United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Secretary of the Treasury

October 1998 FINANCIAL AUDIT

Issues Regarding

Reconciliations of

Fund Balances With

Treasury Accounts

GAO/AIMD-99-3

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-279987 

October 14, 1998

The Honorable Robert E. Rubin

The Secretary of the Treasury

Dear Mr. Secretary:

As we and other auditors have previously reported, agencies have had

long-standing problems reconciling their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts. In recognition of this problem, during our preparation for the

audit of the fiscal year 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S.

Government, we issued a letter, dated June 24, 1997, to alert agency

Inspectors General and Chief Financial Officers of our concerns about

large unreconciled differences and improper agency adjustments.1

However, as indicated in our March 1998 audit report on the fiscal year

1997 consolidated financial statements, several major agencies were still

not effectively reconciling their records with the Department of the

Treasury’s records of cash disbursements.2

In our March report, we noted that there were billions of dollars in

unreconciled differences outstanding as of September 30, 1997, and that

some agencies had arbitrarily written off large amounts of unresolved

differences without adequate support. Thus, agency reconciliation

problems was one of several material deficiencies included in our March

report and contributed to our inability to render an opinion on the U.S.

government’s fiscal year 1997 consolidated financial statements.

Treasury designed various procedures and controls—called the

reconciliation process—aimed primarily at ensuring the reliability of

receipt and disbursement data reported by agencies. This monthly

reconciliation process—similar in concept to individuals reconciling

personal checkbooks with a bank’s records each month—is a fundamental

accounting practice used by agencies and Treasury and a key internal

control over federal receipts and disbursements. Treasury, through its

Financial Management Service (FMS), also provides assistance to agencies

in the monthly reconciliation of their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts by providing written guidance, training, and day-to-day

assistance.

1

Financial Audit: Reconciliation of Fund Balances with Treasury (GAO/AIMD-97-104R, June 24, 1997).

2

Financial Audit: 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements of the United States Government

(GAO/AIMD-98-127, March 1998).

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

Because most assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses stem from or

result in cash transactions, errors in the receipt or disbursement data

affect the accuracy of various U.S. government financial reports, including

budget execution reports. Information in these reports are designed to be

used by agency managers and the Congress in making program funding

decisions and monitoring program progress. We recently noted in a

July 1998 report on year-end spending that there were significant

differences between data reported in (1) final budget execution reports

(Standard Form 133) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),

(2) the prior year column of the President’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget, and

(3) Treasury’s Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report.

3

 These differences could be

caused by agencies’ failure to report and reconcile budget execution data,

as well as ineffective agency reconciliations of Fund Balances with

Treasury accounts. However, the extent to which these reconciliation

problems affect the differences between the data in the reports is unclear.

Other factors, such as the timing of when data is reported, would also

contribute to such differences.

As part of the audit of the fiscal year 1997 U.S. government’s consolidated

financial statements, we monitored and evaluated the overall effectiveness

of agencies’ reconciliation processes for Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts. We also surveyed agencies’ satisfaction with Treasury’s role in

providing assistance and systems support in their reconciliation efforts.

This report provides the results of that work.

Results in Brief Auditors found reconciliation problems at 10 of 22 agencies covered by the

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act).4

 The agencies with

reconciliation problems disbursed about 47 percent of the total federal

dollars disbursed in fiscal year 1997, and had billions of dollars in

unreconciled differences outstanding at year-end. These agencies were

either not timely in reconciling their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts, or they were merely adjusting their accounts to match the

amounts reported by Treasury. These adjustments were made without

adequately researching the causes of the differences and thus without

knowing which amount, if any, was correct.

3

Year-End Spending: Reforms Underway But Better Reporting and Oversight Needed

(GAO/AIMD-98-185, July 31, 1998).

4

The CFO Act, as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994, requires the issuance

of annual audited financial statements for the 24 executive agencies specified in the law and for the

federal government as a whole. However, the audit reports for 2 of the 24 agencies were not issued in

time for us to include their results in this report.

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

Auditors reported that, in general, the underlying causes of agency

reconciliation problems were lack of effective internal control procedures,

insufficiently trained staff to perform reconciliations, and/or a lack of

management emphasis on performing reconciliations. These reconciliation

problems could affect the government’s ability to effectively monitor the

execution of the budget. Also, the lack of effective reconciliations of

disbursements contributes to the overall inability of the federal

government to accurately measure the full cost of its programs and

increases the risk of fraud, waste, and mismanagement.

Agencies depend on Treasury for support in fulfilling their reconciliation

responsibilities. Several agencies reported problems with Treasury’s

reconciliation processes and the assistance it provides agencies in

carrying out these processes. Specifically, these agencies cited problems

with (1) Treasury not providing them with adequate levels of detail on

transactions processed, (2) the Treasury automated system they use

extensively for reconciliations, and (3) Treasury’s assistance in areas such

as written guidance and training related to the reconciliation process. We

found that Treasury has taken some steps that attempt to improve the

reconciliation process and is considering other actions to improve its

assistance to agencies.

Background Agencies record their budget spending authorizations in asset accounts

called Fund Balances with Treasury accounts, and increase or decrease

these accounts as they collect or disburse funds. Even though Treasury

serves as the central banker for most agencies, unlike commercial banking

institutions, it does not maintain independent accounting records of each

agency’s Fund Balances with Treasury accounts. Instead, Treasury relies

on monthly data reported by agencies for its records of agencies’

collections and disbursements and Fund Balances with Treasury account

balances.

FMS designed the reconciliation process primarily to help ensure the

reliability of receipt and disbursement data reported by agencies. FMS also

developed the automated systems used in the reconciliation process. The

primary system used by agencies in transaction processing and in their

monthly reporting to Treasury is the Government On-line Accounting Link

System (GOALS). Also, the On-line Payment and Collections (OPAC)

application used by agencies for processing and reconciling interagency

transactions and CA$HLINK, the cash collections system, are used in the

reconciliation process.

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

Treasury policies require each agency to submit monthly Statements of

Transactions (Standard Form 224) or Statements of

Accountability/Transactions (Standard Forms 1218/1219 and 1220/1221) to

report agency collection and disbursement activity along with other

financial information. Also, Treasury requires each agency to submit a

Year-End Closing Statement (FMS Form 2108) showing the funds

unobligated under each appropriation and fund account that are included

in an agency’s Fund Balances with Treasury account. The balances in the

Year-End Closing Statement, however, would not reflect any unreconciled

differences. Thus, the accuracy of the appropriation and fund account

balances reported on the FMS Form 2108 depends on whether an agency

has properly reconciled its Fund Balances with Treasury accounts.

Further, the balances reported on FMS Form 2108 and related transactions

reported on Standard Form 224 are used to prepare the Treasury’s Fiscal

Year 1997 Annual Report and should agree with the corresponding

balances and transactions reported by agencies on their final Standard

Form 133 budget execution reports to OMB.

The reconciliation process begins when Treasury compares agency

reported receipts and disbursements to amounts reported by independent

sources, such as Federal Reserve Banks. Treasury then reports the details

of any discrepancies identified to agencies in a monthly Statement of

Differences report (FMS Form 6652). Also monthly, Treasury sends the

Undisbursed Appropriation Account Ledgers (FMS Form 6653) and the

Receipt Account Ledger and Trial Balance (FMS Form 6655) showing the

monthly activity in each appropriation account including disbursements

and receipts, as well as noncash transactions, such as additional allocated

budget authority and reprogramming or budget rescissions. Agencies are

responsible for investigating and resolving differences reported on the

monthly Statement of Differences reports and differences between their

fund account records and Treasury’s Undisbursed Appropriation and

Receipt Account ledgers. Once differences are resolved, agencies must

record any necessary adjustments to their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts and report these adjustments to Treasury.

Treasury sends agencies Statement of Differences reports monthly until

the differences are cleared. Also, Treasury sends a reminder letter to an

agency if it has not reconciled a difference of over $1 million within 3

months. In addition, Treasury sends a reminder letter if an agency has not

reconciled a difference of over $100,000 within 5 months. Throughout

fiscal year 1997 and up until April 1998, differences that remained

outstanding for 6 months were aggregated by month and each month’s net

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

amount was transferred to Budget Clearing Accounts (BCA) by Treasury.5

After the transfer, monthly Statement of Differences reports and reminder

letters were no longer sent to agencies. Instead, the net transfers and net

BCA balances were reported monthly to agencies on the Undisbursed

Appropriation Account Ledger (FMS Form 6653). Treasury also sent

agencies a quarterly BCA reminder letter.

In response to the range of serious weaknesses identified in the audits of

agencies’ fiscal year 1997 financial statements and the U.S. government’s

consolidated financial statements, the President issued a memorandum

dated May 26, 1998, to the Heads of Executive Agencies directing them to

take corrective action on audit findings. Specifically, the President

directed agencies to address reported accounting system weaknesses and

problems with fundamental accounting practices.

The President also directed OMB to monitor agencies’ progress towards

correcting these identified weaknesses to enable the administration to

achieve its goal of obtaining an unqualified audit opinion on the U.S.

government’s fiscal year 1999 consolidated financial statements. Agencies

were required to submit a plan to OMB by July 31, 1998, that included

milestones for resolving their reported weaknesses. Agencies must also

file quarterly reports documenting their progress in resolving these

weaknesses. The directive requires OMB to periodically report on the

results of its monitoring efforts to the Vice President.

Scope and

Methodology

In order to meet the objectives of monitoring and evaluating the overall

effectiveness of federal agencies’ and Treasury’s reconciliation processes,

we

• determined if agency auditors reported any reconciliation problems by

reviewing the fiscal year 1997 audit reports and management letters issued

at the time of our review on 22 of the federal agencies covered by the CFO

Act,

• selected the 10 agencies with the largest disbursements in fiscal year 1997

(called major agencies in this report) and the agency with the largest

receipts. We obtained detailed information from their auditors on the

5

In order to continue to provide agencies with the supporting details that were lost when Treasury

transferred the 6-month-old unresolved differences to the BCA, Treasury discontinued transferring

those differences. Agencies were expected to resolve remaining BCA balances by September 30, 1998.

All unresolved differences occurring after April 1998 will be reported to agencies on “Statement of

Differences” reports until the differences are resolved. In addition, Treasury changed its criteria on the

3-month reminder letters from $1 million to $50,000, and sends another reminder letter for any

difference greater than 5 months old.

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

agencies’ procedures and practices for reconciling Fund Balances with

Treasury accounts. These agencies accounted for approximately

92 percent of total federal disbursements and 94 percent of total federal

receipts in fiscal year 1997,

• determined if agencies were having any problems with the

Treasury-designed procedures and computer systems used by agencies to

reconcile their Fund Balances with Treasury accounts. We obtained this

information through interviews with the 10 major agency auditors and our

review and analysis of an October 1997 Treasury study conducted by the

independent accounting firm (IPA) Price Waterhouse (now

PricewaterhouseCoopers),6

 and

• obtained information on Treasury’s day-to-day assistance to agencies,

written guidance, and training efforts related to supporting the

reconciliation process. We obtained this information through our

interviews with the 10 major agency auditors and Treasury officials, our

review and analysis of the October 1997 Treasury study, and our review of

Treasury’s written procedures.

We were able to use the results of the Treasury study because its

objectives were similar to ours and its scope and methodology

complemented ours. The study assessed the extent and impact of

reconciliation problems identified in the audits of the fiscal year 1996

financial statements of the agencies covered by the CFO Act. When fiscal

year 1996 audit results were not available, the IPA used fiscal year 1995

audit results. The study also included a survey of 10 agencies to obtain

agency officials’ views on Treasury’s reconciliation process. Two of the 10

agencies included in the study were the same as the major agencies we

included in our work.

The IPA also analyzed Treasury’s processes used for recording, reporting,

and reconciling transactions related to Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts. We limited our use of the Treasury study results to those areas

covered in our audit of the reconciliation process. We did not

independently verify the Treasury study findings, nor do we discuss all of

the findings in this report.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of the

Treasury or his designee. On September 28, 1998, the Assistant Fiscal

Assistant Secretary provided us with oral comments. These comments are

summarized in the “Agency Comments” section of this report. We

6

Department of the Treasury Financial Management Service OPAC/Reconciliation Process Review, Final

Report (October 31, 1997).

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

performed our work from November 1997 through August 1998 in

Hyattsville, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. Our work was performed in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Many Agencies Are

Not Effectively

Reconciling Their

Fund Balances With

Treasury Accounts

Agency auditors reported problems with Fund Balances with Treasury

account reconciliations at 10 of the 22 CFO agencies.7

 In general, we found,

and our findings are further supported by Treasury’s study, that these

agencies did not have effective reconciliation procedures, lacked

sufficiently trained staff, and/or lacked management emphasis on

performing reconciliations. These 10 agencies represent about 47 percent

of the total dollars disbursed by the federal government in fiscal year 1997.

Auditors did not report any reconciliation problems at the 12 other CFO

agencies for which audits had been completed.

For 8 of the 10 agencies with reported reconciliation problems, the

auditors reported the problems as material weaknesses.8

 For the two other

agencies, auditors reported reconciliation problems that they did not

consider to be material weaknesses.

In order to effectively reconcile their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts, agencies must timely research and resolve any differences

between their records and what Treasury has reported on Statement of

Differences (FMS Form 6652) and Undisbursed Appropriation and Receipt

Account Ledgers (FMS Forms 6653 and 6655, respectively). However, we

found in our audit of the federal government’s consolidated financial

statements that there were billions of dollars of unreconciled gross

differences between agencies’ and Treasury’s records of disbursements as

of the end of fiscal year 1997. We also found that large amounts of

unreconciled differences were arbitrarily written off by some agencies in

order to match their records with Treasury’s reported balances. Agencies

took these actions without adequately determining whether, in fact, their

records may have been correct. Some examples of the problems found at

agencies follow.

• One major agency had about $4.4 billion in unresolved differences

between records of the checks it issued and Treasury’s records of checks

7

These 10 agencies included 6 of the major agencies we reviewed.

8

A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of the internal

controls does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that losses, noncompliance, or misstatements

in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements may occur and not be

detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their duties.

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

that had cleared the Federal Reserve Banks. The auditors attributed these

differences to the agency’s ineffective procedures for monitoring and

correcting the discrepancies Treasury identified. This was one of the

reasons the auditor rendered a disclaimer of opinion on the agency’s fiscal

year 1997 financial statements.

• Another major agency had $179 million in net unreconciled differences at

year-end.9

 Most of these net differences—about $138 million—had been

carried over from prior years because the agency had difficulty identifying

and resolving differences between its accounting records and cash

transactions reported by Treasury. The auditor reported two underlying

reasons for the reconciliation problems, which are that (1) the agency did

not have written procedures reflecting current Treasury requirements for

reconciliation of Fund Balances with Treasury accounts and (2) the

agency did not have effective policies and procedures for tracking,

researching, and clearing old unresolved differences recorded in its

Budget Clearing Accounts.

• The auditor of another major agency determined that the agency routinely

adjusted its records to match Treasury records (in effect forcing its

records to balance with the amounts in Treasury’s records). During fiscal

year 1997, this agency had made net increases to its Fund Balances with

Treasury accounts for disbursements and receipts of about $1 billion and

$174 million, respectively, without adequately researching and reconciling

the differences. According to the agency auditor, this agency had been

making these types of adjustments since 1992. Although the auditor found

that the agency had policies and procedures suitable for accomplishing

proper reconciliations, the agency had not effectively implemented them.

As a result, the auditor was unable to conclude as to the accuracy of the

over $37 billion in this agency’s Fund Balances with Treasury accounts as

of September 30, 1997.

• For its fiscal year 1997 financial statements, another major agency made

about $7 billion in net adjustments. At the time the agency made the

adjustments to match its records with Treasury, it had not researched the

differences and determined whether adequate documentation existed to

support the adjustments. The auditor pursued this matter of unsupported

adjustments with the agency. In response, the agency researched the

differences and was able to support all but $500 million of the adjustments

it had made.

9

Agency auditors often reported unreconciled differences as net amounts rather than in terms of their

aggregate absolute values. The roll-up and netting of charges and credits can significantly understate

the total differences and resulting potential misstatements. For example, governmentwide BCA

activity, reported for the 12 months ended March 31, 1997, calculated in aggregate values was about 20

times greater than the net value.

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

OMB has been tasked by the President to monitor agencies’ actions to

correct the problems identified in audits of agencies’ fiscal year 1997

financial statements. As part of this effort, OMB has received agency plans

and is assessing the adequacy of the plans to correct agency problems.

Some Agencies Noted

Problems With

Treasury’s

Reconciliation

Processes and

Assistance

On the basis of our interviews with agency auditors and review of

Treasury’s study, we noted that many agencies expressed satisfaction with

Treasury’s reconciliation processes and assistance. However, other

agencies cited that Treasury’s reports lacked sufficient details on issued

checks and on transactions recorded in the BCA. In addition, agencies

expressed problems with Treasury’s GOALS reporting system. Further,

agencies mentioned a lack of adequate Treasury assistance in the areas of

(1) written guidance on detailed reconciliation procedures, (2) availability

of knowledgeable personnel to help with reconciliation problems, and

(3) training. According to Treasury, it has already taken certain steps to

improve its reconciliation processes and assistance to the agencies.

Treasury’s Reports and

Automated Reporting

System

We noted, on the basis of our interviews and review of Treasury’s study,

the following concerns related to Treasury reports and automated

systems.

• One major agency that made over 15 percent of the total fiscal year 1997

disbursements had problems reconciling the previously mentioned

$4.4 billion in differences between its records and Treasury records of

checks issued. Agency officials stated that the Treasury Check Issued

Detail report did not provide enough information for this agency to

research and resolve the differences. For example, the report does not

identify whether differences are due to discrepancies between what the

agency reported on its monthly Statements of Accountability (Standard

Form 1218/1219) for disbursements and (1) computer tape amounts of the

checks issued (Standard Form 1179) prepared by its disbursing offices or

(2) the bank’s records of the actual amounts of the checks paid. Since the

report was not received in an electronic format, the agency had difficulty

sorting, distributing, and analyzing the data. As a result, this agency found

that it could not readily identify the source or cause of the differences.

• This same agency also told us that Treasury’s monthly Appropriation

Account Ledger reports for the BCA do not include the transaction details

needed to research differences. According to agency officials, the details

that make up the BCA balances are not readily available. Thus, the agency

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

had to perform additional research to identify the individual differences

and related transactions before it could start to research the causes of the

differences.

Treasury has acknowledged problems with the BCA reports and has

changed its procedures for charging BCA accounts. As previously

mentioned, effective in April 1998, Treasury discontinued the process of

charging differences to agency BCA accounts. Instead, Treasury will

continue to send individual Statement of Differences reports to agencies

until the difference is cleared. Treasury also includes the supporting detail

with the initial Statement of Differences report. While this continuous

reporting of differences helps emphasize the need for timely

reconciliation, it is still up to the agency to take the necessary actions to

resolve the differences in a timely manner.

• Some other major agencies were experiencing problems with Treasury’s

GOALS system. For example, personnel at one major agency said that the

Treasury software it used to interface GOALS with the agency’s general

ledger system was very old and outdated. Also, several of the agencies

surveyed as part of the Treasury study expressed frustration over having

to manually input their receipt and disbursement data into GOALS. They

also cited the slow data transmission speed as an example of the outdated

technology currently used in GOALS. Overall, 30 percent of the agencies

surveyed in the Treasury study were dissatisfied with GOALS.

Although Treasury has recognized that current GOALS technology is

outdated and is developing requirements to update the GOALS system in

response to this problem, it faces competing demands associated with the

Year 2000 computer conversion issues and significant challenges

associated with the nonstandardized agency systems across the federal

government.

Treasury’s Assistance to

Agencies

Treasury’s primary written guidance—the Treasury Financial Manual

(TFM)—does not adequately address agency needs. On the basis of our

review of the TFM, we found that it does not clearly explain agencies’ roles

and responsibilities in the overall reconciliation process, and does not

contain step-by-step guidance that some agencies say they need to

effectively and efficiently reconcile their Fund Balances with Treasury

accounts. In the Treasury study, agencies noted that the TFM does not

explain the relationship between Treasury reporting of Fund Balances

with Treasury account activity and agency accounting or provide “how-to”

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

information. According to the study, there is an expectation among the

agencies that Treasury should provide more specific guidance in these

areas.

The Treasury study also noted a problem with Treasury’s day-to-day

assistance. For example, the study reported that 7 of the 10 agencies

surveyed said that Treasury personnel were not always knowledgeable or

responsive when the agency called for assistance with specific

reconciliation problems. Most of these agencies suggested that Treasury

assign dedicated agency contacts to assist them with reconciliation issues.

We noted that agency auditors cited the lack of adequately trained staff at

their respective agencies as one of the causes of Fund Balances with

Treasury account reconciliation problems. The Treasury study noted that

although Treasury offered an array of training to agencies, agencies

apparently were not always taking advantage of this training. During fiscal

year 1997, Treasury initiated an effort to provide on-site training to the

staff of agencies having reconciliation problems. However, Treasury

officials informed us that they could only provide training to staff at a few

agencies because of limited staff resources and overall budget constraints.

Conclusion Reconciliations of Fund Balances with Treasury accounts continues to be

a significant problem that (1) increases the risks of fraud, waste, and

mismanagement, (2) could affect the government’s ability to effectively

monitor the execution of the budget, and (3) affects the ability to

accurately measure the full cost of the federal government’s programs. To

overcome this persistent problem will require a greater commitment of

agencies’ and Treasury’s management, as well as adequately trained staff

and effective automated financial systems.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Treasury direct the

Commissioner of FMS to work with agencies and provide sufficient

resources to

• develop reports that provide agencies with the detailed data they need to

perform effective and efficient reconciliations,

• develop supplemental written guidance, including step-by-step procedures

for reconciliations, targeted to agencies with reconciliation problems to

assist them in clearly understanding their responsibilities,

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

• ensure that agencies experiencing reconciliation problems receive

assistance from knowledgeable Treasury staff and any necessary training

required, and

• develop training courses for agencies’ use in training personnel who are

involved in reconciling Fund Balances with Treasury accounts.

We recognize that competing demands associated with Year 2000

computer conversion issues should take precedence in making system

modifications. Considering this priority, we recommend that

enhancements be made to the GOALS system as soon as it is practical in

order to provide agencies with the technology needed to promote efficient

and effective reconciliations.

Agency Comments Treasury agreed with our findings and recommendations. Treasury stated

its intention to implement corrective actions and appropriately

emphasized the importance of each agency’s responsibility to ensure that

its Fund Balances with Treasury account reconciliations are performed

promptly and accurately. We will evaluate Treasury and agency actions to

address these matters during our audit of the U.S. government’s fiscal year

1998 consolidated financial statements. Treasury FMS staff also provided

certain technical comments, which have been incorporated as appropriate.

This report contains recommendations to you. The head of a federal

agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on

actions taken on these recommendations to the Senate Committee on

Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform

and Oversight within 60 days of the date of the report. A written statement

also must be sent to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations

with the agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days

after the date of the report.

We are sending a copy of this report to the Director of OMB because of

OMB’s responsibility to monitor agency progress in resolving reported

financial management weaknesses. We are also sending copies of this

report to the Commissioner of the Financial Management Service; the

Department of the Treasury Deputy Inspector General; the Chairmen and

Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations,

Senate Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government, Senate

Committee on Finance, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and

Senate Committee on the Budget; House Committee on Appropriations,

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
B-279987 

House Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General

Government, House Committee on Ways and Means, House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight, House Subcommittee on Government

Management, Information and Technology, and House Committee on the

Budget; and other interested congressional committees. Copies will be

made available to others upon request.

If you or members of your staff have any questions about this report,

please call me on (202) 512-2600 or Gary Engel, Associate Director, on

(202) 512-3406. Other major contributors are listed in appendix I.

Sincerely yours,

Gene L. Dodaro

Assistant Comptroller General

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
Appendix I 

Major Contributors to This Report

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Christine A. Robertson, Assistant Director

Paula M. Rascona, Senior Auditor

W. David Grindstaff, Assistant Director and Technical Advisor

Atlanta Field Office Suzanne Murphy, Auditor-in-Charge

Jerry K. Marvin, Senior Auditor

Carolyn Voltz, Auditor

(919199) Page 14 GAO/AIMD-99-3 Agency Reconciliations of Fund Balances
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100