United States General Accounting Office
GAO Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science, House of Representatives
For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
ENVIRONMENTAL
11:30 a.m. EST
Thursday PROTECTION AGENCY
March 18, 1999
Difficulties in Comparing
Annual Budgets for Science
and Technology
Statement of David G. Wood, Associate Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-99-120
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am here to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget
justification for the Science and Technology account and certain changes
that we observed among the justifications for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and
2000. For fiscal year 2000, EPA seeks $642 million for the Science and
Technology account, an amount representing 9 percent of the agency’s
total budget request of $7.2 billion.
Each year, EPA provides to the congressional appropriations committees a
budget justification for requested appropriations for the forthcoming fiscal
year. This justification supplements the President’s budget submitted to
the Congress by providing additional details and shows funding levels for
the previous fiscal year. This committee and others use the justification in
deliberating EPA’s budget, programs, and activities. EPA’s budget
justifications for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 differed significantly from its
justifications for fiscal year 1998 and the prior year because they were
organized according to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives (e.g.,
Clean Air: Reduce Emissions of Air Toxics). These goals and objectives
were established in the strategic plan EPA prepared to meet the
requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. In
contrast, the fiscal year 1998 budget justification was organized according
to EPA’s program offices and components (e.g., Office of Air and Radiation:
Air Toxics).
My statement today discusses the findings from our recent report on EPA’s
Science and Technology funds requested for fiscal year 1999 and on our
limited review of EPA’s fiscal year 2000 budget justification.1 Specifically, I
will discuss (1) difficulties experienced in comparing EPA’s Science and
Technology budget justification for fiscal year 1999 with those of previous
years and (2) actions that EPA planned and implemented in order to
improve the clarity and comparability of the fiscal year 2000 justification,
and items that need further clarification. In summary we found the
following:
• EPA’s budget justification for fiscal year 1999 could not be readily
compared to amounts requested or enacted for fiscal year 1998 and prior
years because the justification did not show how the budget would be
distributed among program offices or program components—information
needed to link to the prior years’ justifications. The Office of Management
and Budget does not require EPA to provide information to compare the
1
Environmental Protection: EPA’s Science and Technology Funds (GAO/RCED-99-12, Oct. 30, 1998).
Page 1 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
justifications when the format changes. However, to facilitate such
comparisons, agency officials provided supplemental information to
congressional committees. This information included tables that linked the
amounts for specific program components used in prior justifications to
the agency’s various strategic goals and objectives. Because EPA did not
maintain financial records by both program components and strategic
goals and objectives for all enacted Science and Technology funds for
fiscal year 1998, it could not readily provide information for all amounts.
At our request, EPA estimated the 1998 enacted amounts so that the 1998
budget could be compared with the fiscal year 1999 request.
• EPA implemented several changes to its fiscal year 2000 justification to
solve problems experienced in comparing the 1998 and 1999 budget
justifications. To improve the clarity of its budget justification for fiscal
year 2000, EPA included tables that detail, for each objective, how
requested amounts are allocated among key programs. Backup
information is also available that shows the program offices that will be
administering the requested funds. The agency also implemented a new
accounting system that records budget data by goals and objectives, which
enhances reporting financial data by goals and objectives. While the
budget justification followed the basic format reflecting the agency’s
strategic goals and objectives, EPA made changes to the objectives without
explanations or documentation to link the changes to the fiscal year 1999
budget justification. For example, funds were allocated from one objective
to other objectives without identifying the objectives or amounts, funds
that included money transferred from another account were shown as
Science and Technology funds, and changes were made to the number or
wording of objectives without explanations. As a result, the fiscal year
2000 budget justification cannot be completely compared with the fiscal
year 1999 justification without supplemental information.
In 1998, we reported that difficulties in comparing EPA’s fiscal year 1999
Prior Difficulties in and 1998 budget justifications arose because the 1999 budget justification
Comparing Budget was organized according to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives,
Justifications whereas the 1998 justification was organized according to EPA’s program
offices and components. Funds for EPA’s Science and Technology account
were requested throughout the fiscal year 1999 budget justification for all
10 of the agency’s strategic goals and for 25 of its 45 strategic objectives.
As shown in table 1, two strategic goals—Sound Science and Clean
Page 2 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
Air—accounted for 71 percent of the funds requested for Science and
Technology.2
Table 1: Science and Technology
Funds Requested for EPA’s 10 Percentage
Strategic Goals and 25 Objectives, Number of Fiscal year of total
Fiscal Year 1999 Strategic goal objectives 1999 request request
Sound science, improved understanding of
environmental risks, and greater innovation
to address environmental problems 5 $312,955,700 49.4%
Clean air 4 137,154,200 21.7%
Reduction of global and
cross-environmental risks 1 67,406,500 10.6%
Clean and safe water 3 55,335,700 8.7%
Expansion of American’s right to know about
their environment 1 18,648,300 2.9%
Preventing pollution and reducing risks in
communities, homes, workplaces, and
ecosystems 3 14,383,600 2.3%
Better waste management, restoration of
contaminated sites, and emergency
response 3 14,139,300 2.2%
A credible deterrent to pollution and greater
compliance with the law 2 8,760,700 1.4%
Safe food 2 4,450,000 0.7%
Effectivement management 1 226,000 <0.1%
Total 25 $633,460,000 100.0%
Source: GAO’s analysis of EPA’s fiscal year 1999 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the
Committees on Appropriations and data provided by EPA.
In its fiscal year 1999 budget justification, EPA did not show how the funds
requested for each goal and objective would be allocated among its
program offices or components. To be able to compare EPA’s requested
fiscal year 1999 funds for Science and Technology to the previous fiscal
year’s enacted funds, EPA would have had to maintain financial records in
two different formats—by program components and by strategic goals and
objectives—and to develop crosswalks to link information between the
two. EPA maintained these two formats for some of the Science and
Technology funds but not for others. Guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) does not require agencies to develop or
provide crosswalks in their justifications when a budget format changes.
2
Strategic goals and objectives for Sound Science and Clean Air were also funded by other
appropriations.
Page 3 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
However, OMB examiners or congressional committee staff may request
crosswalks during their analyses of a budget request.
Two of EPA’s program offices—Research and Development and Air and
Radiation—accounted for over 97 percent of the Science and Technology
funds that were requested for fiscal year 1999. The offices maintained their
financial records differently. The Office of Research and Development
maintained the enacted budget for fiscal year 1998 by program
components (the old format) and also by EPA’s strategic goals and
objectives (the new format). With these two formats of financial data, the
Office of Research and Development could readily crosswalk, or provide
links, to help compare the 1998 enacted funds, organized by program
components, to the fiscal year 1999 budget justification, organized
according to EPA’s strategic goals and objectives.
In contrast, the Office of Air and Radiation maintained its financial records
for fiscal year 1998 under EPA’s new strategic goals and objectives format
but did not also maintain this information under the old format. Therefore,
the Office of Air and Radiation could only estimate how the fiscal year
1998 enacted funds would have been allocated under the old format. For
example, EPA estimated that the Office of Air and Radiation’s program
component for radiation had an enacted fiscal year 1998 budget of
$4.6 million. While the activities of this program component continued in
fiscal year 1999, they were subsumed in the presentation of the budget for
EPA’s strategic goals and objectives. Therefore, because the radiation
program could not be readily identified in the fiscal year 1999 budget
justification, congressional decisionmakers could not easily compare
funds for it with the amount that had been enacted for fiscal year 1998. At
our request, the Office of Air and Radiation estimated its enacted budget
for fiscal year 1998 by program components and then developed a
crosswalk to link those amounts with EPA’s strategic goals and objectives.
The remaining 3 percent of the requested funds for Science and
Technology is administered by the Office of Water; the Office of
Administration and Resources Management; the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances; and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance. Two of these offices—the Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances and the Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance—did not format financial information by program
components. These offices estimated how the 1998 enacted funds would
be classified under their various program components.
Page 4 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
For fiscal year 2000, EPA made several changes to improve the clarity of its
EPA’s Changes budget justification. According to EPA officials, they planned to provide
Improved the Clarity tables for each goal and objective to show the amounts of funds requested
of the Budget for key programs, starting with the agency’s fiscal year 2000 budget
justification.3 The justification for fiscal year 2000 does contain additional
Justification, but information, in the form of tables for each objective, that details some of
Additional the requested amounts by key programs. For example, under the objective
Research for Human Health Risk, part of the Sound Science goal, the
Information Is Needed $56 million requested for the objective is divided into two key programs:
Human Health Research and Endocrine Disruptor Research.
According to EPA officials, they did not plan to identify in the fiscal year
2000 budget justification the program offices that would be administering
the requested funds. However, they intended to make available backup
information to show the program offices that would be administering the
requested funds. Such information is available for the fiscal year 2000
budget request and was provided to this Committee.
According to EPA officials and an EPA draft policy on budget execution, the
agency’s Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability System would
record budget data by goals, objectives, subobjectives, program offices,
and program components. EPA expected that this system would be fully
implemented on October 1, 1998. According to EPA officials, the new
Planning, Budgeting, Analysis, and Accountability System was
implemented on this date; accordingly, EPA can provide information
showing how the agency’s requested funds would be allocated according
to any combination of goals, objectives, subobjectives, program offices,
and key programs.
EPA also planned to submit future budget justifications in the format of its
strategic goals and objectives, as it had done for fiscal year 1999. That way,
the formats for fiscal year 2000 and beyond would have been similar to
those for the fiscal year 1999 justification, facilitating comparisons in
future years. According to EPA officials, the strategic goals and objectives
in EPA’s fiscal year 2000 justification for Science and Technology would be
the same as those in its fiscal year 1999 justification. However, beginning
in fiscal year 1999, the agency has begun to reassess its strategic goals and
objectives, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
This assessment was meant to involve EPA’s working with state
governments, tribal organizations, and congressional committees to
3
On September 30, 1998, EPA issued guidance requiring the use of the term “key programs” for future
budget requests.
Page 5 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
evaluate its goals and objectives to determine if any of them should be
modified. Upon completion of this assessment, if any of EPA’s goals or
objectives change, the structure of the agency’s budget justification would
change correspondingly. Changes to the strategic goals and objectives in
the budget justifications could also require crosswalks and additional
information to enable consistent year-to-year comparisons.
EPA did maintain, as planned, the strategic goals and objectives format for
its fiscal year 2000 budget justification. However, for the objectives that
rely on Science and Technology funds, EPA made several changes without
explanations or documentation to link the changes to the fiscal year 1999
budget justification. EPA (1) acknowledged that funds from one objective
were allocated to several other objectives but did not identify the
objectives or amounts, (2) did not identify funds in Science and
Technology amounts that were transferred from Hazardous Substances
Superfund, and (3) made other changes to the number or wording of
objectives that rely on Science and Technology funds.
The specific changes to objectives involving funds for Science and
Technology are as follows:
Funds Allocated but Not • In the fiscal year 1999 budget justification, under the strategic goal Sound
Identified Science, Improved Understanding of Environmental Risk, and Greater
Innovation to Address Environmental Problems, EPA requested
$86.6 million for the fifth objective: Enable Research on Innovative
Approaches to Current and Future Environmental Problems; and the 1998
fiscal year enacted amount was listed as $85.0 million. In the fiscal year
2000 budget justification, EPA marked this objective as “Not in Use.” The
justification stated that the fiscal year 1999 request included the amounts
for operating expenses and working capital for the Office of Research and
Development under the same objective in the Sound Science goal. In the
fiscal year 2000 budget justification, EPA allocated the amounts requested
for this objective among the other goals and objectives to more properly
reflect costs of the agency’s objectives. However, the fiscal year 2000
justification did not identify the specific objectives for either the
$85.0 million enacted for fiscal year 1998 nor the $86.6 million requested
for fiscal year 1999. The allocation of funds was not specifically identified
in the justification because EPA does not prepare crosswalks unless asked
to by OMB or congressional committees. Therefore, a clear comparison of
1999 and 2000 budget justifications cannot be made.
Page 6 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
Objectives Do Not Identify • Another aspect that made year-to-year comparisons difficult was EPA’s
Superfund and Science and treatment of funds transferred to Science and Technology from the
Technology Funds agency’s Superfund account. In the fiscal year 2000 justification, the
Science and Technology amounts shown as enacted for fiscal year 1999
include $40 million transferred from the Hazardous Substances Superfund.
In contrast, the requested amounts for fiscal year 2000 do not include the
transfer from the Superfund. As a result, amounts enacted for fiscal year
1999 cannot be accurately compared to the amounts requested for fiscal
year 2000. This discrepancy is particularly evident in the objective Reduce
or Control Risks to Human Health, under the goal Better Waste
Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency
Response. The amounts for Science and Technology as shown in the
budget justification for the objective are shown in table 2.
Table 2: Science and Technology
Funds Requested for the Reduce or Fiscal year 2000
Control Risks to Human Health Fiscal year Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 request vs. fiscal
Objective 1999 request enacted request year 1999 enacted
$6,761,200 $49,809,400 $8,375,200 ($41,434,200)
Source: EPA’s fiscal year 2000 budget justification.
The $49.8 million shown as enacted for fiscal year 1999 includes a
significant amount of the $40 million transferred from the Superfund
account, according to an EPA official. However, because the specific
amount is not shown, an objective-by-objective comparison of the Science
and Technology budget authority for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 cannot be
accurately made, and it appears that EPA is requesting a significant
decrease for this objective. An EPA official stated that the $40 million was
not separately identified because the congressional guidance on
transferring the funds did not specifically state which objectives these
funds were to support.
Other Changes to Objectives • In the fiscal year 1999 budget justification, the strategic goal Better Waste
Management, Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency
Response had three objectives: (1) Reduce or Control Risks to Human
Health, (2) Prevent Releases by Proper Facility Management, and
(3) Respond to All Known Emergencies. In the fiscal year 1999 budget
request, EPA indicated $6.3 million was enacted for Prevent Releases by
Proper Facility Management in fiscal year 1998 and requested $6.6 million
for fiscal year 1999. EPA indicated $1.6 million was enacted for Respond to
All Known Emergencies in fiscal year 1998 and requested $1.6 for fiscal
year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 budget justification omits these two—the
Page 7 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
second and third objectives and does not indicate where the funds
previously directed to those objectives appear. Therefore, a clear
comparison of budget requests year to year cannot be made.
• In the fiscal year 2000 budget justification, EPA added the second
objective—Prevent, Reduce and Respond to Releases, Spills, Accidents,
and Emergencies—to the strategic goal Better Waste Management,
Restoration of Contaminated Waste Sites, and Emergency Response. EPA
indicated that $8.8 million had been enacted for this objective in fiscal year
1999 and requested $9.4 million for this objective for fiscal year 2000. EPA
did not identify which objectives in the fiscal year 1999 budget included
the enacted $8.8 million and therefore a comparison to the prior budget
justification was difficult.
The other changes to the objectives were made as a result of the program
offices’ reassessment of and modifications to subobjectives, which in turn
led to changes in the agency’s objectives. While we do not question EPA’s
revisions of its goals or objectives, the absence of a crosswalk or
explanation does not enable a clear comparison of budget requests year to
year.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or the Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
(160478) Page 8 GAO/T-RCED-99-120
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 Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Environmental Protection Agency: Difficulties in Comparing Annual Budgets for Science and Technology
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-03-18.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)