest additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual

reports. 

OMB’s decision criteria for determining which tax expenditures to include 

differed in two key respects from its criteria for determining which 

accounts to include. First, OMB presented funding for existing as well as 

proposed accounts, but presented information only on proposed, but not 

existing, tax expenditures. Second, OMB presented funding for programs 

where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

as well as for programs that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were 

enacted for other purposes. However, OMB presented information only on 

proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. In response to GAO’s recommendation to 

report existing climate-related tax expenditures, OMB’s fiscal year 2007

report to the Congress includes existing tax expenditures that contribute 

to reducing global warming. 

Page 19 GAO-06-1122T 
OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for climate 

change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had 

in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as 

reported by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports’ 

contents limit the comparability of agencies’ funding data. From 1993 

through 2004, climate change funding for DOE increased more than any 

other agency, from $963 million to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.56 

billion (162 percent). Adjusted for inflation, such funding increased from 

$1.34 billion to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.18 billion (88 percent). 

The second largest increase in agency funding was for NASA, which 

received a $660 million (74 percent) increase in funding over the same 

time period. NASA’s funding increased $310 million (25 percent) over this 

period after adjusting for inflation. The funding increases for these two 

agencies accounted for 81 percent of the reported total increase in federal

climate change funding from 1993 through 2004. Conversely, USAID 

experienced the largest decrease in funding—from $200 million in 1993 to

$195 million in 2004 (3 percent), or, in inflation-adjusted terms, from $279 

million to $195 million (30 percent). Table 5 shows OMB’s reports on 

climate change funding by agency for selected years. 

Table 5: Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected Years

Reported Funding for 

Most Agencies 

Increased, but 

Unexplained Changes 

in Report Content 

Limit the 

Comparability of Data 

Over Time 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars 

Agency 1993 1997 2001 2004

DOE $963 $968 $1,665 $2,519

NASA 888 1,218 1,176 1,548

NSF 124 222 181 226

USAID 200 147 157 195

Department of Commerce 66 102 93 144

EPA 26 99 146 127

Department of Agriculture 55 57 54 115

Other 30 63 131 216

Total $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $5,090

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Unexplained changes in the content of OMB reports make it difficult to 

determine whether funding changed as much as was reported by OMB. 

Because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts, the 

changes in the reports’ contents discussed earlier, such as the unexplained 

addition of accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of 

agencies’ funding data over time. For example, OMB reported Army, Navy, 

Page 20 GAO-06-1122T 
Air Force, and Defense-wide funding totaling $83 million in 2003, and $51 

million in 2004, in accounts titled Research, Development, Test, and 

Evaluation, but did not report these accounts for prior years. OMB did not 

explain whether these accounts reflected the creation of new programs or 

a decision to count existing programs for the first time. 

OMB officials told us that agencies can be included in reports for the first 

time when new initiatives or programs are started, such as the CCTP. In 

some cases, those initiatives or programs are made up of entirely new 

funding but in other cases they may be additions on top of a small amount 

of base funding. These officials told us that agencies sometimes include 

data that were not previously reported when they requested funding for 

those initiatives, but they assured us that the data are reported

consistently for the 3 years presented in each report. 

The federal budget process is complex, and there are numerous steps that 

culminate in the outlay of federal funds. Among the key steps in this 

process are the following, as defined by OMB: 

• Budget authority means the authority provided in law to incur financial 

obligations that will result in outlays. 

• Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays, immediately 

or in the future. 

• Expenditures are payments to liquidate an obligation. The Congress, in the 

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, 

has defined outlays as being the expenditures and net lending of funds 

under budget authority. 

In simplified terms, budget authority precedes obligations, which precede 

outlays in the process of spending federal funds.

As noted above, since 1999, the Congress has required the President to 

submit a report each year to the Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations describing in detail all federal agency obligations and 

expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs 

and activities. In response, OMB had annually published the Federal 

Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress which presented 

budget authority information in summary data tables instead of obligations

and expenditures, as the title of the report and the table titles suggested. 

The only indication that the table presented budget authority information, 

OMB Reports 

Presented 

Information on 

Budget Authority 

Rather Than—as 

Required by the 

Congress—on 

Expenditures and 

Obligations 

Page 21 GAO-06-1122T 
rather than expenditures, was a parenthetical statement to that effect in a 

significantly smaller font. 

OMB officials told us that the term “expenditures” was used in the report 

title and text because that was the term used most often in the legislative

language. They also said that the reports presented data in terms of budget 

authority because OMB hads always interpreted the bill and report 

language to request the budget authority levels for each activity in a

particular year. They stated further that, from a technical budget 

standpoint, expenditures are usually synonymous with outlays, and that 

one way to think of budget authority is that it is the level of expenditures 

(over a period of 1 or more years) that is made available in a particular 

appropriations bill. OMB viewed this as an appropriate interpretation of 

the congressional requirements since the committees on appropriations 

work with budget authority and not outlays. Moreover, OMB told us that 

these committees had never objected to its interpretation of “obligations 

and expenditures” as budget authority and that OMB had always identified 

the data provided in the table as budget authority. 

In our August 2005 report, we expressed several concerns with OMB’s 

approach. First, OMB’s approach of reporting budget authority did not 

comply with the language of the annual legal requirements to report on 

climate change “obligations and expenditures.” Second, in reviewing the 

legislative history of these reporting requirements, we found no support 

for OMB’s interpretation that when the Congress called for “obligations 

and expenditures” information, it actually meant “budget authority” 

information. Third, OMB’s interpretation was not consistent with its own 

Circular A-11, which defines budget authority as stated above, not actual 

obligations and expenditures. Nonetheless, we recognize that it is not 

possible for OMB to meet the most recent reporting requirements because

it must provide a report on climate change obligations and expenditures 

for the current fiscal year within 45 days of submitting the President’s 

budget for the following fiscal year (which must be submitted the first 

Monday of February). For example, the President submitted the fiscal year

2006 budget on February 7, 2005, so OMB’s report on fiscal year 2005 

climate change expenditures and obligations had to be submitted in March 

2005—approximately halfway through the 2005 fiscal year. However, 

complete expenditures data are available only after the end of each fiscal 

year. Thus, OMB could not meet both the timing requirement and report 

all actual expenditures and obligations in fiscal year 2005. 

CCSP has also reported budget authority data in its Our Changing Planet 

reports. As noted above, CCSP, or its predecessor organization, initially 

Page 22 GAO-06-1122T 
was required to report annually on certain climate change “amounts 

spent,” “amounts expected to be spent,” and “amounts requested,” but this 

reporting requirement was terminated in 2000. Currently, CCSP is 

responsible for reporting information relating to the federal budget and

federal funding for climate change science, not climate change

expenditure information. Since 2000, CCSP has fulfilled these reporting 

requirements by providing budget authority information in its Our 

Changing Planet reports. 

In conclusion, we found that the lack of clarity in OMB’s and CCSP’s 

reports made it difficult to comprehensively understand the federal 

government’s climate change expenditures. A better understanding of 

these expenditures is needed before it is possible to assess CCSP’s and 

other federal agencies’ progress towards their climate change goals. We 

therefore made seven recommendations to OMB and three to CCSP to 

clarify how they present climate change funding information. OMB agreed 

with most of our recommendations and has also implemented several of 

them. CCSP agreed with all of our recommendations and has implemented 

our recommendation about explaining changes in report content or 

format. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to respond to any question you or other Members of the Committee may 

have. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841. John Healey, Anne K. Johnson, and Vincent P. Price made 

key contributions to this testimony. Richard Johnson, Carol Kolarik, Carol 

Herrnstadt Shulman, and Anne Stevens also made important 

contributions. 

Conclusions 

Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 23 GAO-06-1122T (360764) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER