General Accountability Office GAO

promote 2ndary 10/17 on GW costs; until recently essential and bipart repect, but trump GOP jams obamacare undo etc before scoring

primary 119 on refugees from agw

===

-=-=

AN 10 26

Republicans are growing increasingly angry with President Donald Trump's administration officials who continue to refuse to deliver on funds that Congress appropriated.

Democrats have long complained about it, but now Republicans are getting involved, too. The U.S. Constitution states that the legislative branch (the House and Senate) allocates funding. They pass a budget for the government, programs, the military, Medicare and all of the other things that keeps the country operational. The Trump administration has taken that money, and if officials don't like it, they don't send it out.

Lawmakers are now asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to sue the administration for refusing to release approved spending and canceling funding, Politico reported Friday.

The GAO has repeatedly claimed that the administration violated federal law. In fact, this week it concluded that the Trump administration illegally withheld more than $1 billion for education and health care research programs. The problem is that the GAO doesn't have a permanent director. Only an interim director is in charge until the Senate can confirm someone. Thus far, that interim director has not exercised the GAO's authority to take the administration to court.

“They are empowered to sue,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has been among the Republicans angry about the administration's move. She chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“I think the biggest problem is that we have an acting director of the GAO, who understandably is wary of suing the administration without direct congressional approval," Collins added.

With the Nov. 3 election in the next 25 days, and the House expected to change hands, they could sue the administration for violating the law. The Republican-led House sued President Barack Obama's administration in July 2014 over Obamacare spending. In Sept. 2020, the Democratic-led House sued the Trump administration over border wall funding that Congress never appropriated.

Trump also recently canceled $810 million in approved spending. The fiscal year ended Sept. 30, and if programs didn't use the money, it expired. There is a question about Trump using government funding to run TV ads promoting himself. He's also being questioned about the $352 million he took from the Secret Service budget to build his ballroom.

Politico cited a recent report from The Washington Sun, which said on Thursday that Trump officials were thinking of nominating Eric Ueland, who currently serves in the White House budget office. The Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought is the official, who, under Trump's authority, "has used every lever he can reach to stanch the flow of federal dollars," wrote one columnist.

A series of August reports cited a group of what they're calling "zombie programs" across the U.S. government. Those are programs like the CDC's Alzheimer’s disease program or programs around epilepsy and sickle cell disease data collection operations. There's even a rape prevention unit. Congress has approved and fully funded all of them. When Elon Musk went through his DOGE cuts, the people who worked on the programs were let go.

Vought has encouraged the president to impound money that Congress has allocated, even if it's against the law. In fact, Brown cited "a law specifically forbidding the practice."

Republicans allege that Trump is using “pocket rescissions” tactics.

"I’m very disappointed in their action here, and it will have to be rectified,” said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.). “I’m not sure who should do it. All I know is I want a different result than what we have right now.”

Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who left at the end of his 15-year term, said “the law is very clear that GAO’s ability to sue doesn’t preclude anybody else from suing.”

-=-=

---

an 4 25

Elon Musks’ Department of Government Efficiency is getting its own moment under the microscope, reports WIRED.

Records show the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has launched a probe of DOGE, requesting “comprehensive information from the agencies in question, including incident reports on ‘potential or actual misuse of agency systems or data’ and documentation of policies and procedures relating to systems DOGE operatives have accessed, as well as documentation of policies for the agency's risk assessments, audit logs, insider threat programs, and more.”

The GAO is an independent auditing, research and investigative agency for Congress.

Musk has sent DOGE operatives, most with no experience with government auditing, to ransack federal agencies of funding and employees. Additionally, Trump appointed administrators are working with DOGE teams to strip their own departments of resources, laying off hundreds of employees.

Democrats have vocally opposed such efforts with what critics call low-energy speeches and internet dance scenes, but WIRED reports the GAO audit is likely “one of the first real signs of possible accountability and oversight.”

IFrame Content

“GAO has received requests to review actions taken by DOGE across multiple agencies,” GAO spokesperson Sarah Kaczmarek told WIRED. “The first thing GAO does as any work begins is to determine the full scope of what we will cover and the methodology to be used. Until that is done, we cannot provide any additional details or estimates on when the work will be completed.”

Information obtained by WIRED shows the GAO is focused on investigating safeguards in place serving “confidentiality, integrity, and availability of agency systems and information” according to files.

Read the WIRED story here.

:{---

trump toxic 10 ewg 820

6. Pressured EPA Scientists to Drop Evaluations of Toxic Chemicals – Including Formaldehyde

The Trump EPA is undermining the work of independent scientists within the Integrated Risk Information System program, known as IRIS. The program's work is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Its scientific assessments are intended to support the work of other EPA program offices and regional offices. IRIS is a frequent target of chemical industry attacks because its independent safety assessments often don't align with industry objectives.

In 2018, the Trump EPA tried to defund the IRIS program. EPA leadership also pressured IRIS to drop critical health assessments. In March 2019, a Government Accountability Office report disclosed that EPA leadership directed agency offices to limit the number of chemicals they wanted IRIS to review, and cut in half the number of IRIS's ongoing or upcoming assessments.

One of the halted assessments was IRIS's decades-long review of formaldehyde, a widely used chemical and known human carcinogen. This is surprising because former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt indicated to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in January 2018 that the report was complete and ready for release. However, answering questions for the record following a 2019 Senate hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said formaldehyde was "not a top priority."

Instead of releasing the IRIS study on formaldehyde to the public, the EPA has instead decided that the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention – under the leadership of Nancy Beck – should conduct its own assessment of formaldehyde. As with TCE, this action will give the agency an opportunity to distort the science and minimize risks. Because these reviews take years, it will also significantly delay any EPA regulatory action on formaldehyde.

7. Rolled Back Clean Water Protections

https://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-crisis-deregulation-2646406077.html

A report scheduled for release later Tuesday by Congress' non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) finds that the Trump administration undervalues the costs of the climate crisis in order to push deregulation and rollbacks of environmental protections, according to The New York Times.

In one example, the administration estimated the cost of global heating for future generations seven times lower than previous federal estimates. By drastically lowering that number, which is known as the "social cost of the carbon," the administration could manipulate its cost-benefit analyses for deregulating carbon emissions, as The New York Times reported.

Every ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere imposes a cost on the economy, since it increases the likelihood from damage to infrastructure from sea level rise, heat waves or storms. Or, it imposes a health care cost as increased pollution harms public health. However, calculating the cost of those effects is both politically contentious and economically challenging, according to The New York Times.

Under estimates from the Obama administration, the social cost of carbon would be approximately $82 per ton of carbon by the year 2050, according to the forthcoming report. The Trump administration, upon entering office in 2017, quickly undid those numbers and changed the math of how the social cost of carbon was calculated. Under their revised system, the damages by 2050 are estimated to cost around $11 per ton of carbon.

One of the ways the math changed was keeping in line with Trump's narrow worldview. The report found that the administration brought the cost of carbon down by only looking at the effects on the U.S. rather than the global cost.

Another way it brought down the cost of carbon was by using something called the discount rate, which, according to The New York Times, assumes society should not pay much now to prevent harm from climate change to future generations.

"As a result, the current federal estimates, based on domestic climate damages, are about seven times lower than the prior federal estimates that were based on global damages," the report found.

The economic costs were supposed to be revised by the National Academy of Sciences, but the White House disbanded the working group and has no intention of restarting them or revising the economic calculation, as The New York Times reported.

That refusal to update their calculations means future incarnations of the federal government "may not be well positioned to ensure agencies' future regulatory analyses are using the best available science," according to the GAO report.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island and one of eight senators who requested the review, said, "Climate change is a massive threat to our economy. That threat will only grow in years to come, even if we take the action necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change," as The New York Times reported.

Michael Greenstone, an economist at the University of Chicago, said the Trump administration's calculations were not done in good faith.

"It was entirely a political act. I don't think anyone pretended that those moves were justified," he said.

Others see similarities between the Trump administration's handling of the coronavirus and its approach to the climate crisis: deny its reality and then leave the country unprepared for its effects.

"This really parallels the mismanagement of coronavirus," said Michael K. Dorsey, a limited partner with IberSun, a renewable energy company, and a climate expert, to The New York Times. "There's this belief that by doing this you will have some effect of helping the fossil fuel industry. The only thing it does, unfortunately, is undermine the ability of the government to make prudent decisions about moving critical resources to communities that are experiencing the unfolding climate crisis."

climate crisis trump administration public health greenhouse gases sea level rise science

https://www.ecowatch.com/superfund-sites-climate-disaster-2641394009.html

climate crisis has put at least 945 designated toxic waste sites at severe risk of disaster from escalating wildfires, floods, rising seas and other climate-related disasters, according to a new study from the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), as the AP reported.

The country's most contaminated spots that pose an imminent threat to human health or the environment are designated Superfund sites. That means cleaning them up is a national priority. The EPA has identified more than 500 contaminants at Superfund sites, including arsenic, lead and mercury.

...

However, the GAO found that efforts to secure the toxic waste have weakened as the Trump administration plays down their threat, according to the AP.

Senate Democrats responded to the report in a letter to the EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler demanding an explanation for agency leaders' "failure to embrace addressing climate change as a strategic objective," according to the Washington Post.

"We believe that EPA's refusal to implement GAO's recommendations could result in real harm to human health and the environment as the effects of climate change become more frequent and intense," the lawmakers wrote to Wheeler, as the Washington Post reported.

The GAO report looked at 1,571 Superfund sites and found that six out of 10 are vulnerable to extreme weather caused by the climate crisis. The GAO produced an interactive map that shows each of the 945 vulnerable sites. It is color-coded to show if the site is threatened by wildfires, hurricanes, storm surge, sea-level rise, or coastal and river flooding, as the Verge reported.

The study recommended that the EPA start incorporating the climate crisis into its decision making for toxic waste sites and its risk assessments for the Superfund sites.

...

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2019/06/a-new-report-says-the-pentagon-isnt-prepared-to-battle-climate-change/

no lnx

Inside the Department of Defense, climate change is settled science. At least six times in the last two years, senior military leaders have acknowledged as much to lawmakers during oversight hearings. Nonetheless, the Pentagon continues to botch its stated plans to fortify military bases and infrastructure against the looming threat of rising sea levels, drought, wildfires, and other climate-related threats, a report from the independent Government Accountability Office concluded this week.

The report, which was published on Wednesday, found that most installations visited by auditors “did not fully assess the risks associated with extreme weather and climate change effects.” Many of these bases did not substantially incorporate climate projections into their planning, including ones in areas at increased risk for flooding like Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. The report only found one project, across the 23 Army, Navy, and Air Force bases reviewed in total, that was designed according to projections of some climate change-related threat.

GAO clears ACORN

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-648R

intercept

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-migration-2627183114.html

Given the oversize role that migration plays in our current political discourse, you'd think there would be more emphasis on the one factor military and security experts believe will affect future migration patterns more than any other: .

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), a nonpartisan agency that analyzes and audits federal policy to ensure its efficiency and cost-effectiveness, isn't going to let the topic go unaddressed. In a report to Congress last week, the GAO criticized the manner in which the Trump administration has sought to remove any acknowledgement of climate change from our foreign policy and diplomatic strategies, keeping experts in the dark about an issue that's growing only more urgent as a shifting climate—and all that comes with it—displaces millions of people and disrupts societies across the globe.

In the European Union, where the stresses and strains associated with processing large numbers of migrants have already reached crisis proportions, experts predict that the annual stream of those seeking safety within its borders will triple by the end of the century due to climate-related migration. And a 2018 World Bank Group report estimates that the impacts of climate change in three of the world's most densely populated developing regions—sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America—could result in the displacement and internal migration of more than 140 million people before 2050. That many people on the move could easily lead to massive political and economic strife and significantly stall development in those regions.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19012019/migration-climate-change-trump-state-department-guidance-diplomats-gao-report

As the movement of refugees strains countries worldwide and becomes fuel for political clashes in the United States, the Trump administration has eliminated guidelines that the government once gave to American diplomats about how to plan for the impact of climate change on migration and global security.

In a reportreleased Thursday, the Government Accountability Office recommended the State Department restore the guidelines so U.S. diplomats are prepared for major population shifts that could destabilize a country or region.

"Without clear guidance, State may miss opportunities to identify and address issues related to climate change as a potential driver of migration," the report said.

In the report, the GAO, an auditing and analysis arm of Congress, sought to assess the U.S. government's shifting response to human migration driven by climate change. It highlighted the impact of President Donald Trump's decision in March 2017 to revoke an Obama-era executive order and presidential memorandum that called on federal agencies to weigh the effects of climate change on international development decisions.

The GAO found that as a result of Trump's changes, the State Department no longer provides its diplomatic missions "with guidance on whether and how to include climate change risks" as they develop country strategies. The guidance is effectively a toolkit diplomats use to establish the priorities that the U.S. has in a given country and plans to best address them.

State Department's Response Raises Eyebrows

The State Department offered a contradictory response to the GAO's recommendation. It said it would "update" the guidelines, but did not go into detail as to how. At the same time, the State Department wrote that it will consider recommending that climate change be further scrubbed from its priorities, which would mean asking Trump to rescind yet another executive order.

The report's co-author, David Gootnick, said that such a response was unusual. "After the GAO put the spotlight on the fact that they've dropped two executive orders, their response is to say, 'Okay, we might drop the third,'" Gootnick said. "To drop this executive order would be a potentially controversial thing to do."

The GAO plans to monitor the State Department's work over the next four years to see if it complies with the report's recommendation.

State Department spokesman James Dewey said he could not "offer an official response at the moment due to the partial shutdown." At the root of the government shutdown is a dispute over a wall to keep migrants out.

Migration Has Risen Around the World

Estimates vary considerably of how many people are migrating because of climate change-fueled events or might be displaced in the future, because of the lack consistent data. Still, the decisions by the State Department to stop providing climate guidance have occurred as migration has risen worldwide. Globally, about 244 million people are international migrants, and an additional 740 million people are migrants within their home countries, according to theInternational Organization for Migration's 2018 World Report.

Further, the IOM found that since 2008, an average of 25.3 million people have been newly displaced annually, the vast majority due to disasters rather than violence. In 2016, 97 percent of people fled their homes because of "disasters triggered by climate and weather-related hazards," the IOM said.

In the U.S., the national security apparatus has described climate change for years as a "threat multiplier"—the extra pressure that could destabilize countries where resources such as water and arable land are limited and governance is weak. In a 2015 report to Congress, the Pentagon pointed to the Syrian civil war as an example of how climate change can aggravate the fragility of a nation already beset by tensions and unpopular leaders.

Researchers are now looking into how drought and higher temperatures fueled by climate change might be driving the migration of thousands of people from Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua northward to Mexico and the United States. The migration has become a political flashpoint in the U.S., as President Trump's insistence on funding for a controversial border wall to deter migrants has led to the longest government shutdown in American history.

A Global Challenge & National Security Threat

The GAO has written in past reports that climate change exposes the U.S. to profound fiscal risks. In February 2017, it recommended a "cohesive strategic approach" to planning for climate risks across the federal government.

In its new report on climate change and migration, it focused on the work of the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Defense Department because of their roles in promoting national interests, development and stability overseas. The report was written at the request of five Democratic senators, including Edward Markey of Massachusetts, who voiced concern this week about the findings.

"Our diplomats lack the clear guidance they need to deal with climate change," Markey said, in a written statement. "Because climate change is a global challenge and a national security threat, the United States needs to prepare and take preemptive measures for an uncertain future instead of just waiting to address unforeseen consequences."

The report said that the Obama administration did not focus on climate change as a driver of migration. But it did take steps to ensure federal agencies factored climate change into strategic planning by issuing executive orders on international development, requiring federal agencies to gather and disseminate information on climate preparedness, and issuing a 2016 Presidential Memo on "Climate Change and National Security."

In March 2017, Trump signed his own executive order nullifying all but the international development order. The White House described them at the time as an undue "burden" on the development of fossil fuels.

Besides getting rid of guidance for diplomats to better plan for country-level threats from climate change, the administration has also cut foreign aid to developing nations and international organizations that would help address climate risks.

The joint strategic plan between the State Department and USAID in 2015 described climate change as "an urgent and growing threat to U.S. national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows and conflicts over basic resources like food and water." The 2017 joint plan does not take climate change into account, the report said.

The U.S. has also pulled back from multinational collaboration on climate risks, beyond its withdrawal from the 2015 Paris climate accord. The report noted that there is a UN Global Compact for Migration that would work in part to mitigate the impact that climate change could have on migration and a Platform on Disaster Displacement to address the needs of people displaced by climate-driven disasters. The U.S. has declined to participate in both initiatives.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

GAO does the math

Government Accountability Office Urges Trump to Act on Climate Change

President Trump might think that global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's nonpartisan auditing arm, is urging the administration to craft a plan to confront climate change or else it will have to deal with its massive economic consequences.

According to a new report released by the GAO, the U.S. government has already spent more than $350 billion over the past decade on dealing with natural disasters and losses from flood and crop insurance. The tally does not even include the economic toll from this year's horrific West Coast fires and successive hurricanes, which is estimated to cost at least $300 billion.

Costs will also soar—as much as $35 billion per year by mid-century—if global emission rates are not reduced, the study warns.

"The federal government has not undertaken strategic government-wide planning to manage climate risks by using information on the potential economic effects of climate change to identify significant risks and craft appropriate federal responses," the study states. "By using such information, the federal government could take the initial step in establishing government-wide priorities to manage such risks."

The report, which features interviews with more than two dozen scientific and economic experts and 30 studies, was requested by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME).

"The Government Accountability Office—if you will, the chief bean counter—is basically telling us that this is costing us a lot of money," Cantwell told the New York Times. "We need to understand that as stewards of the taxpayer that climate is a fiscal issue, and the fact that it's having this big a fiscal impact on our federal budget needs to be dealt with."

The Senators hope that the study will prompt Congress and the administration to move towards a bipartisan solution to fight the effects of a warming world.

"My hope is the administration will take a look at this report and realize there is an economic impact here that is significant," Collins told the Times. "We simply cannot afford the billions of dollars in additional funding that's going to be needed if we do not take into account the consequences of climate change."

Trump, however, has notoriously pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate agreement and rolled back several Obama-era environmental regulations designed to address climate change, including the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. The president's EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has close links to the fossil fuel industry and once said that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of global warming.

Robert N. Stavins, an economist at Harvard University, cast doubt the study would convince the government to act.

“The GAO study is conservative, it's not alarmist, it's realistic and balanced and they go out of their way to point out all of the uncertainties involved," Stavins told the Times. “I don't see any likelihood it's going to be taken seriously."

Indeed, the price tag from the GAO's study is drastically lower than estimates from other recent reports. The non-profit Universal Ecological Fund found that extreme weather and public health issues related to burning fossil fuels could cost the U.S. up to $360 billion annually—nearly half of annual U.S. economic growth—within the next ten years.

https://www.ecowatch.com/government-accountability-climate-change-2500716868.html

===

Government Accountability Office (GAO) is the audit, evaluation, and investigative arm of theUnited States Congress. It is part of the legislative branch of the United States government.

[hide]

History

The GAO was established as the General Accounting Office by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. This Act required the head of GAO to "investigate, at the seat of government or elsewhere, all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and application of public funds, and shall make to the President ... and to Congress ... reports [and] recommendations looking to greater economy or efficiency in public expenditures".^[2] According to GAO's current mission statement, the agency exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve theperformance and ensure the accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people.

The name was changed in 2004 by the GAO Human Capital Reform Act to better reflect the mission of the office.^[3] While most other countries have government entities similar to the GAO, their focus is primarily on conducting financial audits. The GAO's auditors conduct not only financial audits, but also engage in a wide assortment of performance audits.

Over the years, GAO has been referred to as "The Congressional Watchdog" and "The Taxpayers' Best Friend" for its frequent audits and investigative reports that have uncovered waste and inefficiency in government. The news, media, television, electronically based news sources, and print, often draw attention to GAO's work by doing stories on the findings, conclusions, and/or recommendations in GAO reports. Members of Congress also frequently cite GAO's work in statements to the press, congressional hearings, and floor debates on proposed legislation. In 2007 the Partnership for Public Service ranked GAO second on its list of the best places to work in the federal government and*Washingtonian* magazine included GAO on its 2007 list of great places to work in Washington, a list that encompasses the public, private, and non-profit sectors.

The GAO is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, a professional and non-partisan position in the U.S. government. The Comptroller General is appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, for a 15-year, non-renewable term. The President selects a nominee from a list of at least three individuals recommended by an eight member bipartisan, bicameral commission of congressional leaders. The Comptroller General may not be removed by the President, but only by Congress through impeachment or joint resolution for specific reasons.^[4] Since 1921, there have been only seven Comptrollers General, and no formal attempt has ever been made to remove a Comptroller General. According to the GAO website, "the long tenure of the Comptroller General gives GAO a continuity of leadership that is rare within government."^[5]

Labor-management relations became fractious during the 9-year tenure of the 7th Comptroller General,David M. Walker. On September 19, 2007, GAO analysts voted by a margin of two to one (897–445), in a 75% turnout, to establish the first union in GAO's 86-year history. The analysts voted to affiliate with the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), a member union of the AFL-CIO. There are more than 1,800 analysts in the GAO analysts bargaining unit; the local voted to name itself IFPTE Local 1921, in honor of the date of GAO's establishment. On February 14, 2008, the GAO analysts' union approved its first-ever negotiated pay contract with management; of just over 1,200 votes, 98 percent were in favor of the contract.

Seal of the General Accounting Office, from 1921 until being renamed in 2004.

The Government Accountability Office also establishes standards for audits of government organizations, programs, activities, and functions, and of government assistance received by contractors, nonprofit organizations, and other nongovernmental organizations. These standards, often referred to as Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards(GAGAS), are to be followed by auditors and audit organizations when required by law, regulation, agreement, contract, or policy. These standards pertain to auditors' professional qualifications, the quality of audit effort, and the characteristics of professional and meaningful audit reports.

In 1992 the GAO hosted XIV INCOSAI, the fourteenth triennial convention of the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions.^[6]

Reports

GAO headquarters in Washington

GAO is a United States government electronic data provider, as all of its reports are available on its website (www.gao.gov), except for certain reports whose distribution is limited to official use in order to protect national and homeland security. The variety of topics reported on range from Federal Budget and Fiscal Issues to Financial Management, Education, Retirement Issues, Defense, Homeland Security, Administration of Justice, Health Care, Information Management and Technology, Natural Resources, Environment, International Affairs, Trade, Financial Markets, Housing, Government Management and Human Capital.

Most GAO studies and reports are initiated by requests from members of Congress, including requests mandated in statute, and so reflect concerns of current political import, but many reports are issued periodically and take a long view of U.S. agencies' operations.^[citation ^needed] Examples of these are the annualPerformance and Accountability Series and High Risk Update.

The GAO prepares some 900 reports annually. GAO publishes reports and information relating to, inter alia:

Financial Statements of the US Government

Each year the GAO issues an audit report on the financial statements of the United States Government. The 2010 Financial Report of the United States Government was released on 21 December 2010.^[7] The accompanying press release states that the GAO 'cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations'.^[7]

US Public Debt

As part of its initiative to advocate sustainability, the GAO publishes a Federal Fiscal Outlook Report,^[8] as well as data relating to the deficit.^[9] The US deficit is presented on a cash rather than accruals basis, although the GAO notes that the accrual deficit 'provides more information on the longer-term implications of the government's annual operations'.^[9] In FY 2010, the US federal government had a net operating cost of $2,080 billion, although since this includes accounting provisions (estimates of future liabilities), the cash deficit is $1,294 billion.^[10]

Quinquennial Strategic Plan

The most recent GAO plan, for 2010-2015, sets out four goals, namely to address: (1) Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being and Financial Security of the American People; (2) Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global Interdependence; (3) Transformation of the Federal Government to Address National Challenges; (4) Maximization of the Value of the GAO.^[11]

GAO and technology assessment

After the closing of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in 1995, Congress directed GAO to conduct a technology assessment (TA) pilot program. Between 2002 and 2006, four reports were completed– use of biometrics for border security, cybersecurity for critical infrastructure protection, technologies for protecting structures in wildland fires, and cargo container security technologies. In the first report, GAO found that while biometrics technologies could be used to secure the border, they had limitations in fingerprinting and facial recognition systems. An immediate impact of the report was a congressional testimony on the use of biometrics which, in turn, helped to inform U.S. national security reform efforts. GAO reports, which are made available to the public, have become essential vehicles for understanding science and technology (S&T) implications of policies considered by the Congress.

Since 2007, Congress has established a permanent TA function within GAO. This new operational role augments GAO’s performance audits related to S&T issues, including effectiveness and efficiency of U.S. Federal programs. In 2010, GAO joined European Parliamentary Technology Assessment(EPTA) as an associate member. In the last three years, GAO has completed TA reports on three topics, the most recent one being released in 2011 – rail security, climate engineering, and alternate neutron detectors. In the climate engineering report, Congress requested GAO to examine three areas: the current S&T state of climate engineering, views of experts on the future of climate engineering research, and potential public responses to climate engineering. When the GAO receives a request to conduct TA, it follows five phases: Acceptance, Planning, Data Gathering and Analysis, Product development and Distribution and Results. Phases one and two include selecting the topic and initiating the TA plan while the other ones are respectively: conducting TA, followed by developing the report and ensuring its accuracy and integrity, and finally receiving feedback from Congress and developing lessons learned to enhance the TA process.

The GAO describes the TA as providing "thorough and balanced analysis of critical technological innovations that affect our society, the environment, and the economy" explaining "the consequences that each featured technology will have on federal agencies and departments, and their wider impacts on American society".^[12] This broad working definition enables GAO analysts to utilize TA as a tool for policy analysis. Technology assessments at GAO are conducted in accordance with GAO’s quality assurance framework. GAO initiates technology assessments through congressional mandates, requests from congressional leaders, and through the authority of U.S. Comptroller General.

The Technology Assessment section of GAO's website ^[13] offers latest TA reports and videos.

References

^ "GAO at a Glance". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
^ Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Sec. 312(a), 42 Stat. 25
^ Walker, David M. (July 19, 2004). "GAO Answers the Question: What’s in a Name?". Roll Call.
^ See Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)
^ "Our Workforce". U.S. Government Accountability Office. U.S. GAO. December 17, 2007. Retrieved September 28, 2010.
^ INTOSAI: 50 Years (1953-2003), Vienna: International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, 2004, p. 67
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office#cite_ref-GaO_2010_7-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office#cite_ref-GaO_2010_7-1) "Press Release". US Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 8 January 2011.
^ "Most Recent Federal Fiscal Outlook Report". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
^ ^a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office#cite_ref-deficit_9-0) ^b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Accountability_Office#cite_ref-deficit_9-1) "Measuring the Deficit: Cash vs. Accrual". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 19 January 2011.
^ "2010 Financial Report of the United States Government (*vid.* pp.v, 43)". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
^ "Strategic Plan: Serving the Congress and the Nation, 2010 –2015". Government Accountability Office. Retrieved 27 January 2011.
^ U.S. GAO - Technology Assessment. Gao.gov. Retrieved on 2013-07-19.
^ GAO-TA
^ OAG.org.bw
^ Auditoria Superior de la Federación. ASF. Retrieved on 2013-07-19.

External links

GAO homepage
GAO name change
General Accounting Office Reports, on the website of the Federation of American Scientists