Fiscal Year 2006 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained 
Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to	 
Addressing Our Nation's Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship	 
Challenges (20-MAR-07, GAO-07-607T).				 
                                                                 
GAO is required by law to annually audit the consolidated	 
financial statements of the U.S. government. The Congress and the
President need to have timely, reliable, and useful financial and
performance information. Sound decisions on the current results  
and future direction of vital federal government programs and	 
policies are made more difficult without such information. Until 
the problems discussed in GAO's audit report on the U.S.	 
government's consolidated financial statements are adequately	 
addressed, they will continue to (1) hamper the federal 	 
government's ability to reliably report a significant portion of 
its assets, liabilities, costs, and other related information;	 
(2) affect the federal government's ability to reliably measure  
the full cost as well as the financial and nonfinancial 	 
performance of certain programs and activities; (3) impair the	 
federal government's ability to adequately safeguard significant 
assets and properly record various transactions; and (4) hinder  
the federal government from having reliable financial information
to operate in an economical, efficient, and effective manner.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-607T					        
    ACCNO:   A67024						        
  TITLE:     Fiscal Year 2006 U.S. Government Financial Statements:   
Sustained Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial 
to Addressing Our Nation's Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship 
Challenges							 
     DATE:   03/20/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Audit reports					 
	     Budget deficit					 
	     Financial management				 
	     Financial management systems			 
	     Financial statement audits 			 
	     Financial statements				 
	     Fiscal policies					 
	     Future budget projections				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Fiscal imbalance					 
	     Policies and procedures				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-607T

   

     * [1]The Nation's Fiscal Imbalance

          * [2]The Reported Long-Term Fiscal Outlook

               * [3]Statement of Social Insurance
               * [4]Major Reported Long-Term Fiscal Exposures
               * [5]Long-Term Fiscal Simulations

          * [6]A Possible Way Forward

     * [7]Restatements to Financial Statements
     * [8]Highlights of Major Issues Related to the U.S. Government's

          * [9]System Problems at Agencies Continue to Hinder Accountabilit
          * [10]Addressing Major Impediments to an Opinion on the Consolidat

               * [11]Financial Management at DOD
               * [12]Intragovernmental Activity and Balances
               * [http]Preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements

     * [14]The Need for an Improved Federal Financial Reporting Model
     * [15]Closing Comments
     * [16]GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
     * [17]Appendix I: Material Weaknesses Contributing to Our Disclaim

          * [18]Property, Plant, and Equipment and Inventories and Related P
          * [19]Liabilities and Commitments and Contingencies
          * [20]Cost of Government Operations and Disbursement Activity
          * [21]Accounting for and Reconciliation of Intragovernmental Activ
          * [22]Preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements
          * [23]Outlays and Receipts--Components of the Budget Deficit

     * [24]Appendix II: Other Material Weaknesses

          * [25]Loans Receivable and Loan Guarantee Liabilities
          * [26]Improper Payments
          * [27]Information Security
          * [28]Tax Collection Activities

     * [29]Appendix III: Fiscal Year 2006 Audit Results

          * [30]Order by Mail or Phone

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and
Procurement, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House of
Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT
Tuesday, March 20, 2007

FISCAL YEAR 2006 U.S. GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Sustained Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to
Addressing Our Nation's Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship Challenges

Statement of David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States

GAO-07-607T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am most pleased to be here today to discuss our report on the U.S.
government's consolidated financial statements for fiscal years 2006 and
2005. I would like to thank you for continuing the annual tradition of
oversight hearings on this important subject. The involvement of your
subcommittee remains critical to ultimately assuring the continued
progress in the financial management area while enhancing public
confidence in the federal government as a financial steward that is
accountable for its finances. Such hearings play a vital role in ensuring
that the federal government is held accountable to the American people.
Our work was conducted in accordance with U.S. generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Both the consolidated financial statements and our report on them are
included in the fiscal year 2006 Financial Report of the United States
Government (Financial Report). The most recent report was issued by the
Department of the Treasury (Treasury) on December 15, 2006, and is
available through GAO's Internet site, at
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2006financialreport.html , and
Treasury's Internet site, at
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/06frusg/06frusg.pdf . I also would like to
highlight a guide we issued in September 2005 titled Understanding the
Primary Components of the Annual Financial Report of the United States
Government,^1 which was prepared to help those who seek to obtain a better
understanding of the Financial Report. This guide can also be found on
GAO's Internet site at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05958sp.pdf .

Since the enactment of key financial management reforms, the federal
government has made substantial progress in improving financial management
activities and practices. Federal financial systems requirements have been
developed and internal control has been strengthened. Nonetheless, as I
recently testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial
Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International
Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the
federal government still has a long way to go to address several principal
challenges to fully realizing strong federal financial management.^2 For
the 10th consecutive year, certain material weaknesses^3 in financial
reporting and other limitations on the scope of our work resulted in
conditions that continued to prevent us from being able to provide the
Congress and the American people an opinion as to whether the consolidated
financial statements of the U.S. government were fairly stated in
conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Further, we also reported that the federal government did not maintain
effective internal control over financial reporting (including
safeguarding assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations
as of September 30, 2006. Until the problems that I will discuss today and
that are discussed in our audit report are adequately addressed, they will
continue to have adverse implications for the federal government and the
taxpayers.

^1GAO, Understanding the Primary Components of the Annual Financial Report
of the United States Government, [34]GAO-05-958SP (Washington, D.C.:
September 2005).

GAO's audit report also included an emphasis paragraph for the 3rd
consecutive year noting that the nation's current fiscal path is
unsustainable and that tough choices by the President and the Congress are
necessary to address the nation's large and growing long-term fiscal
imbalance. In fact, the federal government's financial condition and
fiscal outlook are worse than many may understand. The value of the
federal government's net social insurance commitments, liabilities, and
other fiscal exposures is now reported at over $50 trillion, representing
close to four times Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in fiscal year 2006 and
up from about $20 trillion or two times GDP in 2000. One way to think
about it is: if we wanted to put aside today enough to cover these
promises, it would take about $440,000 per American household, up from
$190,000 in 2000. As these numbers indicate, the federal government faces
large and growing structural deficits primarily related to Medicare and
other social insurance commitments. These structural deficits--which are
virtually certain given the design of our current programs and
policies--will mean escalating and ultimately unsustainable federal
deficits and debt levels. Simply put, despite an almost 12 percent
increase in federal revenues this year, our nation's financial condition
and long-term fiscal imbalance continue to deteriorate and are on an
imprudent and unsustainable course.

^2GAO, Critical Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship Challenges Facing
Our Nation, [35]GAO-07-542T (Washington, D.C.: March 2007).

^3A material weakness is a condition that precludes the entity's internal
control from providing reasonable assurance that misstatements, losses, or
noncompliance material in relation to the financial statements or to
stewardship information would be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

In this testimony, I will discuss (1) the challenges posed by the federal
government's fiscal condition and my views on a possible way forward,
including ideas for consideration to improve the transparency of long-term
costs; (2) our continued concerns about restatements to prior year
financial statements; (3) the major issues relating to the consolidated
financial statements for fiscal years 2006 and 2005, including systems
problems that continue to hinder federal agency accountability; and (4)
the need for an improved federal financial reporting model. I will also
describe progress that has been made toward addressing major impediments
to an opinion on the consolidated financial statements.

The Nation's Fiscal Imbalance

From a broad financial management perspective, the federal government's
deteriorating long-range financial condition and long-term fiscal
imbalance are matters of increasing concern. We face large and growing
structural deficits due primarily to known demographic trends and rising
health care costs. There is a need to engage in a fundamental review,
repriorization, and reengineering of the base of the government.
Understanding and addressing the federal government's financial condition
and long-term fiscal imbalance are critical to maintain fiscal flexibility
so that we can respond to current and emerging social, economic, and
security challenges.

The Reported Long-Term Fiscal Outlook

The fiscal year 2006 Financial Report disclosed that, despite a reported
increase in revenues in fiscal year 2006 of about $255 billion, the
federal government's costs exceeded its revenues by $450 billion (i.e.,
net operating cost). Further, as of September 30, 2006, the U.S.
government reported in the 2006 Financial Report that it owed (i.e.,
liabilities) more than it owned (i.e., assets) by almost $9 trillion. In
addition, the Statement of Social Insurance in the Financial Report
disclosed an additional $39 trillion of the government's social insurance
responsibilities, including Medicare and Social Security. The total of the
reported liabilities (e.g., debt), contingencies (e.g., insurance), and
social insurance and other commitments and promises (e.g., Social
Security, Medicare)--rose from $20 trillion to about $50 trillion in the
last 6 years.

Over the next few decades, the nation's fiscal outlook will be shaped
largely by known demographic trends and rising health care costs. As the
baby-boom generation retires, federal spending on current retirement and
health care programs--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will grow
dramatically. These programs represent $39 trillion of the $50 trillion
long-term fiscal exposure. A range of other federal fiscal commitments,
some explicit and some representing implicit public expectations, also
bind the nation's fiscal future. Absent policy changes, a growing
imbalance between expected federal spending and tax revenues will mean
escalating and ultimately unsustainable federal deficits and debt levels.

There are various ways to consider and assess the long-term fiscal
outlook. In this regard, information included in the Financial Report, and
other information and analyses, can be used to more fully understand the
nation's long-term fiscal outlook, including:

           o the Statement of Social Insurance,
           o major reported long-term fiscal exposures, and
           o long-term fiscal simulations.
			  
			  Statement of Social Insurance

           The Statement of Social Insurance in the Financial Report displays
           the present value^4 of projected revenues and expenditures for
           scheduled benefits of certain benefit programs that are referred
           to as social insurance (e.g., Social Security, Medicare). For
           Social Security and Medicare alone, projected expenditures for
           scheduled benefits for the next 75 years exceed earmarked revenues
           (e.g., dedicated payroll taxes, premiums, and existing government
           bonds in the trust funds) for the same period by approximately $39
           trillion in present value terms. Stated differently, one would
           need approximately $39 trillion invested today to deliver on the
           currently promised benefits not covered by earmarked revenues for
           the next 75 years. Table 1 shows a simplified version of the
           Statement of Social Insurance by its primary components.

^4Present value is the discounted value of a payment or stream of payments
to be received or paid in the future, taking into consideration a specific
interest or discount rate.

Table 1: Simplified Statement of Social Insurance as of January 1, 2006

aThese amounts include administrative expenses for the programs.

bUnder current law, Social Security and Federal Hospital Insurance
(Medicare Part A) payments are limited to amounts available to the
respective trust funds.

Note: Data are from the fiscal year 2006 Financial Report.

  Major Reported Long-Term Fiscal Exposures

GAO developed the concept of "fiscal exposures" to provide a framework for
considering the wide range of responsibilities, programs, and activities
that explicitly or implicitly expose the federal government to future
spending.

The concept of fiscal exposures is meant to provide a broader perspective
on long-term costs. Major reported long-term fiscal exposures in fiscal
year 2006 with a present value totaling over $50 trillion consisted of
about $10 trillion of liabilities reported on the Balance Sheet, $1
trillion of other commitments and contingencies, and the $39 trillion of
social insurance responsibilities, the last two of which are reported
elsewhere in the Financial Report. This $50 trillion compares to about $20
trillion in fiscal year 2000.

These large numbers are difficult to comprehend. Table 2 seeks to
translate them into several figures and ratios that are more
understandable.

Table 2: Understanding the Size of Major Reported Fiscal Exposures

Note: Percentage increases reflect actual data and may differ from
calculation of rounded numbers presented in table.

  Long-Term Fiscal Simulations

Another way to assess the U.S. government's long-term fiscal outlook and
the sustainability of federal programs is to run simulations of future
revenues and costs for all federal programs, based on a continuation of
current or proposed policy. The simulations GAO has published since 1992
are designed to do that. As shown in figure 1, GAO's long-term
simulations--which are neither forecasts nor predictions--continue to show
ever-increasing long-term deficits resulting in a federal debt level that
ultimately spirals out of control. The timing of deficits and the
resulting debt buildup varies depending on the assumptions used; one
alternative (baseline extended) takes the legislatively-mandated baseline
from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the first 10 years and then
keeps discretionary spending and revenues constant as a share of GDP while
letting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid grow as projected by the
Trustees and CBO under midrange assumptions. The other, perhaps more
realistic, scenario based on the administration's announced policy
preferences changes only two things in the first 10 years: discretionary
spending grows with the economy and all expiring tax provisions are
extended. Like the "baseline extended" scenario, after 10 years both
revenues and discretionary spending remain constant as a share of the
economy. Under either optimistic set of assumptions, the federal
government's current fiscal policy is unsustainable.

Figure 1: Unified Surpluses and Deficits as a Share of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) under Alternative Fiscal Policy Simulations

Note: The simulation assumes currently scheduled Social Security benefits
are paid in full throughout the simulation period.

Over the long term, the nation's growing fiscal imbalance stems primarily
from the aging of the population and rising health care costs. Absent
significant changes on the spending or revenue sides of the budget or
both, these long-term deficits will encumber a growing share of federal
resources and test the capacity of current and future generations to
afford both today's and tomorrow's commitments. Continuing on this
unsustainable path will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage our
economy, our standard of living, and ultimately our domestic tranquility
and national security.

If, for example, as shown in figure 2, it is assumed that recent tax
reductions are made permanent and discretionary spending keeps pace with
the growth of our economy, our long-term simulations suggest that by 2040
federal revenues may be adequate to pay little more than interest on debt
held by the public and some Social Security benefits. Neither slowing the
growth in discretionary spending nor allowing the tax provisions,
including the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, to expire--nor both
together--would eliminate the imbalance. As figures 1 and 2 illustrate,
regardless of the assumptions used, the problem is too big to be solved by
economic growth alone.

Figure 2: Potential Fiscal Outcomes under Alternative Simulation:
Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP after 2007 and All Expiring Tax
Provisions Are Extended

Note: Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) exemption amount is retained at the
2006 level through 2017 and expiring tax provisions are extended. After
2017, revenue as a share of GDP is held constant--implicitly assuming that
action is taken to offset increased revenue from real bracket creep, the
AMT, and tax-deferred retirement accounts.

At some point, action will need to be taken to change the nation's fiscal
course. The sooner appropriate actions are taken, the sooner the miracle
of compounding will begin to work for the federal budget rather than
against it. Conversely, the longer that action to deal with the nation's
long-term fiscal outlook is delayed, the greater the risk that the
eventual changes will be disruptive and destabilizing. Acting sooner
rather than later will give us more time to phase in gradual changes,
while also providing more time for those likely to be most affected to
make compensatory changes.

The "fiscal gap" is a quantitative measure of long-term fiscal imbalance.
Under GAO's more realistic simulation, assuming debt held by the public
remains at the current share of the economy (i.e., GDP), closing the
fiscal gap would require spending cuts or tax increases equal to 8 percent
of the entire economy each year over the next 75 years, or a total of
about $61 trillion in present value terms. To put this in perspective,
closing the gap would require an immediate and permanent increase in
federal tax revenues of more than 40 percent or an equivalent reduction in
federal program spending (i.e., in all spending except for interest on the
debt held by the public, which cannot be directly controlled).

A Possible Way Forward

Although the long-term fiscal outlook is driven primarily by rising health
care costs and known demographics, we cannot ignore other government
programs and activities. There is a need to engage in a fundamental
review, reprioritization, and reengineering of the base of government.
Aligning the federal government to meet the challenges and capitalize on
the opportunities of the 21st century will require a fundamental review of
what the federal government does, how it does it, and how it is financed.
Many of the federal government's current policies, programs, functions,
and activities are based on conditions that existed decades ago, are not
results-based, and are not well aligned with 21st century realities. We
need to address the growing costs of the major entitlement programs and
also review and reexamine all other major programs, policies, and
activities on both the spending and the revenue side of the budget.
Programs that run through the tax code--sometimes referred to as tax
expenditures^5--must be reexamined along with those that run through the
spending side. As we move forward, the federal government needs to start
making tough choices in setting priorities and linking resources and
activities to results. I recently provided all members of the new Congress
with a package of materials to help them understand facts regarding the
long-term fiscal imbalance of the federal government, why we should act
sooner rather than later, and what types of changes need to be
considered.^6

5In addition to the reported net cost, the federal government foregoes tax
revenues as a result of preferential provisions, such as tax exclusions,
credits, and deductions. These revenue losses are referred to as tax
expenditures.

Meeting our nation's large, growing, and structural fiscal imbalance will
require a multipronged approach:

           o increasing transparency and enhancing the relevancy of key
           financial, performance, and budget reporting and estimates to
           highlight our long-term fiscal challenges;
           o reinstituting and strengthening budget controls for both
           spending and tax policies to deal with both near-term and
           longer-term deficits;
           o strengthening oversight of programs and activities, including
           creating approaches to better facilitate the discussion of
           integrated solutions to crosscutting issues; and
           o reengineering and reprioritizing the federal government's
           existing programs, policies, and activities to address 21st
           century challenges and capitalize on related opportunities.

           In two of my January 2007 testimonies,^7 I proposed a number of
           ideas for consideration to improve the transparency of long-term
           costs, including supplemental reporting in the President's budget
           submission and additional cost information on proposals before
           adoption. In November 2006, I provided the congressional
           leadership with recommendations, based on the work of GAO, for
           consideration for the agenda of the 110th Congress.^8 These
           recommendations focused on three areas: (1) targets for near-term
           oversight, (2) policies and programs that are in need of
           fundamental reform and reengineering, and (3) governance issues.
           One of the areas I pointed out that warranted congressional
           attention was the development of a portfolio of outcome-based key
           national indicators (e.g., economic, security, social,
           environmental) to help measure progress toward national outcomes,
           assess conditions and trends, and help communicate complex issues.
           The Congress could take a leadership role in highlighting the need
           for a U.S. national indicator system to inform strategic planning,
           enhance performance and accountability reporting, inform
           congressional oversight and decision making, and stimulate greater
           citizen engagement. In my view, this should include consideration
           of a public/private partnership to help make this key concept a
           reality sooner rather than later.

           In order to effectively address our long-term fiscal imbalance,
           fundamental reform of existing entitlement programs is essential.
           However, entitlement reform alone will not get the job done. We
           also need to reprioritize and constrain other federal government
           spending and generate more revenues--hopefully through a reformed
           tax system. GAO's 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of
           the Federal Government^9 contains a suggested list of specific
           federal activities for reexamination, illustrative reexamination
           questions, and perspectives on various strategies, processes, and
           approaches for congressional consideration stemming from our audit
           and evaluation work that can be used in reexamining the federal
           base. Answers to these questions may draw on the work of GAO and
           others; however, only elected officials can and should decide
           which issues to address as well as how and when to address them.
           Addressing these problems will require tough choices, and our
           fiscal clock is ticking. As a result, the time to start is now, to
           help save our future.
			  
			  Restatements to Financial Statements

           The federal government restated certain of its fiscal year 2005
           consolidated financial statements to correct errors.^10
           Restatements relating to property, plant, and equipment resulted
           from misstatements by the Department of Defense, which had
           received a disclaimer on its originally issued as well as its
           restated fiscal year 2005 financial statements.^11 Certain other
           restatements that were made to the consolidated financial
           statements related to errors that occurred during the preparation
           of the fiscal year 2005 Reconciliation of Net Operating Cost and
           Unified Budget Deficit.

           Since fiscal year 2004, we have reported our concerns about
           restatements to federal agencies' previously issued financial
           statements. During fiscal year 2005, we reviewed the causes and
           nature of the restatements made by nine CFO act agencies in fiscal
           year 2004 to their fiscal year 2003 financial statements. Between
           2005 and 2006 we issued reports covering five of these nine CFO
           act agencies that included recommendations for improvements in
           internal controls and procedures to prevent or detect future
           similar errors.^12 In October 2006, we issued a capping report to
           the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which communicated our
           observations on the transparency and timeliness of the nine
           federal agencies and their auditor's restatement disclosures.^http
           The primary contributing factor for the restatement disclosure
           issues that we identified was insufficient guidance available at
           the time to both the agencies' management and their respective
           auditors for disclosure of the restatements and the timeliness of
           such disclosures. In August 2005, OMB revised Circular No. A-http6,
           Financial Reporting Requirements, which provides additional
           guidance to federal agencies' management regarding disclosure of
           restatements to previously issued financial statements. Revisions
           made to OMB Circular No. A-http6 address many of our concerns
           regarding the agencies' disclosure of restatements. In addition,
           in August 2006, OMB issued Bulletin No. 06-03, Audit Requirements
           for Federal Financial Statements, which provides some information
           regarding reporting on restatements. However, we believe that OMB
           needs to timely provide additional, though complementary,
           restatement guidance. As such, our October 2006 report contained
           recommendations to OMB to further improve the restatement guidance
           available to agencies' management and the agencies' respective
           auditors. In addition, the January 2007 revision of generally
           accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) includes a section
           on reporting on restatement of previously issued financial
           statements.^14

           Frequent restatements to correct errors can undermine public trust
           and confidence in both the entity and all responsible parties.
           Material internal control weaknesses discussed in our fiscal year
           2006 audit report serve to increase the risk that additional
           errors may occur and not be identified on a timely basis by agency
           management or their auditors, resulting in further restatements.
			  
			  Highlights of Major Issues Related to the U.S. Governmentï¿½s
			  Consolidated Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005

           As has been the case for the previous nine fiscal years, the
           federal government did not maintain adequate systems or have
           sufficient, reliable evidence to support certain material
           information reported in the U.S. government's consolidated
           financial statements. The underlying material weaknesses in
           internal control, which generally have existed for years,
           contributed to our disclaimer of opinion on the U.S. government's
           consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended
           September 30, 2006, and 2005.^15

           Appendix I describes the material weaknesses that contributed to
           our disclaimer of opinion in more detail and highlights the
           primary effects of these material weaknesses on the consolidated
           financial statements and on the management of federal government
           operations. The material weaknesses that contributed to our
           disclaimer of opinion were the federal government's inability to

           o satisfactorily determine that property, plant, and equipment and
           inventories and related property, primarily held by the Department
           of Defense (DOD), were properly reported in the consolidated
           financial statements;
           o reasonably estimate or adequately support amounts reported for
           certain liabilities, such as environmental and disposal
           liabilities, or determine whether commitments and contingencies
           were complete and properly reported;
           o support significant portions of the total net cost of
           operations, most notably related to DOD, and adequately reconcile
           disbursement activity at certain agencies;
           o adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity
           and balances between federal agencies;
           o ensure that the federal government's consolidated financial
           statements were (1) consistent with the underlying audited agency
           financial statements, (2) balanced, and (3) in conformity with
           GAAP; and
           o identify and either resolve or explain material differences that
           exist between certain components of the budget deficit reported in
           Treasury's records, used to prepare the Reconciliation of Net
           Operating Cost and Unified Budget Deficit and Statement of Changes
           in Cash Balance from Unified Budget and Other Activities, and
           related amounts reported in federal agencies' financial statements
           and underlying financial information and records.

           Due to the material weaknesses and the additional limitations on
           the scope of our work, as discussed in our audit report, there may
           also be additional issues that could affect the consolidated
           financial statements that have not been identified.

           In addition to the material weaknesses that contributed to our
           disclaimer of opinion, which were discussed above, we found the
           following four other material weaknesses in internal control as of
           September 30, 2006. These weaknesses are discussed in more detail
           in appendix II, including the primary effects of the material
           weaknesses on the consolidated financial statements and on the
           management of federal government operations. These other material
           weaknesses were the federal government's inability to

           o implement effective credit reform estimation and related
           financial reporting processes,
           o determine the full extent to which improper payments exist,
           o identify and resolve information security control weaknesses and
           manage information security risks on an ongoing basis, and
           o effectively manage its tax collection activities.

           Individual federal agency financial statement audit reports
           identify additional reportable conditions^16 in internal control,
           some of which were reported by agency auditors as being material
           weaknesses at the individual agency level. These additional
           reportable conditions do not represent material weaknesses at the
           governmentwide level. Regarding agencies' internal controls, in
           December 2004, OMB revised its Circular No. A-123, Management's
           Responsibility for Internal Control, to provide guidance to
           federal managers on improving the accountability and effectiveness
           of federal programs and operations by establishing, assessing,
           correcting, and reporting on management controls. Requiring
           federal managers, at the executive level, to focus on internal
           control demonstrates a renewed emphasis on identifying and
           addressing internal control weaknesses.

           OMB recognized that due to the complexity of some agencies,
           implementation of these new requirements may span more than 1
           year. Accordingly, certain agencies have adopted multiyear
           implementation plans. OMB stated that it will continue to work
           with the Chief Financial Officers Council to identify potential
           areas for additional guidance and share agencies' best practices.
           It will be important that OMB monitor and oversee federal
           agencies' implementation of these new requirements.
			  
			  System Problems at Agencies Continue to Hinder Accountability

           For fiscal year 2006, 18 of 24 CFO Act agencies were able to
           attain unqualified opinions on their financial statements by the
           November 15, 2006, reporting deadline established by OMB (see app.
           III). The independent auditor of the Department of State
           subsequently withdrew its disclaimer of opinion on the
           department's fiscal year 2006 financial statements and reissued an
           unqualified opinion on such financial statements dated December
           12, 2006. As a result, 19 CFO Act agencies received unqualified
           opinions on their fiscal year 2006 financial statements. However,
           irrespective of these unqualified opinions, many agencies do not
           have timely, reliable, and useful financial information and
           effective controls with which to make informed decisions and
           ensure accountability on an ongoing basis. The ability to produce
           the data needed for efficient and effective management of
           day-to-day operations in the federal government and provide the
           necessary accountability to taxpayers and the Congress has been a
           long-standing challenge at most federal agencies.

           The results of the fiscal year 2006 assessments performed by
           agency inspectors general or their contract auditors under the
           Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) show
           that serious problems continue to affect financial management
           systems at most of the 24 CFO Act agencies. These problems include
           nonintegrated financial systems, lack of accurate and timely
           recording of data, inadequate reconciliation procedures,
           noncompliance with accounting standards and the U.S. Government
           Standard General Ledger (SGL), and weak security over information
           systems. While the problems are much more severe at some agencies
           than at others, the nature and severity of the problems indicate
           that overall, management at most CFO Act agencies lacks the
           complete range of information needed for accountability, decision
           making, and performance reporting.

           Under FFMIA, as a part of the CFO Act agencies' financial
           statement audits, CFO Act agency auditors are required to report
           whether agencies' financial management systems substantially
           comply with (1) federal financial management systems requirements,
           (2) applicable federal accounting standards, and (3) the SGL at
           the transaction level. These factors are critical for improving
           accountability over government operations and routinely producing
           sound cost and operating performance information. Noncompliance
           with federal financial management systems requirements was the
           deficiency most frequently reported by auditors. These
           deficiencies involved not only core financial systems, but also
           administrative and programmatic systems.

           The ability of federal financial management systems to
           substantially address FFMIA requirements has not advanced at the
           same pace as obtaining unqualified opinions on agency financial
           statements. As shown in figure 3, in fiscal year 2006, auditors
           for 17 of the 24 CFO Act agencies reported that the agencies'
           financial management systems did not substantially comply with one
           or more of FFMIA's three requirements compared to auditors for 20
           of the 24 CFO Act agencies in fiscal year 1997.

           Figure 3: Auditors' FFMIA Assessments for Fiscal Years 1997
           through 2006

           Note: Data come from independent auditors' reports for fiscal
           years 1997 through 2006 prepared by agency inspectors general and
           contract auditors.

           For 6 of the 7 CFO Act agencies whose auditors did not report
           substantial noncompliance with FFMIA requirements for fiscal year
           2006, auditors provided negative assurance, meaning that nothing
           came to their attention indicating that the agencies' financial
           management systems did not substantially fulfill FFMIA
           requirements. The auditors for these 6 agencies^17 did not
           definitively state whether the agencies' systems substantially
           complied with FFMIA requirements, as is required under the
           statute. In contrast, auditors for the Agency for International
           Development (AID) provided positive assurance by stating that the
           agency's financial management systems substantially complied with
           the requirements of FFMIA. AID's auditors had not reported AID's
           financial management systems as substantially compliant in prior
           years. Further, auditors for GSA cited actions taken to address
           financial reporting controls and provided negative assurance on
           FFMIA in fiscal year 2006; whereas, in fiscal year 2005 they had
           reported the agency's systems as not compliant. Conversely,
           auditors for the Department of Labor (Labor) reported that the
           agencies' financial management systems did not substantially
           comply with FFMIA requirements in fiscal year 2006 due to newly
           identified weaknesses in Labor's information security controls.
           The auditors had not reported any FFMIA compliance issues at the
           agency in fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

           In an effort to address FFMIA-related problems such as
           nonintegrated systems, inadequate reconciliations, and lack of
           compliance with the SGL, a number of agencies have efforts
           underway to implement new financial management systems or to
           upgrade existing systems. Agencies expect that the new systems
           will provide reliable, useful, and timely data to support
           managerial decision making, help provide accountability to
           taxpayers, and assist in congressional oversight. Whether in
           government or the private sector, implementing and upgrading
           systems is a resource-consuming and difficult job that brings a
           degree of risk. Organizations that follow and effectively
           implement accepted best practices in systems development and
           implementation (commonly referred to as disciplined processes) can
           manage and reduce these risks to acceptable levels. The failure to
           do so can have serious repercussions. For example, auditors at the
           Department of Energy (Energy) and the National Aeronautical and
           Space Administration (NASA) have reported many issues related to
           the implementation of new financial management systems at those
           agencies. NASA has received disclaimers of opinion on their
           financial statements since implementing their new system in fiscal
           year 2003. While management at both agencies are taking actions to
           address the problems resulting from the systems implementation,
           more work is needed to meet FFMIA requirements and obtain an
           unqualified opinion on their financial statements.

           The financial management line of business is OMB's initiative to
           help address the need to reduce the cost and improve the outcome
           of federal financial systems implementations. This initiative
           promotes leveraging of shared service solutions to enhance the
           government's performance and services. OMB has projects under way
           to develop standard business processes, a common governmentwide
           accounting structure, and specific measures to assess the
           performance of shared service providers to help provide a
           foundation for the financial management line of business
           initiative. Because the federal government is one of the largest,
           most complex organizations in the world, operating, maintaining,
           and modernizing its financial management systems represents a
           monumental challenge--from both cost and technical perspectives.
           As pressure mounts to increase accountability, and efforts to
           diminish federal spending intensify, sustained and committed
           leadership will be a key factor in the successful implementation
           of governmentwide initiatives.
			  
			  Addressing Major Impediments to an Opinion on the Consolidated
			  Financial Statements

           Three major impediments to our ability to render an opinion on the
           U.S. government's consolidated financial statements continued to
           be: (1) serious financial management problems at DOD, (2) the
           federal government's inability to adequately account for and
           reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal
           agencies, and (3) the federal government's ineffective process for
           preparing the consolidated financial statements. Extensive efforts
           by DOD officials and cooperative efforts between agency chief
           financial officers, inspectors general, Treasury officials, and
           OMB officials will be needed to resolve these serious obstacles to
           achieving an opinion on the U.S. government's consolidated
           financial statements.
			  
			  Financial Management at DOD

           Essential to further improving financial management governmentwide
           and ultimately to achieving an opinion on the U.S. government's
           consolidated financial statements is the resolution of serious
           weaknesses in DOD's business operations. DOD is one of the largest
           and most complex organizations in the world. For decades, we have
           reported on the lack of efficiency and effectiveness in DOD's
           business operations, including financial management, and the
           effect these deficiencies have had on the department's, and the
           government's, ability to oversee, manage, and report on its
           operations. DOD's financial management weaknesses are pervasive,
           complex, long-standing, and deeply rooted in virtually all its
           business operations. Execution of DOD's business operations spans
           a wide range of defense organizations, including the military
           services and their respective major commands and functional
           activities, numerous large defense agencies and field activities,
           and various combatant and joint operational commands that are
           responsible for military operations for specific geographic
           regions or theaters of operations. The nature and severity of
           DOD's business operations and system deficiencies not only affect
           financial reporting, but also impede the ability of DOD managers
           to receive and utilize the full range of information needed to
           effectively manage day-to-day operations. Such weaknesses
           adversely affect DOD's (and the government's) ability to control
           costs; ensure basic accountability; anticipate future costs and
           claims on the budget; measure performance; maintain funds control;
           prevent fraud, waste, and abuse; and address pressing management
           issues, including supporting warfighters and their families. To
           date, none of the military services or major DOD components has
           passed the test of an independent financial audit^18 because of
           pervasive weaknesses in business management processes, controls,
           and systems. Moreover, of the 27 areas on GAO's high-risk list,
           DOD has 8 of its own high-risk areas and shares responsibility for
           7 governmentwide high-risk areas.^19

           Effective oversight, reporting, and decision making depends upon
           information that is timely, reliable, and useful. DOD has
           transformation efforts underway to improve its business management
           processes, control, and systems. These efforts will take many
           years to complete and represent a huge challenge to the department
           since improvements must be made while continuing to support
           ongoing operations and activities. While the department is making
           progress in developing and implementing approaches to better
           understand and address weaknesses in its business operations, more
           remains to be done.

           On March 1, 2006, I testified^20 that DOD had issued a third key
           component of its business transformation strategy: the Financial
           Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) Plan.^21 According to DOD,
           the FIAR Plan, which was issued in December 2005 and updated in
           June and September of 2006, is intended to provide DOD components
           with a construct for resolving problems affecting the accuracy,
           reliability, and timeliness of financial information, and
           obtaining clean financial statement audit opinions. In addition,
           the FIAR Plan outlines the business rules and oversight structure
           DOD has established to guide financial improvement activities and
           audit preparation efforts. According to DOD, its June and
           September 2006 FIAR Plan updates were largely intended to refine
           previous versions of the plan by (1) identifying milestones that
           must be met for assertions regarding the reliability of reported
           financial statement information to occur on time, (2) improving
           consistency between components regarding their corrective actions
           and milestones, and (3) expanding on earlier descriptions of how
           the FIAR Plan will be integrated with the Enterprise Transition
           Plan. We have reported and made numerous recommendations to DOD
           regarding DOD's efforts to develop and implement its Business
           Enterprise Architecture and Transition Plan and obtain favorable
           audit opinions. In addition, we have reviewed the FIAR Plan and
           related updates, and discussed them with DOD and OMB. However, we
           cannot comment on specific focus areas or milestones identified in
           the FIAR Plan because we have not seen any of the underlying
           component or other subordinate plans upon which the FIAR Plan is
           based.

           DOD has taken important steps toward developing key components of
           its business transformation strategy. However, we continue to
           stress that while the reliability of reported financial statement
           information is important, the effectiveness of DOD's FIAR Plan in
           addressing the department's financial management deficiencies will
           ultimately be measured by the department's ability to provide
           timely, reliable, and useful information for day-to-day management
           and decision making. Furthermore, the department continues to lack
           a comprehensive, enterprisewide approach to planning and decision
           making and the sustained leadership needed to ensure successful
           transformation and address systemic business challenges. More
           specifically, DOD has not yet developed a plan that covers all key
           business functions, and contains results-oriented goals, measures,
           and expectations that link organizational and individual
           performance goals, while also being clearly linked to DOD's
           overall investment plans. Furthermore, as we previously testified,
           because of the complexity and long-term nature of business
           transformation, we continue to believe that DOD needs a Chief
           Management Official (CMO) with significant authority, experience,
           and tenure to provide sustained leadership and integrate DOD's
           overall business transformation efforts. The National Defense
           Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006^22 directs the department
           to study the feasibility of a CMO position in DOD. In this regard,
           the Institute for Defense Analysis issued its report in December
           2006 and, among other things, called upon the Congress to
           establish a Deputy CMO (executive level III official) at the
           department. Further, in May 2006, the Defense Business Board
           recommended, among other things, the creation of a Principal Under
           Secretary of Defense, as a level II official with a 5-year term
           appointment, to serve as CMO. I strongly support an executive
           level II official and believe that someone at this level is needed
           to be successful given the magnitude of the challenge and the need
           to effect change across the department. It is important to note
           that a CMO would not assume the responsibilities of the
           undersecretaries of defense, the service secretaries, or other DOD
           officials for the day-to-day management of the department. Rather,
           the CMO would be responsible and accountable for planning,
           integrating, and executing the overall business transformation
           effort. The reason I am so passionate about the need for a CMO at
           DOD is that progress at DOD has historically been painfully slow.
           A host of well-intended past improvement initiatives have largely
           failed. I am concerned that without a CMO who is responsible and
           accountable for demonstrable results and sustained success,
           history will continue to repeat itself.

           We will continue to monitor DOD's efforts to transform its
           business operations and address its financial management
           deficiencies as part of our continuing DOD business enterprise
           architecture work and our oversight of DOD's financial statement
           audit.
			  
			  Intragovernmental Activity and Balances

           Federal agencies are unable to adequately account for and
           reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances. OMB and
           Treasury require the CFOs of 35 executive departments and agencies
           to reconcile, on a quarterly basis, selected intragovernmental
           activity and balances with their trading partners.^23 In addition,
           these agencies are required to report to Treasury, the agency's
           inspector general, and GAO on the extent and results of
           intragovernmental activity and balances reconciliation efforts as
           of the end of the fiscal year.

           A substantial number of the CFO Act agencies did not adequately
           perform the required reconciliations for fiscal years 2006 and
           2005. For these fiscal years, based on trading partner information
           provided in the Governmentwide Financial Reporting System (GFRS)
           discussed below, Treasury produced a "Material Difference Report"
           for each agency showing amounts for certain intragovernmental
           activity and balances that significantly differed from those of
           its corresponding trading partners as of the end of the fiscal
           year. After analysis of the "Material Difference Reports" for
           fiscal year 2006, we noted that a significant number of CFOs were
           unable to adequately explain the differences with their trading
           partners or did not provide adequate documentation to support
           responses on the CFO Representations. For both fiscal years 2006
           and 2005, amounts reported by federal agency trading partners for
           certain intragovernmental accounts were significantly out of
           balance. In addition, for fiscal year 2006, about 31 percent of
           the significant agencies identified by Treasury and OMB did not
           perform the required audit procedures on their intragovernmental
           trading partner data included in the footnotes to their closing
           packages.^24 As a result of the above, the federal government's
           ability to determine the effect of these differences on the
           amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements is
           significantly impaired.

           To help address this longstanding problem, on November http, 2006,
           OMB issued Memorandum No. M-07-03, Business Rules for
           Intragovernmental Transactions, which has also been incorporated
           in the Treasury Financial Manual.^25 The OMB memorandum added
           criteria for resolving intragovernmental disputes and major
           differences between trading partners for certain intragovernmental
           transactions by creating the Chief Financial Officers Council's
           Intragovernmental Dispute Resolution Committee.^26 Resolving the
           intragovernmental transactions problem remains a difficult
           challenge and will require a strong commitment by federal agencies
           to fully implement the recently issued business rules, and
           continued strong leadership by OMB.
			  
			  Preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements

           While further progress was demonstrated in fiscal year 2006, the
           federal government continued to have inadequate systems, controls,
           and procedures to ensure that the consolidated financial
           statements are consistent with the underlying audited agency
           financial statements, balanced, and in conformity with GAAP. For
           fiscal year 2006, Treasury showed progress by demonstrating that
           amounts in the Statement of Social Insurance were consistent with
           the underlying federal agencies' audited financial statements and
           that the Balance Sheet and Statement of Net Cost were consistent
           with federal agencies' audited financial statements prior to
           eliminating intragovernmental activity and balances. However,
           Treasury's process for compiling the consolidated financial
           statements did not ensure that the information in the remaining
           three principal financial statements and notes were fully
           consistent with the underlying information in federal agencies'
           audited financial statements and other financial data. During
           fiscal year 2006, Treasury, in coordination with OMB, developed
           and began implementing corrective action plans and milestones for
           short-term and long-range solutions for certain internal control
           weaknesses we have previously reported regarding the process for
           preparing the consolidated financial statements. Resolving some of
           these internal control weaknesses will be a difficult challenge
           and will require a strong commitment from Treasury and OMB as they
           execute and implement their corrective action plans.
			  
			  The Need for an Improved Federal Financial Reporting Model

           The Financial Report of the United States Government provides
           useful information on the government's financial position at the
           end of the fiscal year and changes that have occurred over the
           course of the year. However, in evaluating the nation's fiscal
           condition, it is critical to look beyond the short-term results
           and consider the overall long-term financial condition and
           long-term fiscal imbalance of the government--that is, the
           sustainability of the federal government's programs, commitments,
           and responsibilities in relation to the resources expected to be
           available. More important than the government's $450 billion net
           operating cost for the year ended September 30, 2006, fiscal
           simulations by GAO and others show that over the long-term, we
           face large and growing structural deficits due primarily to
           Medicare and other social insurance commitments.

           As I have testified before, the current financial reporting model
           does not clearly, comprehensively and transparently show the wide
           range of responsibilities, programs, and activities that may
           either obligate the federal government to future spending or
           create an expectation for such spending. Thus, it provides a
           potentially unrealistic and misleading picture of the federal
           government's overall performance, financial condition, and future
           fiscal outlook.

           After a decade of reporting at the governmentwide level perhaps
           now is an appropriate time to step back and consider the need for
           further revisions to the current federal financial reporting
           model, which would affect both consolidated and agency financial
           reporting. While the current reporting model recognizes some of
           the unique needs of the federal government, a broad
           reconsideration of the federal financial reporting model could
           address the following types of questions:

           o What kind of information is most relevant and useful for a
           sovereign nation?
           o Do traditional financial statements convey information in a
           transparent manner?
           o What is the role of the balance sheet in the federal government
           reporting model?
           o How should items that are unique to the federal government, such
           as social insurance commitments and the power to tax, be reported?

           Engaging in a reevaluation of this nature could stimulate
           discussion that would bring about a new way of thinking about the
           federal government's financial and performance reporting needs. To
           understand various perceptions and needs of the stakeholders for
           federal financial reporting, a wide variety of stakeholders from
           the public and private sector should be consulted. Ultimately, the
           goal of such a reevaluation would be reporting enhancements that
           can help the Congress deliberate strategies to address the federal
           government's challenges, including those of our growing long-term
           fiscal imbalance.

           More specifically, we continue to support several specific
           improvements to federal financial reporting. For example, the
           federal government's financial reporting should be expanded to
           disclose the reasons for significant changes during the year in
           scheduled social insurance benefits and funding. It should also
           include a Statement of Fiscal Sustainability--providing a
           long-term look at the sustainability of current federal fiscal
           policy in the context of all major federal spending programs and
           tax policies. The reporting on fiscal sustainability should
           include additional information that will assist in understanding
           the sustainability of current social insurance and other federal
           programs, including key measures of fiscal sustainability and
           intergenerational equity,^27 projected annual cash flows, and
           changes in fiscal sustainability during the reporting period. We
           believe that such reporting needs to reflect the significant
           commitments associated with the Social Security and Medicare
           programs while recognizing a liability for the net assets
           (principally investments in special U.S. Treasury securities) of
           the "trust funds." Other areas to consider might include the
           reporting of key outcome-based performance information. We support
           the current efforts of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
           Board (FASAB) to begin a project on fiscal sustainability
           reporting. In addition, an easily understandable summary annual
           report should be prepared and published that includes in a clear,
           concise, and transparent manner, key financial and performance
           information embodied in the Financial Report.
			  
			  Closing Comments

           In closing, given the federal government's current financial
           condition and growing long-term fiscal imbalance, the need for the
           Congress and the President to have timely, reliable, and useful
           financial and performance information is greater than ever. Sound
           decisions on the current results and future direction of vital
           federal government programs and policies are more difficult
           without such information. Until the problems discussed in this
           testimony are effectively addressed, they will continue to have
           adverse implications for the federal government and the taxpayers.

           Addressing the nation's long-term fiscal imbalance constitutes a
           major transformational challenge that may take a generation or
           more to resolve. Given the size of the projected deficit, the U.S.
           government will not be able to grow its way out of this
           problem--tough choices will be required.

           Across government, financial management improvement initiatives
           are underway, and if effectively implemented, have the potential
           to greatly improve the quality of financial management information
           as well as the efficiency and effectiveness of agency operations.
           By the end of my term as Comptroller General, I would like to see
           the civilian CFO Act agencies routinely producing not only annual
           financial statements that can pass the scrutiny of a financial
           audit, but also quarterly financial statements and other
           meaningful financial and performance data to help guide decision
           makers on a day-to-day basis. For DOD, my expectations are not as
           high given the current status of DOD's financial management
           practices, yet it is realistic for at least major portions of
           DOD's financial information to become auditable by the end of my
           term. Moreover, progress on developing meaningful financial and
           performance reporting on the federal government will be a key area
           that I will continue to champion. I am determined to do whatever I
           can to help ensure that we are not the first generation to leave
           our children and grandchildren a legacy of failed fiscal
           stewardship and the hardships that would bring.

           Finally, I want to emphasize the value of sustained congressional
           interest in these issues, as demonstrated by this subcommittee's
           leadership. It will be key that, going forward, the
           appropriations, budget, authorizing, and oversight committees hold
           agency top leadership accountable for resolving the remaining
           problems and that they support improvement efforts.

^6GAO, Fiscal Stewardship: A Critical Challenge Facing Our Nation,
[36]GAO-07-362SP (Washington, D.C.: January 2007); The Nation's Long-Term
Fiscal Outlook: September 2006 Update, [37]GAO-06-1077R (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 15, 2006); Understanding the Similarities and Differences between
Accrual and Cash Deficits, [38]GAO-07-117SP (Washington, D.C.: December
2006) and its supplement, Accrual and Cash Deficits: Update for Fiscal
Year 2006, [39]GAO-07-341SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2007);
Understanding the Primary Components of the Annual Financial Report of the
United States, [40]GAO-05-958SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005); and
Statement of the Comptroller General of the United States transmitting
GAO's report on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statements
for fiscal years 2006 and 2005.

^7GAO, Long-term Budget Outlook: Saving Our Future Requires Tough Choices
Today, [41]GAO-07-342T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2007); Long-term Budget
Outlook: Deficits Matter--Saving Our Future Requires Tough Choices Today,
[42]GAO-07-389T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2007).

^8GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress,
[43]GAO-07-235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).

^9GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [44]GAO-05-325SP , (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

^10According to Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards
(SFFAS) No. 21, Reporting Corrections of Errors and Changes in Accounting
Principles, prior-period financial statements presented should only be
restated for corrections of errors, when such errors caused the financial
statements to be materially misstated. Errors in financial statements can
result from mathematical mistakes, mistakes in the application of
accounting principles, or oversight or misuse of facts that existed at the
time the financial statements were prepared.

^11In addition to the Department of Defense, at least three other Chief
Financial Officers (CFO) act agencies restated certain of their fiscal
year 2005 financial statements to correct misstatements.

^12GAO, Financial Audit: Restatements to the Department of State's Fiscal
Year 2003 Financial Statements, [45]GAO-05-814R (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
20, 2005); Financial Audit: Restatements to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Statements, [46]GAO-06-30R
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2005); Financial Audit: Restatements to the
General Services Administration's Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Statements,
[47]GAO-06-70R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2005); Financial Audit:
Restatements to the National Science Foundation's Fiscal Year 2003
Financial Statements, [48]GAO-06-229R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2005);
and Financial Audit: Restatements to the Department of Agriculture's
Fiscal Year 2003 Financial Statements, [49]GAO-06-254R (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 26, 2006).

^13GAO, Financial Audit: Restated Financial Statements: Agencies'
Management and Auditor Disclosures of Causes and Effects and Timely
Communication to Users, [50]GAO-07-91 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 5, 2006).

^14GAGAS, promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States, are
to be followed by federal auditors and audit organizations and by other
auditors auditing federal organizations, programs, or activities when
required by law, contract, or policy. These standards pertain to auditors'
professional qualifications, the quality of audit effort, and the
characteristics of professional and meaningful audit reports. GAGAS
incorporate American Institute of Certified Public Accountants' field work
and reporting standards and the related Statements on Auditing Standards
for financial audits unless the Comptroller General of the United States
excludes them by formal announcement.

^15We previously reported that certain material weaknesses prevented us
from expressing an opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the
U.S. government for fiscal years 1997 through 2005.

^16Reportable conditions are matters coming to our attention that, in our
judgment, should be communicated because they represent significant
deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that could
adversely affect the federal government's ability to meet the internal
control objectives described in our audit report.

^17The CFO Act agencies whose auditors provided negative assurance were
the Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, General
Services Administration (GSA), National Science Foundation, Office of
Personnel Management, and the Social Security Administration.

^18Although not major DOD components, the Military Retirement Fund
received an unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2006 financial
statements, and the DOD Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
received a qualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2006 financial
statements.

^19GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [51]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2007). The eight specific DOD high-risk areas are: (1) approach to
business transformation, (2) business systems modernization, (3) contract
management, (4) financial management, (5) personnel security clearance
program, (6) supply chain management, (7) support infrastructure
management, and (8) weapon systems acquisition. The seven governmentwide
high-risk areas are (1) disability programs, (2) interagency contracting,
(3) information systems and critical infrastructure, (4) information
sharing for homeland security, (5) human capital, (6) real property, and
(7) protection of critical technologies.

^20GAO, Fiscal Year 2005 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained
Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to Addressing Our
Nation's Financial Condition and Long-term Fiscal Imbalance,
[52]GAO-06-406T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006).

^21The Business Enterprise Architecture and the Enterprise Transition Plan
are the other two key components of DOD's business transformation
strategy.

^22National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No.
109-163, S 907, 119 Stat. 3136, 3403 (Jan. 6, 2006).

^23Trading partners are U.S. government agencies, departments, or other
components included in the consolidated financial statements that do
business with each other.

^24GFRS uses a closing package methodology that has been developed to
capture each federal agency's information and link the agencies' audited
financial statements to the governmentwide consolidated financial
statements.

^25Treasury Financial Manual, Bulletin No. 2007-3, Intragovernmental
Business Rules.

^26The U.S. Chief Financial Officer's Council is an organization of the
CFOs and Deputy CFOs of the largest federal agencies and senior officials
of OMB and Treasury who work collaboratively to improve financial
management in the U.S. government.

^27Intergenerational equity assesses the extent to which different age
groups may be required to assume financial burdens to sustain federal
responsibilities.

           Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
           pleased to respond to any questions that you or other members of
           the subcommittee may have at this time.
			  
			  GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

           For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
           Jeffrey C. Steinhoff, Managing Director; Gary T. Engel, Director;
           and Paula Rascona, Acting Director; Financial Management and
           Assurance, at (202) 512-2600. Key contributions to this testimony
           were also made by staff on the Consolidated Financial Statement
           audit team.
			  
			  Appendix I: Material Weaknesses Contributing to Our Disclaimer of
			  Opinion

           The continuing material weaknesses discussed below contributed to
           our disclaimer of opinion on the federal government's consolidated
           financial statements. The federal government did not maintain
           adequate systems or have sufficient, reliable evidence to support
           information reported in the consolidated financial statements, as
           described below.
			  
			  Property, Plant, and Equipment and Inventories and Related Property

           The federal government could not satisfactorily determine that
           property, plant, and equipment (PP&E) and inventories and related
           property were properly reported in the consolidated financial
           statements. Most of the PP&E and inventories and related property
           are the responsibility of the Department of Defense (DOD). As in
           past years, DOD did not maintain adequate systems or have
           sufficient records to provide reliable information on these
           assets. Other agencies, most notably the National Aeronautics and
           Space Administration, reported continued weaknesses in internal
           control procedures and processes related to PP&E.

           Without reliable asset information, the federal government does
           not fully know the assets it owns and their location and condition
           and cannot effectively (1) safeguard assets from physical
           deterioration, theft, or loss; (2) account for acquisitions and
           disposals of such assets; (3) ensure that the assets are available
           for use when needed; (4) prevent unnecessary storage and
           maintenance costs, or purchase of assets already on hand; and (5)
           determine the full costs of programs that use these assets.
			  
			  Liabilities and Commitments and Contingencies

           The federal government could not reasonably estimate or adequately
           support amounts reported for certain liabilities. For example, DOD
           was not able to estimate with assurance key components of its
           environmental and disposal liabilities. In addition, DOD could not
           support a significant amount of its estimated military
           postretirement health benefits liabilities included in federal
           employee and veteran benefits payable. These unsupported amounts
           related to the cost of direct health care provided by DOD-managed
           military treatment facilities. Further, the federal government
           could not determine whether commitments and contingencies,
           including those related to treaties and other international
           agreements entered into to further the U.S. government's
           interests, were complete and properly reported.

           Problems in accounting for liabilities affect the determination of
           the full cost of the federal government's current operations and
           the extent of its liabilities. Also, improperly stated
           environmental and disposal liabilities and weak internal control
           supporting the process for their estimation affect the federal
           government's ability to determine priorities for cleanup and
           disposal activities and to appropriately consider future budgetary
           resources needed to carry out these activities. In addition, when
           disclosures of commitments and contingencies are incomplete or
           incorrect, reliable information is not available about the extent
           of the federal government's obligations.
			  
			  Cost of Government Operations and Disbursement Activity

           The previously discussed material weaknesses in reporting assets
           and liabilities, material weaknesses in financial statement
           preparation, as discussed below, and the lack of adequate
           disbursement reconciliations at certain federal agencies affect
           reported net costs. As a result, the federal government was unable
           to support significant portions of the total net cost of
           operations, most notably related to DOD.

           With respect to disbursements, DOD and certain other federal
           agencies reported continued weaknesses in reconciling disbursement
           activity. For fiscal years 2006 and 2005, there was unreconciled
           disbursement activity, including unreconciled differences between
           federal agencies' and the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury)
           records of disbursements and unsupported federal agency
           adjustments, totaling billions of dollars, which could also affect
           the balance sheet.

           Unreliable cost information affects the federal government's
           ability to control and reduce costs, assess performance, evaluate
           programs, and set fees to recover costs where required. Improperly
           recorded disbursements could result in misstatements in the
           financial statements and in certain data provided by federal
           agencies for inclusion in The Budget of the United States
           Government concerning obligations and outlays.
			  
			  Accounting for and Reconciliation of Intragovernmental Activity
			  and Balances

           Federal agencies are unable to adequately account for and
           reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances. The Office of
           Management and Budget (OMB) and Treasury require the chief
           financial officers (CFO) of 35 executive departments and agencies
           to reconcile, on a quarterly basis, selected intragovernmental
           activity and balances with their trading partners. In addition,
           these agencies are required to report to Treasury, the agency's
           inspector general, and GAO on the extent and results of
           intragovernmental activity and balances reconciliation efforts as
           of the end of the fiscal year.

           A substantial number of the agencies did not adequately perform
           the required reconciliations for fiscal years 2006 and 2005. For
           these fiscal years, based on trading partner information provided
           in the Governmentwide Financial Report System (GFRS), Treasury
           produced a "Material Difference Report" for each agency showing
           amounts for certain intragovernmental activity and balances that
           significantly differed from those of its corresponding trading
           partners as of the end of the fiscal year. After analysis of the
           Material Difference Reports for fiscal year 2006, we noted that a
           significant number of CFOs were unable to adequately explain the
           differences with their trading partners or did not provide
           adequate documentation to support responses on the CFO
           Representations. For both fiscal years 2006 and 2005, amounts
           reported by federal agency trading partners for certain
           intragovernmental accounts were significantly out of balance. In
           addition, for fiscal year 2006, about 31 percent of the
           significant agencies identified by Treasury and OMB did not
           perform the required audit procedures on their intragovernmental
           trading partner data included in the footnotes to their closing
           packages.^1 As a result of the above, the federal government's
           ability to determine the impact of these differences on the
           amounts reported in the consolidated financial statements is
           significantly impaired.
			  
			  Preparation of Consolidated Financial Statements

           While further progress was demonstrated in fiscal year 2006, the
           federal government continued to have inadequate systems, controls,
           and procedures to ensure that the consolidated financial
           statements are consistent with the underlying audited agency
           financial statements, balanced, and in conformity with U.S.
           generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In addition, as
           discussed in our scope limitation section of our audit report,
           Treasury could not provide the final fiscal year 2006 consolidated
           financial statements and supporting documentation in time for us
           to complete all of our planned auditing procedures. During our
           fiscal year 2006 audit, we found the following:^2

           o Treasury showed progress by demonstrating that amounts in the
           Statement of Social Insurance were consistent with the underlying
           federal agencies' audited financial statements and that the
           Balance Sheet and the Statement of Net Cost were consistent with
           federal agencies' financial statements prior to eliminating
           intragovernmental activity and balances. However, Treasury's
           process for compiling the consolidated financial statements did
           not ensure that the information in the remaining three principal
           financial statements and notes were fully consistent with the
           underlying information in federal agencies' audited financial
           statements and other financial data.
           o To make the fiscal years 2006 and 2005 consolidated financial
           statements balance, Treasury recorded net decreases of $11 billion
           and $4.1 billion, respectively, to net operating cost on the
           Statement of Operations and Changes in Net Position, which it
           labeled "Other--Unmatched transactions and balances."^3 An
           additional net $10.4 billion and $3.2 billion of unmatched
           transactions were recorded in the Statement of Net Cost for fiscal
           years 2006 and 2005, respectively. Treasury is unable to fully
           identify and quantify all components of these unreconciled
           activities.
           o The federal government did not have an adequate process to fully
           identify and report items needed to reconcile the operating
           results, which for fiscal year 2006 showed a net operating cost of
           $449.5 billion, to the budget results, which for the same period
           showed a unified budget deficit of $247.7 billion.
           o Treasury's elimination of certain intragovernmental activity and
           balances continues to be impaired by the federal agencies'
           problems in handling their intragovernmental transactions. As
           discussed above, amounts reported for federal agency trading
           partners for certain intragovernmental accounts were significantly
           out of balance. This resulted in the need for unsupported
           intragovernmental elimination entries by Treasury in order to
           force the Statements of Operations and Changes in Net Position
           into balance. In addition, differences in other intragovernmental
           accounts, primarily related to transactions with the General Fund,
           have not been reconciled, still remain unresolved, and total
           hundreds of billions of dollars. Therefore, the federal government
           continues to be unable to determine the impact of unreconciled
           intragovernmental activity and balances on the consolidated
           financial statements.
           o We have consistently reported that certain financial information
           required by GAAP was not disclosed in the consolidated financial
           statements. In 2006, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
           Board issued a new standard that eliminated or lessened the
           disclosure requirements for the consolidated financial statements
           related to certain information that Treasury had not been
           reporting.^4 There continued, though, to be other disclosures
           required by GAAP that are not disclosed in the consolidated
           financial statements. Treasury has plans to address certain of the
           omitted disclosures in future years' consolidated financial
           statements. Because of certain of the material weaknesses noted in
           our audit report, we were unable to determine if the omitted
           information was material to the consolidated financial statements.
           o Treasury continued to make progress in addressing certain other
           internal control weaknesses in Treasury's process for preparing
           the consolidated financial statements. However, internal control
           weaknesses continued to exist involving a lack of (1) appropriate
           documentation of certain policies and procedures for preparing the
           consolidated financial statements, (2) adequate supporting
           documentation for certain adjustments made to the consolidated
           financial statements, and (3) effective management reviews.
           o The consolidated financial statements include financial
           information for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches,
           to the extent that federal agencies within those branches have
           provided Treasury such information. However, as we have reported
           in past years, there continue to be undetermined amounts of
           assets, liabilities, costs, and revenues that are not included,
           and the federal government did not provide evidence or disclose in
           the consolidated financial statements that the excluded financial
           information was immaterial.
           o As in previous years, Treasury did not have adequate systems and
           personnel to address the magnitude of the fiscal year 2006
           financial reporting challenges it faced, such as (1) GFRS
           undergoing further development^5 and not yet being fully
           operational, and (2) weaknesses in Treasury's process for
           preparing the consolidated financial statements as discussed
           above. We found that personnel at Treasury's Financial Management
           Service had excessive workloads that required an extraordinary
           amount of effort and dedication to compile the consolidated
           financial statements; however, there were not enough personnel
           with specialized financial reporting experience to help ensure
           reliable financial reporting by the reporting date.
           o During fiscal year 2006, Treasury, in coordination with OMB,
           developed and began implementing corrective action plans and
           milestones for short-term and long-range solutions for certain
           internal control weaknesses we have previously reported regarding
           the process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.
           Resolving some of these internal control weaknesses will be a
           difficult challenge and will require a strong commitment from
           Treasury and OMB as they execute and implement their corrective
           action plans.
			  
			  Outlays and Receiptsï¿½Components of the Budget Deficit

           Both the Reconciliation of Net Operating Cost and Unified Budget
           Deficit and Statement of Changes in Cash Balance from Unified
           Budget and Other Activities report the budget deficit for fiscal
           years 2006 and 2005 of $247.7 billion and $318.6 billion,
           respectively.^6 The budget deficit is calculated by subtracting
           actual budget outlays (outlays) from actual budget receipts
           (receipts).

           For several years, we have been reporting material unreconciled
           differences between the total net outlays reported in selected
           federal agencies' Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) and
           Treasury's central accounting records used to compute the budget
           deficit^7 reported in the consolidated financial statements. OMB
           and Treasury have been working with federal agencies to reduce
           these material unreconciled differences. Such efforts have
           resulted in significantly reducing the net outlay differences in
           fiscal year 2006. However, billions of dollars of differences
           still exist in this and other components of the deficit because
           the federal government does not have effective processes and
           procedures for identifying, resolving, and explaining material
           differences in the components of the deficit between Treasury's
           central accounting records and information reported in agency
           financial statements and underlying agency financial information
           and records. Until these differences are timely reconciled by the
           federal government, their effect on the U.S. government's
           consolidated financial statements will be unknown.

           In fiscal year 2006, we again noted that several agencies'
           auditors reported internal control weaknesses (1) affecting the
           agencies' SBRs, and (2) relating to monitoring, accounting, and
           reporting of budgetary transactions. These weaknesses could affect
           the reporting and calculation of the net outlay amounts in the
           agencies' SBRs. In addition, such weaknesses also affect the
           agencies' ability to report reliable budgetary information to
           Treasury and OMB and may affect the unified budget outlays
           reported by Treasury in its Combined Statement of Receipts,
           Outlays, and Balances,^8 and certain amounts reported in the
           President's Budget.

^1GFRS uses a closing package methodology that has been developed to
capture each federal agency's information and link the agencies' audited
financial statements to the governmentwide consolidated financial
statements.

^2Most of the issues we identified in fiscal year 2006 existed in fiscal
year 2005, and many have existed for a number of years. In April 2006, we
reported in greater detail on the issues we identified, in GAO, Financial
Audit: Significant Internal Control Weaknesses Remain in Preparing the
Consolidated Financial Statements of the U.S. Government, [53]GAO-06-415
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2006). This report includes numerous
recommendations to Treasury and OMB.

^3Although Treasury was unable to determine how much of the unmatched
transactions and balances, if any, relate to operations, it reported this
amount as a component of net operating cost in the consolidated financial
statements.

^4SFFAS No. 32, Consolidated Financial Report of the United States
Government Requirements, Implementing Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Concepts 4, "Intended Audience and Qualitative Characteristics
for the Consolidated Financial Report of the United States Government"
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2006).

^5See GAO, Financial Management Systems: Lack of Disciplined Processes
Puts Effective Implementation of Treasury's Governmentwide Financial
Report System at Risk, [54]GAO-06-4http (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 2006).

^6The budget deficit, receipts, and outlays amounts are reported in
Treasury's Monthly Treasury Statement and the Budget of the United States
Government.

^7See GAO's audit report on its audit of the federal government's fiscal
year 2005 financial statements that was incorporated in the 2005 Financial
Report of the U.S. Government published by Treasury. Also, see GAO,
Financial Audit: Process for Preparing the Consolidated Financial
Statements of the U.S. Government Needs Improvement, [55]GAO-04-45
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2003).

^8Treasury's Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
presents budget results and cash-related assets and liabilities of the
federal government with supporting details. Treasury represents this
report as the recognized official publication of receipts and outlays of
the federal government based on agency reporting.
			  
			  Appendix II: Other Material Weaknesses

           The federal government did not maintain effective internal control
           over financial reporting (including safeguarding assets) and
           compliance with significant laws and regulations as of September
           30, 2006. In addition to the material weaknesses discussed in
           appendix I that contributed to our disclaimer of opinion, we found
           the following four other material weaknesses in internal control.
			  
			  Loans Receivable and Loan Guarantee Liabilities

           Federal agencies accounting for the majority of the reported
           balances for direct loans and loan guarantee liabilities continue
           to have internal control weaknesses related to their credit reform
           estimation and related financial reporting processes. While
           progress in addressing these long-standing weaknesses was reported
           by federal credit agencies, these issues and the complexities
           associated with estimating the costs of lending activities
           significantly increase the risk that material misstatements in
           agency and governmentwide financial statements could occur and go
           undetected. Further, these weaknesses continue to adversely affect
           the federal government's ability to support annual budget requests
           for these programs, make future budgetary decisions, manage
           program costs, and measure the performance of lending activities.
			  
			  Improper Payments

           Under the leadership of OMB, agencies have continued to make
           progress in addressing improper payments. Improvements, though,
           are still needed to fully address the requirements of the Improper
           Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA).^1 Major challenges remain
           in meeting the goals of the act and ultimately better ensuring the
           integrity of payments.^2 The IPIA requires federal agencies to
           review all programs and activities, identify those that may be
           susceptible to significant improper payments,^3 estimate and
           report the annual amount of improper payments for those programs,
           and implement actions to cost-effectively reduce improper
           payments. In addition, OMB has established a program-specific
           initiative under the President's Management Agenda for 15 federal
           agencies to hold federal agency managers accountable for meeting
           the goals of IPIA and to ensure that the necessary attention and
           resources are dedicated to meeting the IPIA requirements.

           For fiscal year 2006, federal agencies' estimates of improper
           payments, based on available information, totaled about $42
           billion, a net increase of about $4 billion, or an 11 percent
           increase, from the prior year improper payment estimate of $38
           billion.^4 This increase was primarily attributable to 10 newly
           reported programs with improper payment estimates totaling about
           $2.3 billion and certain federal agencies reporting an increase in
           estimates for programs that had previously reported.

           We found that some agencies have not annually reviewed all
           programs and activities, have not estimated improper payments for
           all risk-susceptible programs, or have not estimated improper
           payments for all components of risk-susceptible programs. For
           example, we noted that in fiscal year 2006, improper payment
           estimates were not made for 9 risk-susceptible federal programs,
           including Medicaid, with total program outlays of about $183
           billion for fiscal year 2006. Further, we noted some agencies
           reported noncompliance issues and major management challenges
           related to IPIA implementation, including the methodologies used
           to estimate improper payments, adequacy of agency documentation,
           management oversight, and contract management.
			  
			  Information Security

           Although progress has been made, serious and widespread
           information security control weaknesses continue to place federal
           assets at risk of inadvertent or deliberate misuse, financial
           information at risk of unauthorized modification or destruction,
           sensitive information at risk of inappropriate disclosure, and
           critical operations at risk of disruption. GAO has reported
           information security as a high-risk area across government since
           February 1997. Such information security control weaknesses could
           result in compromising the reliability and availability of data
           that are recorded in or transmitted by federal financial
           management systems. A primary reason for these weaknesses is that
           federal agencies have not yet fully institutionalized
           comprehensive security management programs, which are critical to
           identifying information security control weaknesses, resolving
           information security problems, and managing information security
           risks on an ongoing basis. The Congress has shown continuing
           interest in addressing these risks, as evidenced by hearings on
           the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management
           Act of 2002^5 and on information security. In addition, the
           administration has taken important actions to improve information
           security, such as requiring agencies in OMB Memorandum M-06-16^6
           to perform specific actions to protect certain personally
           identifiable information and issuing extensive guidance on
           information security.
			  
			  Tax Collection Activities

           Material internal control weaknesses and systems deficiencies
           continue to affect the federal government's ability to effectively
           manage its tax collection activities,^7 an issue that has been
           reported in our financial statement audit reports for the past 9
           years. Due to errors and delays in recording taxpayer information,
           payments, and other activities, taxpayers were not always credited
           for payments made on their taxes owed, which could result in undue
           taxpayer burden. In addition, the federal government did not
           always follow up on potential unreported or underreported taxes
           and did not always pursue collection efforts against taxpayers
           owing taxes to the federal government.

           Weaknesses in controls over tax collection activities continue to
           affect the federal government's ability to efficiently and
           effectively account for and collect revenue. Additionally,
           weaknesses in financial reporting of revenues affect the federal
           government's ability to make informed decisions about collection
           efforts. As a result, the federal government is vulnerable to loss
           of tax revenue and exposed to potentially billions of dollars in
           losses due to inappropriate refund disbursements.

^1Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350 (Nov. 26, 2002).

^2See GAO, Improper Payments: Incomplete Reporting under the Improper
Payments Information Act Masks the Extent of the Problem, [56]GAO-07-254T
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 5, 2006).

^3IPIA defines improper payments as any payment that should not have been
made or that was made in an incorrect amount (including overpayments and
underpayments) under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other
legally applicable requirements. It includes any payment to an ineligible
recipient, any payment for an ineligible service, any duplicate payment,
payments for services not received, and any payment that does not account
for credit for applicable discounts. OMB's guidance defines significant
improper payments as those in any particular program that exceed both 2.5
percent of program payments and $10 million annually.

^4In their fiscal year 2006 Performance and Accountability Reports (PAR),
selected federal agencies updated their fiscal year 2005 improper payment
estimates to reflect changes since issuance of their fiscal year 2005
PARs. These updates increased the governmentwide improper payment estimate
for fiscal year 2005 from $38 billion to $39 billion.

^5Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116
Stat. 2899, 2946 (Dec. 17, 2002).

^6OMB Memorandum No. M-06-16, Protection of Sensitive Agency Information
(June 23, 2006).

^7GAO, Financial Audit: IRS's Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005 Financial
Statements, [57]GAO-07-http6 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 2006).

Appendix III: Fiscal Year 2006 Audit Results

Table 3: CFO Act Agencies: Fiscal Year 2006 Audit Results and Principal
Auditors

                           Agencies'                     
                           auditors                      
               Opinion     reported                      Agency for    Unqualified SQRT OIG 
               rendered by material                      International                      
CFO Act        agency      weaknesses or Principal       Development                        
agencies       auditor     noncompliance auditor                                            
Agriculture    Unqualified SQRT          OIG             
Commerce       Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Defense        Disclaimer  SQRT          OIG             
Education      Unqualified SQRT          Ernst & Young,  
                                         LLP             
Energy         a           SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Environmental  Unqualified SQRT          OIG             
Protection                                               
Agency                                                   
General        Unqualified SQRT          Pricewaterhouse 
Services                                 Coopers LLP     
Administration                                           
Health and     Unqualified SQRT          Pricewaterhouse 
Human Services                           Coopers LLP     
Homeland       b           SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Security                                                 
Housing and    Unqualified SQRT          OIG             
Urban                                                    
Development                                              
Interior       Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Justice        Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Labor          Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
National       Disclaimer  SQRT          Ernst & Young,  
Aeronautics                              LLP             
and Space                                                
Administration                                           
National       Unqualified               Clifton         
Science                                  Gunderson LLP   
Foundation                                               
Nuclear        Unqualified SQRT          R. Navarro &    
Regulatory                               Associates,     
Commission                               Inc.            
Office of      Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Personnel                                                
Management                                               
Small Business Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Administration                                           
Social         Unqualified               Pricewaterhouse 
Security                                 Coopers LLP     
Administration                                           
State          c           SQRT          Leonard G.      
                                         Birnbaum and    
                                         Company, LLP    
Transportation Qualified   SQRT          OIG             
Treasury       Unqualified SQRT          KPMG LLP        
Veterans       Unqualified SQRT          Deloitte &      
Affairs                                  Touche LLP      

Source: GAO.

aFor fiscal year 2006, only the Consolidated Balance Sheet of the
Department of Energy was subjected to audit, and the auditor qualified its
opinion on this statement.

bFor fiscal year 2006, only the Consolidated Balance Sheet and the related
Statement of Custodial Activity of the Department of Homeland Security
were subjected to audit; the auditor was unable to express an opinion on
these two financial statements.

cThe auditor of the Department of State's (State) fiscal year 2006
financial statements disclaimed an opinion because they were not provided
complete financial statements or responses to certain requests for
evidential material in time to meet the November 15, 2006, reporting
deadline. Subsequently, the auditors satisfied themselves about the
amounts presented on the financial statements. As a result, the auditor
issued an unqualified opinion on State's fiscal year 2006 financial
statements dated December 12, 2006.

(198511)

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

GAO's Mission

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Congressional Relations

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

References

Visible links
  34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-958SP
  35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-542T
  36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-362SP
  37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1077R
  38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-117SP
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-341SP
  40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-958SP
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-342T
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-389T
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-235R
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-814R
  46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-30R
  47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-70R
  48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-229R
  49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-254R
  50. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-91
  51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
  52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-406T
  53. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-415
  54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-4http
  55. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-45
  56. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-254T
  57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-http6
*** End of document. ***