Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should 
Be Clearer and More Complete (25-AUG-05, GAO-05-461).		 
                                                                 
The Congress has required the administration to report annually  
on federal spending on climate change. The Office of Management  
and Budget (OMB) reports funding in four categories: technology  
(to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), science (to better	 
understand the climate), international assistance (to help	 
developing countries), and tax expenditures (to encourage	 
reductions in emissions). The Climate Change Science Program	 
(CCSP), which coordinates many agencies' activities, reports only
on science. To measure funding, OMB and CCSP use budget 	 
authority, the authority provided in law to enter into financial 
obligations that will result in government outlays. GAO was asked
to examine federal climate change funding for 1993 through 2004, 
as reported by both agencies, including (1) how total funding and
funding by category changed and whether funding data are	 
comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and	 
whether funding data are comparable over time.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-461 					        
    ACCNO:   A34460						        
  TITLE:     Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding
Should Be Clearer and More Complete				 
     DATE:   08/25/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Climate statistics 				 
	     Comparative analysis				 
	     Data collection					 
	     Environmental monitoring				 
	     Federal funds					 
	     Financial analysis 				 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Research programs					 
	     Tax expenditures					 
	     Funds management					 
	     Climate Change Science Program			 
	     U.S. Global Change Research Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-05-461

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                     GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2005

CLIMATE CHANGE

 Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete

                                       a

GAO-05-461

[IMG]

August 2005

CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete

                                 What GAO Found

Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to
$5.1 billion in 2004 (116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3
billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. During
this period, inflationadjusted funding increased for technology and
science, but decreased for international assistance. The share for
technology increased (36 to 56 percent), while the shares for science and
international assistance decreased (56 to 39 percent and 9 to 5 percent,
respectively). However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as
reported because modifications in the format and content of OMB reports
limit the comparability of funding data over time. For example, OMB
reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts to include more
activities, but did not specify how it changed the definitions. Also,
while OMB's totals for science funding were generally comparable to CCSP's
totals, the more detailed data in CCSP reports were difficult to compare
over time because CCSP introduced new categorization methods without
explaining how they related to the previous methods. OMB officials stated
that changes in their reports were due, in part, to the short timeline for
completing them, and that it has not been required to follow a consistent
reporting format from one year to the next. The Director of CCSP said that
its reports changed as the program evolved. GAO was unable to compare
climate-related tax expenditures over time because OMB reported data on
proposed, but not on existing tax expenditures. For example, while OMB
reported no funding for existing climate-related tax expenditures in 2004,
GAO identified four such tax expenditures in 2004, including revenue loss
estimates of $330 million to develop certain renewable energy sources.

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that funded climate change
programs in 2004 increased such funding between 1993 and 2004, but
unexplained changes in the reports' contents limit the comparability of
data on funding by agency. GAO found that OMB reported funding for certain
agencies in some years but not in others, without explanation. For
example, OMB reported funding of $83 million for the Department of Defense
in 2003, but did not list any such funding in prior reports. OMB told GAO
that it relied on agency budget offices to submit accurate data.

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2004

Inflation-adjusted discretionary budget authority in billions of dollars
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

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

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of

the Four Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time

Reported Funding for Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes in
Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time

OMB Reports Presented Information on Budget Authority Rather Than-as
Required by the Congress-on Expenditures and Obligations

Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

1 3 7

9

23

25 27 28 28

Appendixes                                                              
                Appendix I:       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology       30 
               Appendix II: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported 34 
                                                by OMB                     
              Appendix III:  Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported  35 
                                                by OMB                     
              Appendix IV:     Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts     36 
                Appendix V:    Comments from the Climate Change Science    44 
                                               Program                     
              Appendix VI:      GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments      47 

Tables	Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7:

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category,
Selected Years 10
Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and
Years 11
Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program, Selected
Years 16
Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected
Accounts and Years 20
Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected
Years 24
Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported
by OMB, 1993-2004 34
Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB,
1993-2004 35

Contents

         Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004 36

Abbreviations

CBO Congressional Budget Office
CCRI Climate Change Research Initiative
CCSP Climate Change Science Program
CCTP Climate Change Technology Program
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GEF Global Environment Facility
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH National Institutes of Health
NSF National Science Foundation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

A

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, D.C. 20548

August 25, 2005

The Honorable John McCain The Honorable John Kerry United States Senate

The earth's average temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit
over the last 100 years. While this increase seems small, projected
additional changes in temperature, as well as other aspects of the
climate, may alter human social and economic activities. For example,
changes in the frequency and intensity of rainfall, both possible effects
of climate change, could impact crop yields in certain locations. For more
than a decade, the federal government has funded programs to study the
earth's climate and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gases linked to climate change. According to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), 9 of the 15 cabinet-level executive
departments, along with 5 other federal agencies, received funding for
climate change activities in 2004.

OMB, in annual reports and testimony before the Congress, reported climate
change funding for 1993 through 2004 using four categories:

o 	Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment of
technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or increase
energy efficiency. Funding for this category focuses on programs for
energy conservation, renewable energy, and related efforts.

o 	Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand
climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use.

o 	International assistance, which helps developing countries to address
climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency
programs.

o 	Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income
tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage emission
reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to promote the use of
renewable energy.1

Over the same time period, the administration also reported annually on
funding specifically for climate change science, one of the four
categories used in OMB reports. The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)-a multi-agency coordinating group-is currently responsible for
preparing the climate change science reports.

At your request, we examined (1) how total funding and funding by category
changed and the extent to which data on such funding are comparable over
time and (2) how funding by agency changed and the extent to which data on
such funding are comparable over time. We also examined whether OMB and
CCSP reports provided the data required by the Congress.

To determine how federal climate change funding by category and agency
changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports, as well as
congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on
climate change funding were comparable, we analyzed and compared the
contents of the reports. If changes in the reports were not explained, we
asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To examine whether OMB
and CCSP reports provided the data required by the Congress, we reviewed
the reporting requirements, the legislative history of these requirements,
and the data presented by OMB and CCSP in their reports. The term
"funding" in this report reflects discretionary budget authority, or the
authority provided in law to incur financial obligations that will result
in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in their reports.2 Unless
otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for
inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years. When we adjusted for
inflation, we used a fiscal year price index that we calculated based on a
calendar

1The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws may, in
effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax system. The
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended,
requires that the budget include the level of tax expenditures under
existing law. Like the annual lists of tax expenditures prepared by the
Department of the Treasury, this report considers only tax expenditures
related to individual and corporate income taxes and does not address
excise taxes.

2An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority for
climate change programs.

year price index published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual
funding (not estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004, where
we present estimated funding reported by CCSP because actual data are not
available. For the purposes of this report, the term "agency" includes
executive departments and agencies, and we use the term "account" to
describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities
presented in OMB and CCSP reports. Throughout this report, we characterize
all climate change science reports from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports,
even though CCSP has been in existence only since 2002, and reports prior
to 2002 were published by a predecessor organization. Totals and
percentages may not add due to rounding. A more detailed description of
our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I. For presentation
purposes, we show federal climate change funding for 1993, 1997, 2001, and
2004 in report tables. Funding data for 1993 through 2004 are shown in
appendixes II, III, and IV. We performed our work between July 2004 and
August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.

Results in Brief	Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB,
increased from $2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116
percent), or from $3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after
adjusting for inflation, and funding increased for three of the four
categories between 1993 and 2004. However, changes in reporting methods
limit the comparability of funding data over time, and therefore it is
unclear whether total funding actually increased as much as reported. We
were unable to compare changes in the fourth category-climate-related tax
expenditures-because OMB reported estimates for proposed but not existing
tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Specifically, we found that:

o 	Technology funding increased from $845 million to $2.87 billion (239
percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion in inflation-adjusted
dollars (143 percent). The share of total climate change funding devoted
to technology increased from 36 percent to 56 percent. However, we
identified several ways that technology funding presented in OMB's more
recent reports may not be comparable to previously reported technology
funding. For example, OMB added accounts to the technology category that
were not reported before or were presented in different categories, but it
did not explain whether these accounts reflected the creation of new
programs, or a decision to count existing programs for the first time. OMB
also expanded the definitions of some

accounts to include more activities without clarifying how the definitions
were changed.

o 	Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51
percent), according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to $1.98
billion in inflation-adjusted dollars (9 percent). However, its share of
total climate change funding decreased from 56 percent to 39 percent. OMB
and CCSP generally presented consistent climate change science funding
totals from 1993 through 2004. CCSP reports also presented more detailed
data, but these data were difficult to compare over the entire time period
because CCSP periodically introduced new categorization methods without
explaining how the new methods related to the ones they replaced.
Specifically, from 1993 through 2004, CCSP used seven different methods to
present detailed science funding data, making it impossible to develop
consistent funding trends over the entire timeframe.

o 	International assistance funding increased from $201 million to $252
million (a 25 percent increase), but decreased from $280 million to $252
million in inflation-adjusted dollars (a 10 percent decrease). Moreover,
its share of total climate change funding decreased from 9 percent to 5
percent. International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally
comparable over time, although several new accounts were added without
explanation.

o 	Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even
though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of millions
of dollars in revenue forgone by the federal government in fiscal year
2004. Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed
climate-related tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue loss
estimates for existing climate change-related tax expenditures. Whereas
OMB reported no funding for existing climate change-related tax
expenditures in 2004, the most recent federal budget listed four tax
expenditures related to climate change in that year, including estimated
revenue losses of $330 million for incentives to develop certain renewable
energy sources.

OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors
contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For
example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the
report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the upcoming
fiscal year's budget for the three most recent reports) limited

OMB's ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. They also noted that
each report was prepared in response to a one-time requirement and that
they were not directed to use the same report format over time or explain
differences in methodology from one report to another. The director of
CCSP told us that changes to climate change science reports, such as the
creation and deletion of different categorization methods, were made
because CCSP was changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and
categorization methods changed as the program evolved. The director also
said that future reports will explicitly present budget data as it was
reported in prior reports to retain continuity, even if new methods are
introduced. Regarding tax expenditures, OMB officials said that they
consistently included in the reports those proposed tax expenditures where
a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They
also stated that they have not included existing tax expenditures that may
have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for other purposes, and that
the Congress has not provided any guidance to suggest that additional tax
expenditure data should be included in the annual reports.

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for climate
change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had
in 1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as much as was reported
by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports' contents limit
the comparability of agencies' funding data. Reported funding for the
Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most reported
climaterelated funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52
billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion after
adjusting for inflation (88 percent). DOE and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) accounted for 81 percent of the reported
increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However, because agency
funding totals are composed of individual accounts, the changes in the
reports' contents discussed earlier, such as the unexplained addition of
accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of agencies'
funding data over time. For example, OMB reported Army, Navy, Air Force,
and Defense-wide funding totaling $83 million in 2003, and $51 million in
2004, in accounts titled Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, but
did not report these accounts in prior years. OMB did not explain whether
these accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to
count existing programs for the first time. Accordingly, there is some
uncertainty about the Department of Defense's (DOD) climate change funding
over time. OMB stated that it consistently reported funding data for the 3
years presented in each report and that there has been no requirement to
use a

consistent format from one report to the next or to explain differences in
methodology from one report to another.

We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority,
not-as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. The
Congress has required that information be provided on expenditures and
obligations, the amounts actually spent or committed to be spent, while
OMB reports generally have presented information on a different measure,
budget authority, or the amount of funding provided by the Congress. OMB
officials told us that they adopted their approach because the relevant
congressional committees generally use budget authority. They told us that
they continued to report on this basis because these committees have not
objected to OMB's approach. Currently, CCSP is responsible for reporting
information relating to the federal budget and federal funding for climate
change science, not climate change expenditure information. CCSP has
fulfilled recent reporting requirements by providing budget authority
information.

We are recommending that OMB and CCSP, from year-to-year, each use the
same format for presenting data, to the extent that they are able to do so
and remain in compliance with reporting requirements, explain changes in
report content or format when they are introduced, and provide and
maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report structures when changes
in report format are introduced. We are also recommending that OMB include
data on existing climate-related tax expenditures in future reports.
Finally, we are recommending that OMB request that the Congress clarify
whether future reports should be presented in terms of expenditures and
obligations or in terms of budget authority, and if the Congress prefers
the former, OMB should request the necessary time to prepare reports on
that basis.

We received oral comments from OMB on August 1, 2005, and written comments
from CCSP in a letter dated July 28, 2005. OMB agreed with the
recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was
studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our
recommendations.

Background	In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.3
This act, among other things, required the administration to (1) prepare
and at least every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a national
global change research plan, including an estimate of federal funding for
global change research activities to be conducted under the plan; (2) in
each annual budget submission to the Congress, identify the items in each
agency's budget that are elements of the United States Global Change
Research Program (USGCRP), an interagency long-term climate change science
research program; and (3) report annually on climate change "expenditures
required" for the USGCRP.4 In 1992, the United States signed and ratified
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
intended to stabilize the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth's
atmosphere, but did not impose binding limits on emissions. Five years
later, the United States participated in drafting the Kyoto Protocol, an
international agreement to specifically limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The Protocol did not impose limits on developing nations' emissions, and
its possible effect on the U.S. economy was the subject of numerous
studies. Although the U.S. government signed the Protocol in 1998, it was
not submitted to the Senate for ratification. In March 2001, President
Bush announced that he opposed the Protocol.

In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration
reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change
science in reports titled Our Changing Planet. 5 From 1990 through 2001,
the reports presented detailed science funding data for the USGCRP.
Federal climate change science programs were reorganized in 2001 and 2002.
In 2001, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was created to
coordinate short-term climate change research focused on reducing
uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and integrate
USGCRP and CCRI activities. Since 2002, CCSP has been responsible for

3Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated pursuant
to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No.
104-66, S: 3003 (1995)).

4The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures was
terminated effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had called
for "(A) the amounts spent during the fiscal year most recently ended; (B)
the amounts expected to be spent during the current fiscal year; and (C)
the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the budget is being
submitted."

5To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from 1993
through 2004, we reviewed reported science funding from 1993 through 2004.

meeting the reporting requirement and has published the Our Changing
Planet reports. The most recent report in this series was published in
July 2004, and the next report is expected to be available in late-2005.

In March 1998, OMB, in response to a congressional requirement for a
detailed account of climate change expenditures and obligations, issued a
brief report summarizing federal agency programs related to global climate
change. In August 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in response
to a request from the Senate Committee on the Budget, issued a more
detailed report on the same topic. OMB produced another climate change
expenditures report in March 1999, in response to a similar requirement.
OMB's 1999 report and CBO's 1998 report both presented federal climate
change funding using four categories: technology, science, international
assistance, and tax expenditures. As we testified in 1999, these reports
presented generally comparable information.6 In response to a request at
that hearing, OMB provided climate change funding data for 1993 through
1998 for the hearing record.

Each year since 1999, the Congress has included a provision in annual
appropriations laws requiring OMB to report in detail all federal agency
obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for climate
change programs and activities. As a result of these reporting
requirements, OMB annually publishes the Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress, which presents federal climate change
funding for the technology, science, and international assistance
categories, and tax expenditures. The climate change activities and
associated costs presented in OMB reports must be identified by line item
as presented in the President's budget appendix. OMB has interpreted this
to mean that the data in the reports must be shown by budget account. For
the last 3 years, the Congress has required that the administration
produce reports for climate change expenditures and obligations for the
current fiscal year within 45 days after the submission of the President's
budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. OMB's most recent report was
released in March 2005.

OMB reports include a wide range of federal climate-related programs and
activities. Some activities, like scientific research on global
environmental change by USGCRP, are explicitly climate change programs,
whereas

6Climate Change: Observations on the April 1999 Report on Climate Change
Programs, GAO/T-RCED-99-199, May 20, 1999.

others, such as many technology initiatives, are not solely for climate
change purposes. For example, OMB reports included some programs that were
started after the United States ratified the Framework Convention in 1992,
and were specifically designed to encourage businesses and others to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, for example, by installing more
efficient lighting. OMB reports also included programs that were expanded
or initiated in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo to support such
activities as energy conservation (to use energy more efficiently),
renewable energy (to substitute for fossil fuels), and fossil energy (to
make more efficient use of fossil fuels), all of which can help to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, but were not initially developed as climate
change programs.

  Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four
  Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time

Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35
billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from $3.28
billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation and
also increased for technology, science, and international assistance
between 1993 and 2004, as shown in table 1. However, changes in reporting
methods limit the comparability of funding data over time, and therefore
it is unclear whether funding increased as much as reported by OMB.
Technology funding increased as a share of total funding over time, while
science and international assistance funding declined as shares of the
total because technology funding increased at a faster rate than the other
categories. OMB did not report estimates for existing climate-related tax
expenditures during this time period, although climate-related tax
expenditures amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue
forgone by the federal government in fiscal year 2004. OMB officials told
us that changes in reporting methods were due to such reasons as the short
amount of time available to prepare the report, the fact that the
reporting requirement is not permanent law, but appears each year in
appropriations legislation, and changes in administration policy and
priorities.

  Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected Years
 Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars Tax expendituresa Total
                          $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $5,090

                            Category      1993    1997      2001         2004 
                          Technology      $845   $1,056    $1,675      $2,868 
                             Science   1,306     1,656      1,728       1,976 
            International assistance       201        164       218 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

aOMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related
tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.

Technology	From 1993 through 2004, technology funding increased as a share
of total federal climate funding from 36 percent to 56 percent, as
reported by OMB. Over this time period, technology funding increased from
$845 million to $2.87 billion (239 percent), or adjusted for inflation,
from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion (143 percent). For example, funding
for energy conservation increased from $346 million to $868 million, and
funding for renewable energy increased from $249 million to $352 million.
Funding data for the seven largest accounts, which accounted for 92
percent of technology funding in 2004, are presented for selected years in
table 2. Year-by-year data on technology funding are available in
appendixes II and IV.

Table 2: Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and Years
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollar

          Agency                  Account           1993  1997   2001  
Department of Energy     Energy Conservation     $346  $414   $810    $868 
                           Energy Supply -Fossil    250   201    292   
                            Energy Research and                        
                             Development (R&D)                         
                          Energy Supply -Renewable  249   244    370   
                                   Energy                              
                              Science (Fusion,                      35 
                             Sequestration, and                        
                                 Hydrogen)a                            
                          Energy Supply -Nuclearb                   39 
National Aeronautics  Exploration, Science, and                     
            and                 Aeronautics                            
Space Administration                                                
       Environmental     Environmental Programs and          70     96 
        Protection               Management                            
          Agency                                                       
           Other                                          127       33 
           Total                                    $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the
technology category for this account for this year.

aSequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases that
otherwise could contribute to global climate change.

bFor 2001 Energy Supply -Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear Energy
Research Initiative and Energy Supply - Nuclear budget accounts as
presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present these accounts for 2004,
and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative within the
Energy Supply - Nuclear account.

We identified three ways that the figures on technology funding presented
in OMB's three most recent reports may not be comparable to the figures
presented in previous reports. First, OMB added accounts that were not
previously presented. For example, OMB reported that NASA had $152 million
in funding for technology-related activities that included research to
reduce emissions associated with aircraft operations in 2003. OMB did not
report this account in the technology category in 2002. Additional NASA
funding in the same account was reported in the science category in 2002
and 2003. Further, OMB reported that the Department of Commerce's National
Institute of Standards and Technology received funding of $40 million in
2003, to develop climate change measurement instruments and standards,
among other activities. OMB did not report this account in 2002. About 47
percent of the reported $918-million increase in technology funding from
2002 to 2003, the largest year-to-year increase of the time period we
studied, was due to the inclusion of new accounts that were not previously
reported. In addition, OMB included and removed some

accounts, without explanation, from reports in years other than 2003. For
example, OMB reported combined funding of $195 million in 1999, and $200
million in 2000, for bio-based products and bio-energy at the Departments
of Energy and Agriculture. No funding for these accounts was reported from
1993 through 1998 or from 2001 through 2004. In each of these cases, OMB
did not explain whether the new accounts reflected the creation of new
programs, a decision to count an existing program for the first time, or a
decision to re-classify funding from different categories as technology
funding.

According to OMB officials, these changes in report structure and content
for technology funding, as well as similar changes in science and
international assistance funding, were the result of time constraints and
other factors. They told us that the short timeline required by the
Congress for completing the report (within 45 days of submitting the
upcoming year's budget for the three most recent reports) limited OMB's
ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. They said that they must
rely on funding estimates quickly developed by agencies in order to
produce the report within the specified timeframe, and that the reports
are often compilations of agency activities and programs, some of which
may or may not have been presented separately in prior years. Moreover,
these officials told us that the presentation of data has changed over
time for a variety of other reasons, including changes in administration
priorities and policy, changes in congressional direction, changes to
budget and account structures, and attempts to more accurately reflect the
reporting requirement as specified in the annual appropriations language.
The officials also stated that in each report, they ensured consistency
for the 3 years covered (prior year, current year, and budget year).

Furthermore, OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts
in the technology category, as well as the international assistance
category, was due to the establishment of new programs and the inclusion
of existing programs. They told us that the account-by-account display in
the reports has been changed over time as the CCSP and the Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP), a multi-agency technology research and
development coordinating structure similar to the CCSP, have become better
defined.

Second, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts to
include more activities, but did not specify how the definitions were
changed. We found that over 50 percent of the increase in technology
funding from 2002 to 2003 was due to increases in two existing DOE
accounts: nuclear energy supply and science (fusion, sequestration, and
hydrogen). OMB reported funding of $32 million in 2002, and $257 million
in 2003, for the nuclear energy supply account.7 Further, OMB reported
funding of $35 million in 2002, and $298 million in 2003, for the science
(fusion, sequestration, and hydrogen) account. Although OMB stated in its
May 2004 report that 2003 funding data included more activities within
certain accounts, including the research and development of nuclear and
fusion energy, the report was unclear about whether the funding increases
for these two existing accounts were due to the addition of more programs
to the accounts or increased funding for existing programs already counted
in the accounts. Further, if new programs were counted in these accounts,
OMB did not specify what programs were added and why.

OMB officials told us that the definitions of some accounts were changed
to include more nuclear programs because, while the prior administration
did not consider nuclear programs to be part of its activities relating to
climate change, the current administration does consider them to be a key
part of the CCTP.

Third, OMB did not maintain the distinction that it had made in previous
reports between funding for programs whose primary focus is climate change
and programs where climate change is not the primary focus. As a result,
certain accounts in the technology category were consolidated into larger
accounts. From 1993 through 2001, OMB presented funding data as directly
or indirectly related to climate change. The former programs are those for
which climate change is a primary purpose, such as renewable energy
research and development. The latter are programs that have another
primary purpose, but which support climate change goals. For example,
grants to help low-income people weatherize their dwellings are intended
primarily to reduce heating costs, but may also help reduce the
consumption of fossil fuels. OMB did not maintain the distinction between
the two kinds of programs for 2002, 2003, and 2004 funding data. For

7We counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) account as
Nuclear Energy Supply funding for 2002. The NERI account is counted in the
aggregate Energy Supply - Nuclear budget account in OMB's 2004 and 2005
reports, and is no longer presented separately.

example, OMB presented energy conservation funding of $810 million in
2001, including $619 million in direct research and development funding,
and $191 million in indirect funding for weatherization and state energy
grants. In contrast, 2002 funding data presented by OMB reflected energy
conservation funding of $897 million, including $622 million in research
and development, $230 million for weatherization, and $45 million for
state energy grants, but did not distinguish between direct and indirect
funding. OMB presented energy conservation funding of $880 million in
2003, and $868 million in 2004, as single accounts without any additional
detail.

OMB officials stated that they had adopted a different approach to
reporting climate change funding to reflect the new program structures as
the CCSP and CCTP were being established. They stated that the result was,
in some cases, an aggregation of activities that may have previously been
reported in separate accounts. According to the officials, the 2003 and
2004 data more accurately reflect the range of climate change-related
programs as they are now organized. OMB included a crosswalk in its May
2004 report that showed 2003 funding levels as they would have been
presented using the methodology of previous reports. While the crosswalk
identified funding for accounts that were presented in previous reports,
it did not identify new funding reported by OMB or specify whether such
funding was the result of counting new programs, a decision to start
counting existing programs as climate change-related, or shifts between
categories. OMB officials told us that the reporting methodology has
changed since the initial reports and that it may be difficult to resolve
the differences because of changes in budget and account structure.
Finally, they noted that each report has been prepared in response to a
one-time requirement and that there has been no requirement for a
consistent reporting format from one year to the next or to explain
differences in methodology from one report to another.

Science	According to both OMB and CCSP, the share of total climate change
funding devoted to science decreased from 56 percent in 1993 to 39 percent
in 2004, even though science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98
billion (51 percent), or from $1.82 billion to $1.98 billion (9 percent)
after adjusting for inflation. For example, according to OMB, funding for
NASA on activities such as the satellite measurement of atmospheric ozone
concentrations increased from $888 million to $1.26 billion.8

OMB reported new science funding for 2003 and 2004 to reflect the creation
of CCRI. Funding for CCRI increased from $41 million in 2003, the first
year funding for CCRI was presented, to $173 million in 2004, and included
funding by most of the agencies presented in table 3. We present funding
for CCRI as a separate program to illustrate the new organization's role
in increasing reported climate change funding. Table 3 presents funding as
reported by OMB for the eight largest agencies and programs in the science
category, which account for 99 percent of the science total for 2004.
Yearby-year data on science funding are available in appendixes II and IV.

8The $1.26 billion figure includes NASA's reported funding for the United
States Global Change Research Program. NASA funding for CCRI is reported
separately.

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

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

      Agency or program            Account          1993  1997   2001    2004 
            NASAa           Science, Aeronautics,   $888 $1,218 $1,176 $1,256 
                               and Technology                          
       National Science     Research and Related     124    166    181 
          Foundation             Activities                            
             CCRI           Various accounts for                       
                               eight agencies                          
             DOE             Science (Biological     118    109    116 
                              and Environmental                        
                                  Research)                            
    Department of Commerce  Operations, Research,     66     60     93 
          -National            and Facilities                          
Oceanic and Atmospheric                                             
        Administration                                                 
        Department of       Agriculture Research      55     57     51 
         Agriculture            Service and 4                          
                               other accounts                          
Department of Health and  National Institutes                    54 
            Human              of Health (NIH)                         
           Services                                                    
Department of Interior -                           22     26     27 
       U.S. Geological      Surveys and Research                       
            Survey                                                     
            Other                                     33     20     30 
            Total                                 $1,306 $1,656 $1,728 $1,976 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB generally presented climate science
funding with one account per agency.

aBeginning in 2004, NASA funding reflects full-cost accounting, meaning
institutional activities such as personnel and facilities (which had been
held in separate accounts) are included. NASA's climate change funding
varies based on changes in its budget for space observing platforms, the
natural development cycle of its satellites, and revisions to mission
profiles.

Science funding data from 1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB and CCSP,
were generally comparable, although there were more discrepancies in
earlier years than in later years.9 Science funding totals reported by
CCSP from 1993 through 1997 were within 3 percent of the OMB totals for
all years except 1996 and 1997. Science funding totals reported by CCSP in
1996 and 1997 were $156 million (9 percent) and $162 million (10 percent)
higher than those reported by OMB. Over 90 percent of the difference for
these years occurred because CCSP reported greater funding for NASA than
OMB reported. CCSP stated in its fiscal year 1998 report that it increased
its 1996 and 1997 budget figures to reflect the reclassification of
certain programs and activities in some agencies that were not previously
included in the science funding total.

Total science funding reported by OMB and CCSP from 1998 through 2004 was
identical for 4 of the 7 years. The largest difference for the 3 years
that were not identical was $8 million in 2001, which represented less
than 1 percent of the science funding total reported by OMB for that year.
The other differences in total science funding were $3 million in 2002,
and $1 million in 1999, and each represented less than 1 percent of the
OMB science total for those years.

Science funding by agency, as presented by OMB and CCSP from 1993 through
1997, differed in many cases, with the exception of funding for the
National Science Foundation (NSF), which was nearly identical over that
time period. For example, CCSP reported $143 million more funding for NASA
in 1996 than OMB reported, and OMB reported $24.9 million more funding for
DOE in 1994 than CCSP reported. The greatest dollar difference related to
NASA's funding in 1997. Whereas OMB reported funding of $1.22 billion,
CCSP reported funding of $1.37 billion-$151 million, or 12 percent more
than the OMB amount. The greatest percentage difference related to the
Department of the Interior's funding in 1993. Whereas OMB reported funding
of $22 million, CCSP reported funding of $37.7 million-$15.7 million, or
71 percent more than reported by OMB. Further, from 1993 through 1997, OMB
did not report science funding by some agencies that were reported by
CCSP. For example, CCSP reported that DOD's funding ranged from $5.7 to
$6.6 million from 1993 through 1995, and that the

9CCSP's most recent report (July 2004) presents estimated 2004 funding,
whereas OMB's most recent report (March 2005) presents actual 2004
funding. Whenever we compare 2004 science funding as reported by OMB and
CCSP, we are comparing estimated 2004 funding presented in OMB's May 2004
report and CCSP's July 2004 report.

Tennessee Valley Authority received funding of $1 million or less per year
from 1993 through 1997, but OMB did not report any such funding.

OMB officials told us that data used for the 1993 through 1997 science
funding comparison with CCSP were collected too long ago to be able to
identify the differences. However, they stated that the data from early
years were produced in a very short period for use in testimony or
questions for the record. According to OMB, this quick turnaround did not
allow time for a thorough consistency check with other data sources.

From 1998 through 2004, OMB and CCSP data on funding by agency were nearly
identical. Both OMB and CCSP reported science funding for nine agencies
over the entire 7-year period, for a total of 63 agency funding amounts.
Of these, 52, or 83 percent, matched exactly. Of the 11 differences, there
was one difference of $8 million, one of $2 million, and nine of $1
million or less. The greatest difference from 1998 through 2004 was $8
million in funding for the Department of Commerce in 2001, which was 9
percent of the Department of Commerce total, or less than 1 percent of
total science funding as reported by OMB for that year.

In addition to presenting data on funding by agency and total science
funding, CCSP included more detailed science data in its Our Changing
Planet reports. CCSP used several ways of categorizing data on science
funding in its reports, but the data were difficult to compare over the
entire time period because CCSP periodically introduced new categorization
methods without explaining how the new methods could be compared with the
ones they replaced. Specifically, from 1993 through 2004, in addition to
reported funding by agency, CCSP used seven different methods to present
detailed science funding data, making it impossible to develop consistent
funding trends over the entire timeframe. For example, CCSP presented
climate change science funding from 1993 through 1998 by budget function,
a method that presents funding by agency in categories such as energy,
agriculture, and natural resources and environment. CCSP presented science
funding data for 1998 by budget function and also by research element, a
new categorization method that divided funding by major components of the
earth's environmental systems, such as "Global Water Cycle" and
"Atmospheric Composition." In subsequent Our Changing Planet reports, CCSP
continued to use the research element categorization method to present
science funding, but stopped using the budget function method without
explaining how the two methods compared to each other. As a consequence,
the detailed science funding trends presented by budget

function from 1993 through 1998 cannot be compared to funding presented by
research element from 1998 through 2004.

From 1999 through 2004, in addition to funding by agency, CCSP used two
categorization methods, but these methods changed, making comparisons over
time difficult. The two other categorization methods employed by CCSP
included research element, described above, and program by agency, which
listed funding by specific programs within each agency. Both of these
methods changed from 1999 through 2004. For example, the research elements
used to categorize funding in 2000 included "Understanding the Climate
System," "Understanding the Composition and Chemistry of the Atmosphere,"
"Global Water Cycle," "Global Carbon Cycle," "Understanding Changes in
Ecosystems," "Understanding the Human Dimensions of Global Change," and
"Paleoclimate: The History of the Earth System." In contrast, the research
elements that were used to categorize 2004 funding eliminated the
"Paleoclimate" element and added a "Land Use" element.

Further, the program by agency categorization method became less detailed
over time. For funding from 1993 through 2001, this method included
comparable program descriptions and presented program-specific funding by
agency. Reported funding for 2002, 2003, and 2004 generally continued this
presentation style, but some agencies replaced the program
specific funding with less detailed funding categorizations. For example,
from 1993 through 2000, CCSP presented detailed funding for certain NASA
programs, including funding for the Earth Observing System, a series of
satellites and advanced data systems designed to study clouds, atmospheric
chemistry, and other processes. However, CCSP presented less detail for
NASA's funding from 2001 through 2004, and did not present funding by
specific program over this time period. As a consequence, NASA's funding
for the Earth Observing System and other specific programs can no longer
be identified in the CCSP reports. Similarly, CCSP presented less detail
for NSF funding from 2002 through 2004.

The director of CCSP told us that changes to reports, such as the creation
and deletion of different categorization methods, were made because CCSP
is changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and that categorization
methods changed as the program evolved. The director also said that future
reports will explicitly present budget data as they were reported in prior
reports to retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. Another
CCSP official told us that CCSP now works with OMB to ensure that
consistent funding information is presented in Our Changing Planet

reports and OMB reports, and that, beginning with the fiscal year 2006
report (to be published in late-2005), CCSP will attempt to explain when
and why changes are made to reporting methods.

International Assistance	From 1993 through 2004, international assistance
funding decreased from 9 percent to 5 percent of total federal funding on
climate change, as reported by OMB. Over the same time period,
international assistance funding increased from $201 million to $252
million (an increase of 25 percent), but after adjusting for inflation,
decreased from $280 million to $252 million (a decrease of 10 percent).
For example, reported funding for the Department of the Treasury to help
developing countries invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and
the development of clean energy technologies, such as fuel cells,
increased from zero in 1993 to $32 million in 2004. Table 4 presents
funding as reported by OMB for the three largest accounts in the
international assistance category. Year-by-year data on international
assistance funding are available in appendixes II and IV.

Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected Accounts and Years

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

                       Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

Development Assistance $200 $147 $112 $125 Assistance for the Independent
States

31

                           of the Former Soviet Union

Department of the Treasury Global Environment Facilitya 14 41

Other 1 334

                           Total $201 $164 $218 $252

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the
international assistance category for this account for this year.

aOMB did not include the Department of the Treasury's funding for the
Global Environment Facility (GEF) in the international assistance category
from 1994 through 2001. OMB presented GEF funding in the international
assistance category from 2002 through 2004. To maintain consistency, we
included GEF funding in the international assistance category from 1994
through 2004 for the purposes of this report.

International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally comparable
over time, although some new accounts were added without explanation. For
example, OMB reported climate change funding of $2 million in 2003 and $3
million in 2004 by USAID on the Andean

Counterdrug Initiative, but OMB did not report funding for this account in
previous years. According to OMB, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative
promoted carbon capture and sequestration by reducing illicit coca
production in Peru. In its reports, OMB did not provide an explanation of
whether such new accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a
decision to count existing programs as climate change-related for the
first time. OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts in
the international assistance category was due to the establishment of new
programs and the inclusion of existing programs. They told us that the
account-by-account display in the reports has been changed over time as
climate change programs have become better defined.

Tax Expenditures	Although not required to provide information on tax
expenditures related to climate change, OMB reported certain information
related to climate
related tax expenditures for each year. Specifically, it listed proposed
climate-related tax expenditures appearing in the President's budget, but
it did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax
expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Based on the Department of the
Treasury's tax expenditure list published in the 2006 budget,10 we
identified four existing tax expenditures that have purposes similar to
programs reported by OMB in its climate change reports. In 2004, estimated
revenue losses amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars for the
following tax expenditures:11

o 	$330 million in revenue losses was estimated for new technology tax
credits to reduce the cost of generating electricity from renewable
resources. A credit of 10 percent was available for investment in solar
and geothermal energy facilities. In addition, a credit of 1.5 cents was
available per kilowatt hour of electricity produced from renewable
resources such as biomass, poultry waste, and wind facilities.

10The Department of the Treasury reported 2004 tax expenditures in the
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical
Perspectives volume, chapter 19.

11The Department of the Treasury calculated each tax expenditure estimate
assuming other parts of the tax code remained unchanged. Because tax
provisions can be interdependent, we do not report the mathematical sum of
the revenue losses estimated for the four climate
related tax expenditures, and instead present this general gauge of the
magnitude of revenue forgone for climate-related tax expenditures.

o 	$100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded interest on
energy facility bonds to reduce the cost of investing in certain
hydroelectric and solid waste disposal facilities. The interest earned on
state and local bonds used to finance the construction of certain
hydroelectric generating facilities was tax exempt. Some solid waste
disposal facilities that produced electricity also qualified for this
exemption.

o 	$100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded income from
conservation subsidies provided by public utilities to reduce the cost of
purchasing energy-efficient technologies. Residential utility customers
could exclude from their taxable income energy conservation subsidies
provided by public utilities. Customers could exclude subsidies used for
installing or modifying certain equipment that reduced energy consumption
or improved the management of energy demand.

o 	$70 million in revenue losses was estimated for tax incentives for the
purchase of clean fueled vehicles to reduce automobile emissions. A tax
credit of 10 percent, not to exceed $4,000, was available to purchasers of
electric vehicles. Purchasers of vehicles powered by compressed natural
gas, hydrogen, alcohol, and other clean fuels could deduct up to $50,000
of the vehicle purchase costs from their taxable income, depending upon
the weight and cost of the vehicle. Similarly, owners of refueling
properties could deduct up to $100,000 for the purchase of re
fueling equipment for clean fueled vehicles.

OMB officials said that they consistently reported proposed tax
expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. They also stated that they did not include existing tax
expenditures that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for
other purposes, and that the Congress has provided no guidance to suggest
additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual reports.

OMB's decision criteria for determining which tax expenditures to include
differed in two key respects from its criteria for determining which
accounts to include. First, OMB presented funding for existing as well as
proposed accounts, but presented information only on proposed, but not
existing, tax expenditures. Second, OMB presented funding for programs
where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
as well as for programs that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were
enacted for other purposes. However, OMB presented information only on

proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.

  Reported Funding for Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes in
  Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for climate
change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had
in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as
reported by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports' contents
limit the comparability of agencies' funding data. From 1993 through 2004,
climate change funding for DOE increased more than any other agency, from
$963 million to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.56 billion (162
percent). Adjusted for inflation, such funding increased from $1.34
billion to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.18 billion (88 percent).
The second largest increase in agency funding was for NASA, which received
a $660 million (74 percent) increase in funding over the same time period.
NASA's funding increased $310 million (25 percent) over this period after
adjusting for inflation. The funding increases for these two agencies
accounted for 81 percent of the reported total increase in federal climate
change funding from 1993 through 2004. Conversely, USAID experienced the
largest decrease in funding-from $200 million in 1993 to $195 million in
2004 (3 percent), or, in inflation-adjusted terms, from $279 million to
$195 million (30 percent).

From 1993 through 2004, eight agencies' funding increased as a share of
the total federal funding for climate change, while the other six
agencies' funding decreased as a share of the total. DOE's funding
increased at a faster rate than other agencies from 1993 through 2004,
meaning its share increased more than the funding shares of other
agencies. For example, DOE's share of total climate change funding
increased from 41 percent in 1993, to 49 percent in 2004, for a share
increase of almost 9 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
experienced the next largest share increase from 1 percent of the total in
1993, to 2 percent of the total in 2004, for a share increase of 1
percent. By contrast, although NASA's climate change funding increased by
$660 million, its share decreased from 38 percent in 1993, to 30 percent
in 2004, because its funding did not increase as fast as some other
agencies, most notably DOE. Table 5 presents funding as reported by OMB
for selected agencies. Year-by-year data on funding by agency are
available in appendix III.

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

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

                               Agency      1993      1997      2001      2004 
                                  DOE      $963      $968  $1,665      $2,519 
                                 NASA       888   1,218     1,176       1,548 
                                  NSF       124       222       181       226 
                                USAID       200       147       157       195 
               Department of Commerce        66       102        93       144 
                                  EPA        26        99       146       127 
            Department of Agriculture        55        57        54       115 
                                Other        30        63       131       216 
                                Total    $2,352  $2,876    $3,603      $5,090 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Unexplained changes in the content of OMB reports limit the comparability
of agencies' funding data, and therefore it is unclear whether funding
changed as much as was reported by OMB. Because agency funding totals are
composed of individual accounts, the changes in the reports' contents
discussed earlier, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the
technology category, limit the comparability of agencies' funding data
over time. For example, OMB reported Army, Navy, Air Force, and
Defense-wide funding totaling $83 million in 2003, and $51 million in
2004, in accounts titled Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, but
did not report these accounts for prior years. OMB did not explain whether
these accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to
count existing programs for the first time. Accordingly, there is some
uncertainty about DOD's climate change funding over time. Similarly, OMB
reported funding for other agencies in some years but not in others,
without explanation. For example, OMB did not report any funding for the
Department of Transportation from 2000 through 2002, but reported funding
of $27 million in 2003, and $9 million in 2004, for the development of
hydrogen fuel cells.12 OMB also presented $10 million of funding for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1999 and 2000, but in no
other years.

12OMB reported climate change funding for the Department of Transportation
for research related to automobile safety ranging from $3 million to $13
million from 1995 through 1999.

OMB officials told us that agencies can be included in reports for the
first time when new initiatives or programs are started, such as the CCTP.
In some cases, those initiatives or programs are made up of entirely new
funding but in other cases they may be additions on top of a small amount
of base funding. These officials told us that agencies sometimes include
data that were not previously reported when they requested funding for
those initiatives, but they assured us that the data are reported
consistently for the 3 years presented in each report.

  OMB Reports Presented Information on Budget Authority Rather Than-as Required
  by the Congress-on Expenditures and Obligations

The federal budget process is complex, and there are numerous steps that
culminate in the outlay of federal funds. Among the key steps in this
process are the following, as defined by OMB:

o 	Budget authority means the authority provided in law to incur financial
obligations that will result in outlays.

o 	Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays,
immediately or in the future.

o 	Outlays are payments to liquidate an obligation. The Congress, in the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, has
defined outlays as being the expenditures and net lending of funds under
budget authority.

In simplified terms, budget authority precedes obligations, which precede
outlays in the process of spending federal funds.

As noted above, since 1999, the Congress has required the President to
submit a report each year to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations describing in detail all federal agency obligations and
expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and
activities. In response, OMB has annually published the Federal Climate
Change Expenditures Report to Congress that presents budget authority
information in summary data tables instead of obligations and
expenditures, as the title of the report and the table titles suggest. For
example, although the March 2005 report's summary table is entitled in
bold as a "Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures," the table's
data are presented in terms of budget authority. The only indication that
the table presents budget authority information, rather than expenditures,
is a parenthetical statement to that effect in a significantly smaller
font.

OMB officials told us that the term "expenditures" is used in the report
title and text because that is the term used most often in the legislative
language. They also said that the reports present data in terms of budget
authority because OMB has always interpreted the bill and report language
to request the budget authority levels for each activity in a particular
year. They stated further that, from a technical budget standpoint,
expenditures are usually synonymous with outlays, and that one way to
think of budget authority is that it is the level of expenditures (over a
period of one or more years) that is made available in a particular
appropriations bill. OMB views this as an appropriate interpretation of
the congressional requirements since the Committees on Appropriations work
with budget authority and not outlays. Moreover, OMB told us that the
Appropriations Committees have never objected to its interpretation of
"obligations and expenditures" as budget authority and that OMB has always
identified the data provided in the table as budget authority.

We have several concerns with OMB's approach. First, OMB's approach of
reporting budget authority does not comply with the language of the annual
legal requirements to report on climate change "obligations and
expenditures." Second, in reviewing the legislative history of these
reporting requirements, we found no support for OMB's interpretation that
when the Congress called for "obligations and expenditures" information,
it actually meant "budget authority" information. Third, OMB's
interpretation is not consistent with its own Circular A-11, which defines
budget authority as stated above, not as actual obligations and
expenditures. Nonetheless, we recognize that it is not possible for OMB to
meet the most recent reporting requirements because it must provide a
report on climate change obligations and expenditures for the current
fiscal year within 45 days of submitting the President's budget for the
following fiscal year (which must be submitted the first Monday of
February). For example, the President submitted the fiscal year 2006
budget on February 7, 2005, so OMB's report on fiscal year 2005 climate
change expenditures and obligations had to be submitted in March
2005-approximately halfway through the 2005 fiscal year. However, complete
expenditures data are available only after the end of each fiscal year.
Thus, OMB could not meet both the timing requirement and report all actual
expenditures and obligations in fiscal year 2005.

CCSP has also reported budget authority data in its Our Changing Planet
reports. As noted above, CCSP, or its predecessor organization, initially
was required to report annually on certain climate change "amounts spent,"
"amounts expected to be spent," and "amounts requested," but this
reporting requirement was terminated in 2000. Currently, CCSP is

responsible for reporting information relating to the federal budget and
federal funding for climate change science, not climate change expenditure
information. Since 2000, CCSP has fulfilled these reporting requirements
by providing budget authority information in its Our Changing Planet
reports.

Conclusions	The Congress has required the administration to provide
reports on federal climate change spending, funding, and requested
funding. From year to year there were numerous changes in the format and
content of OMB and CCSP reports, but the reasons for such changes have
generally not been well explained. Consequently, these reports-taken
collectively-do not provide a fully comparable picture of funding or
spending trends, and the Congress and the public cannot consistently track
federal climate change funding or spending over time. Accordingly, it is
unclear whether funding or spending has changed as much as was reported.
Even though the agencies have not been required to follow a consistent
reporting format from one year to the next, we believe the Congress would
have better information for policy decisions if OMB and CCSP clearly
explained changes in report content and format when they occurred and
communicated how such changes affected trends over time.

Further, even though OMB is not required to include information on tax
expenditures in its reports, it included certain information on proposed
tax expenditures each year. In order to present a complete picture of
federal resources supporting climate-related activities, we believe that
OMB should also include information on existing tax expenditures. For the
same reason, we believe that OMB should use the same criteria for
determining what types of tax expenditures to include in its reports as it
uses in determining which funding accounts to include.

We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority,
not-as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. OMB is
aware of this discrepancy because it uses the term "expenditures" in the
reports' titles and tables, but presents budget authority data. Although
OMB asserts that this approach is sufficient because the Committees on
Appropriations have not objected, and while we recognize that it is not
possible for OMB to meet both the substantive and timing requirements for
the reports, we believe that OMB should take the initiative regarding
future reporting requirements and request that the Congress specify that
the reports should include budget authority information or provide OMB
with additional time so that it can report actual expenditures and
obligations.

  Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure that the Congress and the public can consistently track
federal climate change funding or spending over time, we are making the
following seven recommendations.

We recommend that OMB and CCSP,

o 	from year-to-year, each use the same format for presenting data, to the
extent that they may do so and remain in compliance with reporting
requirements;

o 	explain changes in report content or format when they are introduced;
and

o 	provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report
structures when changes in report format are introduced.

We also recommend that OMB

o 	include information on existing climate-related tax expenditures in its
reports,

o 	use the same criteria for determining which tax expenditures to include
as it uses for determining which accounts to include;

o 	request that the Congress clarify whether future reports should be
presented in terms of expenditures and obligations or in terms of budget
authority, and if the Congress prefers the former, OMB should request the
necessary time to prepare reports on that basis; and

o 	if it continues to report budget authority rather than expenditures and
obligations, clearly identify the information reported as budget authority
throughout the report.

Agency Comments and 	We provided a draft of this report to the Director,
OMB, and the Director, CCSP, for their review and comment. The Deputy
Associate Director of

Our Evaluation	OMB's Natural Resources Division provided oral comments on
August 1, 2005. He said that OMB agreed with most of our recommendations.
Specifically, he said OMB agreed with our recommendations regarding the
format and content of its reports, and was studying the recommendations on
its presentation of tax expenditure data and use of budget terminology.

The Director, CCSP, provided comments in a letter dated July 28, 2005,
(see app. V). CCSP stated that the report presents a fair assessment of
how CCSP documents and presents budget information, and agreed with all of
our recommendations.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from
its issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the
Director, CCSP; Director, OMB; and other interested officials. We will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.
GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in
appendix VI,

John B. Stephenson Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I

                       Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines federal climate change funding from 1993 through
2004, as reported by OMB and CCSP to determine (1) how total funding and
funding by category changed and the extent to which data on such funding
are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and the
extent to which data on such funding are comparable over time. To answer
these objectives we analyzed annual reports and congressional testimony on
climate change funding. If changes in the reports were not explained, we
asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To examine whether OMB
and CCSP reports presented the data required by the Congress, we reviewed
the reporting requirements, the legislative history of the requirements,
and the data provided by OMB and CCSP in their reports.

OMB presented federal climate change funding from 1993 through 1998 in
testimony before the Congress, and from 1999 through 2004 in annual
reports. The administration also reported annually from 1993 through 2004
on funding for climate change science, one of the four categories used in
OMB reports. The term "funding" in this report reflects discretionary
budget authority, or the authority provided in law to incur financial
obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in
their reports. For each annual report, OMB and CCSP generally presented
estimated funding for the year of the report, actual funding for the
previous year, and proposed funding for the next year. For example, OMB's
July 2002 report includes actual funding for fiscal year 2001, estimated
funding for fiscal year 2002, and proposed funding for fiscal year 2003.
We analyzed the most recently reported actual funding (not estimates)
reported by OMB and CCSP. The exceptions were 1993, 1994, and 2004, where
we present estimated science funding for CCSP.1

1CCSP's reports presented estimated funding for 1993 and 1994, and did not
include actual funding amounts for these years. CCSP's fiscal year 2006
report is expected to be published in late-2005.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We consolidated actual funding data presented in OMB and CCSP reports and
testimony. OMB reports presented climate change funding in four categories
(technology, science, international assistance, and tax expenditures), and
reports prior to 2002 also distinguished between direct and indirect
climate change funding.2 We assembled a consolidated OMB account table
(shown in app. IV) using the four category direct/indirect framework. We
used OMB's 1999 testimony (which presented funding data from 1993 through
1998) as the baseline for the consolidated table, and analyzed OMB's
annual reports to identify whether accounts listed in the reports matched
those presented in the testimony. If the account matched an account from
the testimony, we included the value for the existing account in the
consolidated table. If the account was not presented in the testimony, we
added the account to the consolidated table. We continued this process
until the consolidated table presented in appendix IV included all the
accounts reported by OMB from 1993 through 2004, and used a similar
methodology to consolidate CCSP reports.3 We did not include accounts in
the appendixes where OMB presented data on proposed, but not actual,
funding. We calculated totals for some accounts using data presented by
OMB in its reports. These accounts are labeled in appendix IV.

After consolidating the OMB and CCSP report accounts, we developed totals
for funding by category and agency for each year. We presented category
totals as developed by OMB, when available, and calculated category totals
when no OMB total was available. To develop agency funding totals, we
identified accounts in appendix IV associated with each agency and summed
them. However, OMB stated, and our analysis confirmed, that the sum of the
accounts for a category or agency may not match the category or agency
totals presented by OMB in its reports. According to OMB, the differences
in account sums and category and agency totals were due to removal of
programs that were counted in more than one account or category. OMB
officials said they were unable to

2OMB no longer maintains the distinction between direct and indirect
funding in its reports. Indirect funding accounts, which had been labeled
"other climate-related programs" in its reports prior to 2002, were
consolidated into the technology category in 2003, with the exception of
funding for GEF, which was included in the international assistance
category. Based on how OMB re-categorized this funding, we present
indirect funding from 1993 to 2001 as "indirect technology," with the
exception of GEF, which we included in the international category for all
years.

3We do not include a consolidated table for CCSP climate change science
funding because OMB science funding information presented in appendix IV
is generally comparable to the CCSP totals.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

determine the effect of these double counts over time because they did not
keep a single database with the report information for each year.
Accordingly, we presented OMB category totals when they were available. If
OMB did not present a funding category total, we calculated it by summing
the accounts for each category. OMB presented agency funding totals for
2003 and 2004, but not for the other years. To ensure consistency over the
entire time period, we calculated agency funding totals for all years by
adding the accounts in appendix IV associated with each agency. In 2003
and 2004, the account sums we calculated and the agency totals presented
by OMB were within $1 million of each other in all cases but one, 2004
funding for USAID. According to OMB, $6 million of USAID funding was
presented in two different places in the report. Our methodology would
have counted this $6 million twice, so we adjusted the USAID total to
reflect OMB's agency total. We did not adjust the agency totals we
calculated in any other cases. CCSP reports already presented climate
change science funding by agency. We then used the funding by agency,
funding by category, and consolidated account tables to analyze funding
trends over time and compare OMB and CCSP science totals. Funding by
category is presented in appendix II, and funding by agency is presented
in appendix III.

To identify existing tax expenditures aimed at promoting energy
conservation and encouraging supply of renewable and alternative energy,
we reviewed the list of tax expenditures developed by the Department of
the Treasury for the fiscal year 2006 budget. We present the estimated
2004 revenue losses due to these tax expenditures as reported in the
Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical
Perspectives, chapter 19.4

We determined that the data available in the OMB and CCSP reports were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes because the reports were
supplements to the budget (in the case of CCSP) or assembled from the
budget (in the case of OMB). Unless otherwise specified, we report funding
in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to
fiscal years. When we adjusted for inflation, to put the data in fiscal
year 2004 dollars, we used a fiscal year price index that we calculated
based on the

4The Department of the Treasury also produces outlay equivalent
estimates-the amount of budget outlays that would be required to provide
the taxpayer with the same after-tax income as would be received through
the tax expenditure. The outlay equivalent measure can be used to compare
tax expenditures with spending programs on a more equal footing.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

calendar year price index in the National Income and Product Accounts
Table 3.10.4: Price Indexes for Government Consumption Expenditures and
General Government Gross Output, Line 34: Nondefense consumption
expenditures, published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic
Analysis.

In this report, the term "agency" includes executive departments and
agencies, and we use the term "account" to describe the budget accounts,
line items, programs, and activities presented in the OMB and CCSP
reports. For consistency, we characterize all Our Changing Planet reports
from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports, even though CCSP has been in
existence only since 2002, and prior reports were published by the USGCRP.
Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. For presentation
purposes, we show federal climate change funding for 1993, 1997, 2001, and
2004 in report tables. Funding data for 1993 through 2004 are available in
appendixes II, III, and IV.

We performed our work between July 2004 and August 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II

Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB

Table 6: Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB,
1993-2004

  Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars Technology $845 $1,038
     $1,283 $1,106 $1,056 $1,251 $1,694 $1,793 $1,675 $1,637 $2,555 $2,868

Funding    1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003   2004 
  category                                                                      
Science    1,306 1,444 1,760 1,654 1,656 1,677 1,657 1,687 1,728 1,667 1,766 1,976 
International                                                                   
 assistance     201  186   228   192   164   186   325   177   218   224   270    252 

Tax expendituresa

  Total $2,352 $2,668 $3,271 $2,952 $2,876 $3,114 $3,535 $3,511 $3,603 $3,522
                                 $4,584 $5,090

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

aOMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related
tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.

Appendix III

Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB

Table 7: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-2004

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

     Agency       1993   1995  1996    1997   1999   2000   2001   2002   2004 
                  1994                 1998                        2003 
 Department of    $963 $1,173 $1,008   $968 $1,536 $1,652 $1,665 $1,636 $2,519 
     Energy     $1,113               $1,186                      $2,214 
    National                                                            
  Aeronautics                                                           
and Space                                                            
 Administration    888  1,305 1,218  1,218   1,155  1,161  1,176  1,090  1,548 
                   999               1,210                        1,299 
    National       124                  222                         189        
    Science        142    222    216    214    222    229    181    212    226
Foundation                                                           
  U.S. Agency                                                           
      for                                                               
 International                                                          
  Development      200    192    175    147    236    156    157    179    195 
                   173                  163                         214 
 Department of   66 63    120    113 102 89     93     91     93    100    144 
    Commerce                                                        156 
 Environmental                                                          
Protection                                                           
     Agency      26 73    124    114 99 103    126    124    146    136    127 
                                                                    124 
 Department of   55 56     60     52  57 53    138    132     54 59 104    115 
  Agriculture                                                           
 Department of                                                          
Health and                                                           
 Human Services                          35     40     47     54  56 61 
 Department of    0 12     35     14  14 18     60     14     54  43 56 
  the Treasury                                                          
 Department of                                                       83 
    Defense                                                             
 Department of   22 29     27     26  26 26     27     27     27  26 29 
    Interior                                                            
 Department of              5      6   13 5      3                   27 
 Transportation                                                         
 Department of     1 1      1      3    3 5      7      7      7    7 6 
     State                                                              
  Smithsonian                                                           
  Institution      7 7      7      7    7 7      7      7      7    6 6 

Department of Housing and
Urban Development 10 10

Trade and Development Agency 16

Total $2,352 $2,668 $3,271 $2,952 $2,876 $3,114 $3,535 $3,511 $3,603
$3,522 $4,584 $5,090

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for this agency
for this year.

Appendix IV

                    Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

          Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

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

TECHNOLOGY

                               Direct Technology:

Department of Agriculture 00 3 342

Agricultural Research Service 0 0 2

                             Rural Business Service

Renewable Energy Program 0 22

Forest Service Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service

         Forest and Rangeland                                        
               Research                    0    0       3               1     
      Research and Development -                                     
         Inventories of Carbon                                       
                Biomass                                                 1     
           Natural Resources                                         
         Conservation Service              0                         
             Carbon Cycle                                               1     
         Biomass Research and                                        
              Development                                       3       14    

Biofuels/Biomass research;
Formula Funds, National
Research Initiative 3

Department of Commerce

      National Institutes of Standards                               
               and Technology                                     40       28 
            Industrial Technical                                     
             Services - Advanced                                     
             Technology Program                                   30       18 
          Scientific and Technical                                   
              Research Services                   0    2          10       10 
            Department of Defense                                 83       51 
         Research, Development, Test                                 
            and Evaluation, Army                                  45       15 
         Research, Development, Test                                 
            and Evaluation, Navy                                  16       17 
         Research, Development, Test                                 
          and Evaluation, Air Force                                3        1 

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

    Account    1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001  2002  2003   2004 
Research,                                                             
  Development,                                                           
      Test                                                               
      and                                                                
  Evaluation,                                                         19 
  Defense-wide                                                           
Department   595 753  829  683   658 729  890  980                          
of Energy                                           1,050 1,519 2,099 2,390

Energy Conservation                                                    
Research and Development  346  435  468  415  414  457  518  577  619  622 
State Energy Grants                                                     45 
Weatherization                                                         230 

Nuclear Energy Research
Initiative 32

Energy Supply/Electricity 88

Energy Supply/Renewables 249 318 361 268 244 272 332 310 370 368 322 352

Energy Supply/Nuclear 0 5 5 257 309

Sequestration Research and
Development 32

Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reduction 152

Sequestration 35

       Energy Information                                                 
         Administration                                3  3     3   3     
    Environmental Protection                                              
             Agency             43 102  96  86  90  109  103  123 115 102 110 
Environmental Programs and                                             
           Management           35  91  81  70  73   72   76  96  89  82  

Science and Technology 8 11 15 16 17 37 27 27 26 20 22

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Research and Technology 10 10

Department of Interior 11

U.S. Geological Survey-
Surveys, Investigations, and
Research

Geology Discipline, Energy
Program 1 1

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Exploration, Science and
Aeronautics 152 227

                          National Science Foundation

Research and Related
Activities 9

Department of Transportation 27

          Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment Grants 26

Office of the Secretary of Technology

Transportation, Policy,
Research and Development 1

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Research and Development 0

                              Indirect Technology

Coal -Efficient Combustion                                 
and Utilization               186   166   144   120   101   105 
Natural Gas - Efficient                                    
Combustion and Utilization      64  76    87    92    100    91 

Energy Supply

Nuclear Energy Research and
Development 0 18 22 34

Energy Conservation Research
and Development

        Weatherization and State                                    
             Energy Grants                  155    166       169          191 
         Biobased Products and                                      
               Bioenergy                           195       200    
       Department of Agriculture                   86        76     
      Agriculture Research Service                 44        46     

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

      Account     1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
    Research and                                                         
     Education                                                           
     Assistance                                   11   11                
Initiative for                                                        
Future                                                                
Agriculture                                                           
      and Food                                          9                
      Systems                                                            

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland
Management 9 9

                            Executive Operations 1 1

aa

Departmental Administration

Alternative Agricultural
Research and
Commercialization 4

Natural Resources Conservation Service

                Forestry Incentives Program 16 Rural Development

Rural Community
Advancement Program 1

                          Department of Energy 109 124

Energy Supply

Solar and Renewable Energy                                           
Research and Development                                        40      70 
Energy Conservation Research                                         
and Development                                                 41      11 
Fossil Energy Research and                                           
Development                                                      0      13 
Science (Basic Science)                                         27      30 
Partnership for a New                                                
Generation of Vehicles                                          73      64 
Department of Commerce                   63   56    42    29    30      22 
Under Secretary for                                                  
Technology/Office of                                                 
Technology Policy                                                1       0 
Salaries and Expenses                     0   1      1     1         
National Institutes of Standards                                     
and Technology                                                  29      22 
Scientific and Technical                                             
Research and Services                     7   7      7     6         
Industrial Technology                                                
Services                                 56   48    34    22         

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

  Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 National
                               Science Foundation

Research and Related
Activities 53 53 56 47 40 42

                          Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

                       Operations and Research 5 6 13 5 3

SCIENCE

                      U.S. Global Change Research Program

Department of Agriculture 5556 6052 57535256515660

Agricultural Research Service 17 18 24 24 26 27 26 28 29 30 35

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services

Research and Education 11 12 10 10 12 7 7 9 4 9 8

a

Economic Research Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 Natural Resources
Conservation Service

                    Conservation Operations 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland
Research 24 23 23 15 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 12

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Operations, Research, and
Facilities 66 63 57 57 60 60 63 67 93 100 98 82

Department of Energy

Science (Biological and
Environmental Research) 118 118 113 113 109 106 114 114 116 117 112 102

Environmental Protection Agency

       Science and Technology     26  30  22  18  13  13  17  21  23 21 22 17 
      Department of Health and                                             
           Human Services                             35                   
National Institutes of Health                      35  40  47  54 56 61 62 

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

      Account     1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
      National                                                           
    Institute of                                                         
Environmental                                                         
       Health                                                            
      Sciences                                4                          
    National Eye                              9                          
     Institutes                                                          
National                                                              
Cancer                                                                
Institute                                 21                          

National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin

a

Diseases

                           Department of the Interior

                             U.S. Geological Survey

Surveys, Investigations, and
Research 22 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 26 28

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Science, Aeronautics, and
Technology 888 999 1,305 1,218 1,218 1,210 1,155 1,161 1,176 1,090 1,144
1,256

                          National Science Foundation

Research and Related
Activities 124 142 169 163 166 167 182 187 181 189 188 185

                            Smithsonian Institution

Salaries and Expenses 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6

U.S. Agency for International Development

Development Assistance 6 6

Climate Change Research Initiative

Department of Agriculture 26

Agricultural Research Service 0 1

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland
Research 1 5

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Operations, Research, and
Facilities 18 34

Department of Energy

Science (Biological and
Environmental Research) 3 27

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

  Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 National
                               Science Foundation

Research and Related
Activities 15

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Science, Aeronautics, and
Technology 3

                              Department of State

International Organizations and Programs

Department of Transportation

                         Federal Highway Administration

Federal Aid -Highways

U.S. Agency for International Development

Development Assistance

Climate Change Research
Initiative Total $41 $173

  Science Total $1,306 $1,444 $1,760 $1,654 $1,656 $1,677 $1,657 $1,687 $1,728
                 $1,667 $1,766 $1,976 INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Department of Energy 6

Energy Supply

Solar and Renewable Energy
Research and Development 6

Department of State

    International Organizations and                                       
               Programs               1  1  1  3  3  5   7  7  7   7   6    5 
         Trade and Development                                            
                Agency                                  16                
      Department of the Treasury                                  43  56   52 

International Development Assistance

Global Environment Facilityc 12 35 14 14 18 60 14 41 38 56 32

Debt Restructuring

Tropical Forest Conservation 13 5 20

Development Assistance 200 173 192 175 147 163 169 109 112 116 140 125
Development Credit Authority 1 1 1

              Appendix IV Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

                         (Continued From Previous Page)

             Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

      Account     1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 
      Economic                                    19    8        12    6 
    Support Fund                                                         
Assistance for                                                        
the                                                                   
Independent                                                           
States of the                                                         
Former Soviet                                                         
       Union                                      35   34   31   30   48 
Assistance for                                                        
Eastern Europe                                                        
and the Baltic                                 12    4   13   11    8 
       States                                                            
International                                                         
      Disaster                                                           
     Assistance                                                   4    4 
       Andean                                                            
    Counterdrug                                                        2 
     Initiative                                                          
International                                                              
     Assistance                                                          
       Total      $201 $186 $228 $192 $164 $186 $325 $177 $218 $224 $270 $252

                               Tax Expendituresd

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

Notes:
GAO calculated the total for shaded cells based on OMB data presented in
its reports.
Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for
that year.

aOMB presented funding of less than $500,000 for this account

bOMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology funding
for this year.

cGEF funding as presented by OMB for each year represents the portion of
total GEF funding that is related to climate change.

dOMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related
tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.

Appendix V

Comments from the Climate Change Science Program

Appendix V Comments from the Climate Change Science Program

Appendix V Comments from the Climate Change Science Program

Appendix VI

                     GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841

Staff 	In addition to the individual named above, David Marwick, Assistant
Director, Anne K. Johnson, and Joseph D. Thompson made key

Acknowledgments	contributions to this report. Also, John Delicath, Anne
Stevens, and Amy Webbink made important contributions.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone:	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Contact:
  Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***