Overseas Contingency Operations
Reported Obligations for the Department of Defense Gao ID: GAO-09-1022R September 25, 2009Since 2001, Congress has provided the Department of Defense (DOD) with $893 billion in supplemental and annual appropriations, as of June 2009, primarily for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).1 DOD's reported annual obligations2 for OCO have shown a steady increase from about $0.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to about $162.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $151 billion in war-related requests. A total of $89.1 billion has been obligated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 through June 2009. The United States' commitments to OCO will likely involve the continued investment of significant resources, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenge. The magnitude of future costs will depend on several direct and indirect cost variables and, in some cases, decisions that have not yet been made. DOD's future costs will likely be affected by the pace and duration of operations, the types of facilities needed to support troops overseas, redeployment plans, and the amount of equipment to be repaired or replaced. DOD compiles and reports monthly and cumulative incremental obligations incurred to support OCO in a monthly report commonly called the Contingency Operations Status of Funds Report. DOD leadership uses this report, along with other information, to advise Congress on the costs of the war and to formulate future OCO budget requests. DOD reports these obligations by appropriation, contingency operation, and military service or defense agency. DOD has prepared monthly reports on the obligations incurred for its involvement in OCO since fiscal year 2001.
As of June 2009, Congress has appropriated a total of about $893 billion primarily for OCO since 2001. Of that amount, $151 billion was appropriated for use in fiscal year 2009. DOD has reported obligations of about $744 billion for OCO from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2008 and for fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 through June 2009). The $149 billion difference between DOD's appropriations and reported obligations can generally be attributed to the remaining fiscal year 2009 appropriations; multiyear funding for procurement; military construction; and research, development, test, and evaluation from previous OCO-related appropriations that have yet to be obligated; and obligations for classified and other items, which DOD considers to be non-OCO related, that are not reported in DOD's cost-of-war reports. Of DOD's total cumulative reported obligations for OCO through June 2009 (about $744 billion), about $570 billion is for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and about $146 billion is for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The remainder of about $28 billion is for operations in defense of the homeland as part of Operation Noble Eagle. DOD's reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom have consistently increased each fiscal year since operations began. The increases in reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom are in part due to continued costs for military personnel, such as military pay and allowances for mobilized reservists, and for rising operation and maintenance expenses, such as higher contract costs for housing, food, and services and higher fuel costs. In fiscal year 2009, through June 2009, DOD reported obligations of about $89.1 billion, which is more than one half of the total amount of obligation it reported for all of fiscal year 2008. Reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom for the same period continue to account for the largest portion of total reported OCO obligations by operation--about $61.5 billion. In contrast, reported obligations associated with Operation Enduring Freedom total about $27.4 billion, and reported obligations associated with Operation Noble Eagle total about $138.2 million.
GAO-09-1022R, Overseas Contingency Operations: Reported Obligations for the Department of Defense
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1022R
entitled 'Overseas Contingency Operations: Reported Obligations for the
Department of Defense' which was released on September 25, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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-09-1022R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 25, 2009:
Congressional Committees:
Subject: Overseas Contingency Operations: Reported Obligations for the
Department of Defense:
Since 2001, Congress has provided the Department of Defense (DOD) with
$893 billion in supplemental and annual appropriations, as of June
2009, primarily for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).[Footnote 1]
DOD's reported annual obligations[Footnote 2] for OCO have shown a
steady increase from about $0.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to about
$162.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Congress
appropriated $151 billion in war-related requests. A total of $89.1
billion has been obligated through the third quarter of fiscal year
2009 through June 2009. The United States' commitments to OCO will
likely involve the continued investment of significant resources,
requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the
nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenge. The magnitude
of future costs will depend on several direct and indirect cost
variables and, in some cases, decisions that have not yet been made.
DOD's future costs will likely be affected by the pace and duration of
operations, the types of facilities needed to support troops overseas,
redeployment plans, and the amount of equipment to be repaired or
replaced.[Footnote 3]
DOD compiles and reports monthly and cumulative incremental obligations
incurred to support OCO in a monthly report commonly called the
Contingency Operations Status of Funds Report.[Footnote 4] DOD
leadership uses this report, along with other information, to advise
Congress on the costs of the war and to formulate future OCO budget
requests. DOD reports these obligations by appropriation, contingency
operation,[Footnote 5] and military service or defense agency. DOD has
prepared monthly reports on the obligations incurred for its
involvement in OCO since fiscal year 2001.[Footnote 6]
Section 1221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006[Footnote 7] requires us to submit quarterly updates to Congress on
the costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom
based on DOD's monthly cost-of-war reports. This report, which responds
to this requirement, contains our analysis of DOD's reported
obligations for overseas contingencies through June 2009. Specifically,
we assessed (1) DOD's cumulative appropriations and reported
obligations for military operations in support of overseas
contingencies and (2) DOD's fiscal year 2009 reported obligations from
October 2008 through June 2009, the latest data available for OCO by
military service and appropriation account.
We have conducted a series of reviews examining funding and reported
obligations for military operations in support of overseas
contingencies. Our prior work[Footnote 8] has found the data in DOD's
monthly cost-of-war report to be of questionable reliability.
Consequently, we are unable to ensure that DOD's reported obligations
for OCO are complete, reliable, and accurate, and they therefore should
be considered approximations. Based on this work, we have made a number
of recommendations to the Secretary of Defense intended to improve the
transparency and reliability of DOD's OCO obligations. For example we
have recommended that DOD (1) revise the cost reporting guidance so
that large amounts of reported obligations are not shown in "other"
miscellaneous categories and (2) take steps to ensure that reported OCO
obligations are reliable. In response, DOD is taking steps to improve
OCO cost reporting. For example, DOD has modified its guidance to more
clearly define some of the cost categories and is taking additional
steps to strengthen the oversight and program management of the cost
reporting. Specifically, DOD has taken steps to improve transparency by
requiring components to analyze variances in reported obligations and
to disclose reasons for significant changes, and to affirm that monthly
reported OCO obligations provide a fair representation of ongoing
activities. Furthermore, in February 2007, DOD established a Senior
Steering Group including representatives from DOD, the Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS), and the military services in an effort
to standardize and improve the OCO cost-reporting process and to
increase management attention to the process. DOD established an OCO
Cost-of-War Project Management Office to monitor work performed by
auditing agencies and to report possible solutions and improvements to
the Senior Steering Group. DOD has started several initiatives to
improve credibility, transparency, and timeliness. One of the
initiatives is a quarterly validation of OCO obligation transactions at
each of the DOD components. Another is the development of the
Contingency Operations Reporting and Analysis Service system, which
will allow the Department to move from a manual methodology of
collecting cost data to extracting a portion of the data from various
accounting systems. However, until all DOD efforts are more fully
implemented, it is too soon to know the extent to which these changes
will improve the reliability of DOD's cost reporting.
While establishing sound cost reporting procedures and oversight is
clearly important, the reliability of the cost-of-war reports also
depends on the quality of DOD's accounting data. Factors contributing
to DOD's challenges in reporting reliable cost data include long-
standing deficiencies in DOD's financial management systems. We are
aware that DOD has efforts under way to improve these systems as well.
We have also made recommendations to improve transparency and fiscal
responsibility related to funding the war on terrorism and to permit
the Congress and the administration to establish priorities and make
trade-offs among those priorities in defense funding. Specifically, we
recommended that DOD (1) issue guidance defining what constitutes the
"longer war against terror," identify what costs are related to that
longer war, and build these costs into the base defense budget; (2)
identify incremental costs of the ongoing OCO that can be moved into
the base budget; and (3) in consultation with the Office of Management
and Budget, consider limiting emergency funding requests to truly
unforeseen or sudden events.[Footnote 9] We will continue to review
DOD's efforts to implement these recommendations as part of our follow-
up work on OCO.
In March 2009 we reported that while DOD and the military services
continue to take steps to improve the accuracy and reliability of some
aspects of OCO reporting,[Footnote 10] DOD lacks a sound approach for
identifying cost of specific contingency operations, raising concerns
about the reliability of reported information. We recommended that DOD
(1) establish a methodology for determining what portion of OCO costs
is attributable to Operation Iraqi Freedom versus Operation Enduring
Freedom and (2) develop a plan and timetable for evaluating whether
certain expenses are incremental and should continue to be funded
outside of DOD's base budget. DOD agreed with the first recommendation
and intends to strengthen guidance requiring an annual review of cost
reporting. Regarding the second recommendation, DOD responded it will
use refined criteria for developing the fiscal year 2009 Overseas
Contingency Operations Supplemental Request and the fiscal year 2010
Overseas Contingency Operations Request. We are currently reviewing
that criteria and the related funding request.
In February 2009, the Office of Management and Budget, in concert with
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, collaboratively developed the
Criteria for War/Overseas Contingency Operations Funding Requests,
guidance for the OCO criteria development of the war requests. Since
April, we have been examining whether and how the military services
have implemented this criteria in formulating their FY 2010 budget.
Also, we are focusing on the extent to which internal controls are
designed into the contingency operations status of the funds reporting
process to reduce the risk of inaccurate information in FY 2009.
We conducted our work from August 2009 to September 2009 in accordance
with all sections of the GAO's Quality Control Assurance Framework that
are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to
meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work.
We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis
conducted, provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
in this product.
Summary:
As of June 2009, Congress has appropriated a total of about $893
billion primarily for OCO since 2001. Of that amount, $151 billion was
appropriated for use in fiscal year 2009. DOD has reported obligations
of about $744 billion for OCO from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year
2008 and for fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 through June 2009). The
$149 billion difference[Footnote 11] between DOD's appropriations and
reported obligations can generally be attributed to the remaining
fiscal year 2009 appropriations; multiyear funding for procurement;
military construction; and research, development, test, and evaluation
from previous OCO-related appropriations[Footnote 12] that have yet to
be obligated; and obligations for classified and other items, which DOD
considers to be non-OCO related, that are not reported in DOD's cost-
of-war reports.[Footnote 13] As part of our ongoing work, we are
reviewing DOD's process for reporting its OCO-related obligations.
Figure 1 shows the increase in DOD's cumulative reported OCO
obligations and cumulative OCO appropriations from fiscal year 2001
through fiscal year 2008 and through the third quarter of fiscal year
2009 (October 2008 through June 2009).
Figure 1: DOD's Cumulative Reported Overseas Contingency Operations
Appropriations and Obligations for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 and
for Fiscal Year 2009 for October 2008 through June 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph]
Fiscal year: 2001;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $17 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $0.2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $31 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $29.4 billion.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $100 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $98 billion.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $166 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $169.2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $269 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $254 billion.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $385 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $352.5 billion.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $554 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $492.2 billion.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $741 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $654.7 billion.
Fiscal year: 2009 (October through January);
Cumulative OCO appropriations: $893 billion;
Cumulative reported OCO obligations: $744 billion.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD and appropriations data.
Notes: Appropriations amounts reflect totals provided in supplemental
and annual appropriations legislation. Reported OCO obligations include
Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi
Freedom, and generally reflect costs reported in DOD's September 30
cost-of-war reports for each fiscal year. However, the fiscal year 2002
and 2003 figures include about $20.1 billion that according to DOD
officials was war related but not reported in DOD's cost-of-war
reports. GAO has assessed the reliability of DOD's obligation data and
found significant problems, such that these data may not accurately
reflect the true dollar value of OCO obligations.
[End of figure]
Of DOD's total cumulative reported obligations for OCO through June
2009 (about $744 billion), about $570 billion is for operations in and
around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and about $146 billion
is for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines,
and elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. The remainder of
about $28 billion is for operations in defense of the homeland as part
of Operation Noble Eagle.
As figure 2 shows, DOD's reported obligations for Operation Iraqi
Freedom have consistently increased each fiscal year since operations
began. The increases in reported obligations for Operation Iraqi
Freedom are in part due to continued costs for military personnel, such
as military pay and allowances for mobilized reservists, and for rising
operation and maintenance expenses, such as higher contract costs for
housing, food, and services and higher fuel costs. In addition, the
need to repair and replace equipment because of the harsh combat and
environmental conditions in theater has further increased obligations
for Operation Iraqi Freedom. In contrast, DOD's reported obligations
for Operation Noble Eagle have consistently decreased since fiscal year
2003, largely because of the completion of repairs to the Pentagon and
upgrades in security at military installations that were onetime costs,
as well as a reduction in combat air patrols and in the number of
reserve personnel guarding government installations. Reported
obligations for Operation Enduring Freedom have ranged from $10 billion
to about $30 billion each fiscal year since 2003. Recent increases in
reported obligations for Operation Enduring Freedom are in part caused
by higher troop levels in Afghanistan, the costs associated with
training Afghan security forces, and the need to repair and replace
equipment after several years of ongoing operations.
Figure 2: DOD's Reported Overseas Contingency Operations Obligations
for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2008 by Operation:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked multiple line graph]
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2001;
Operation Noble Eagle: $0.1 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $0.1 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 0;
Total: $0.2 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2002;
Operation Noble Eagle: $14.2 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $15 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: 0;
Total: $29.1 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2003;
Operation Noble Eagle: $6.3 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $15.9 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $46.4
Total: $68.6 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2004;
Operation Noble Eagle: $3.8 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $10.2 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $57.2 billion;
Total: $71.3 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2005;
Operation Noble Eagle: $2.1 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $10.7 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $72 billion;
Total: $84.8 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2006;
Operation Noble Eagle: $0.8 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $14.2 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $83.4 billion;
Total: $98.4 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2007;
Operation Noble Eagle: $0.5 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $20.1 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $119.1 billion;
Total: $139.8 billion.
Reported GWOT obligations per fiscal year: 2008;
Operation Noble Eagle: $0.15 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $31.9 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $130.3 billion;
Total: $162.4 billion.
Cumulative total, 2001-2008:
Operation Noble Eagle: $28.0 billion;
Operation Enduring Freedom: $118.1 billion;
Operation Iraqi Freedom: $508.4 billion;
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: Operation Iraqi Freedom began in fiscal year 2003; therefore no
obligations were reported in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 for this
operation. Reported OCO obligations generally reflect costs reported in
DOD's September 30 cost-of-war reports for each fiscal year. However,
the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 figures include about $20.1 billion that
according to DOD officials was war-related but not reported in DOD's
cost-of-war reports. GAO has assessed the reliability of DOD's
obligation data and found significant problems, such that these data
may not accurately reflect the true dollar value of OCO obligations.
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2009, through June 2009, DOD reported obligations of
about $89.1 billion, which is more than one half of the total amount of
obligation it reported for all of fiscal year 2008. Reported
obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom for the same period continue to
account for the largest portion of total reported OCO obligations by
operation--about $61.5 billion. In contrast, reported obligations
associated with Operation Enduring Freedom total about $27.4 billion,
and reported obligations associated with Operation Noble Eagle total
about $138.2 million.
The Army accounts for the largest portion of reported obligations for
fiscal year 2009 through June 2009--about $60.7 billion, more than 5.7
times higher than the $10.5 billion in obligations reported for the Air
Force, the military service with the next greatest reported amount.
Among appropriation accounts, operation and maintenance, which includes
items such as support for housing, food, and services; the repair of
equipment; and transportation to move people, supplies, and equipment,
accounts for the largest reported obligations--about $52.1 billion.
Reported obligations for the procurement account represent about 16.2
percent of reported obligations or about $14.4 billion.
Figure 3 shows DOD's reported obligations for fiscal year 2009 for
October 2008 through June 2009 by DOD component and appropriation
account.
Figure 3: DOD's Reported Overseas Contingency Operations Obligations
for Fiscal Year 2009, by DOD Component and Appropriation Account, as of
June 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
By DOD component:
Army: $60.7 billion; 68.2%;
Air Force: $10.5 billion; 11.8%;
Marine Corps: $6.2 billion; 7.0%;
Navy: $6.1 billion; 6.8%;
Other DOD components: $5.5 billion; 6.2%.
By appropriations account:
Operations and maintenance: $52.1 billion; 58.4%;
Procurement: $14.4 billion; 16.1%;
Military personnel: $14.3 billion; 16.1%;
Other: $6.7 billion; 7.5%;
Research, development, test, and evaluation: $0.8 billion; 0.9%;
Military Working Capital Fund: $0.6 billion; 0.7%;
Military construction: $0.3 billion; 0.3%.
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. The "Other" portion of the
appropriation account pie chart includes funding for the Afghanistan
Security Forces Fund, the Iraq Security Force Fund, and the Joint
Improvised Explosive Devices Defense Fund.
[End of figure]
Agency Comments:
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) provided
technical comments on a draft of this report and we incorporated these
comments as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense
(Comptroller); and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. In
addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in the attached enclosure.
Signed by:
Sharon L. Pickup:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
Enclosure:
List of Committees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Howard McKeon:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Enclosure:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Sharon Pickup, (202) 512-9619 or pickups@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Ann Borseth, Assistant
Director; Bruce Brown; Ron La Due Lake; Lonnie McAllister; and Kevin
O'Neill made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President
announced a Global War on Terrorism, requiring the collective
instruments of the entire federal government to counter the threat of
terrorism. Overseas contingency operations include operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan. These operations involve a wide variety of activities,
such as combating insurgents, training the military forces of other
nations, and conducting small-scale reconstruction and humanitarian
relief projects. Starting with the fiscal year 2009 supplemental
request in April 2009, the Administration now refers to funds for the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as Overseas Contingency Operations funds
instead of Global War on Terrorism funds.
[2] According to Department of Defense, Financial Management
Regulation, 7000.14-R, vol. 1, "Definitions" (Dec. 2001), xvii,
obligations are incurred through actions such as orders placed,
contracts awarded, services received, or similar transactions made by
federal agencies during a given period that will require payments
during the same or a future period.
[3] For more information see GAO, Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding
Iraq: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-308SP] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 9,
2007), and Global War on Terrorism: Observations on Funding, Costs, and
Future Commitments, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-885T] (Washington, D.C.: July 18,
2006).
[4] This report replaces the Supplemental and Cost of War Execution
Report.
[5] DOD defines contingency operations to include small, medium, and
large-scale campaign-level military operations, including support for
peacekeeping operations, major humanitarian assistance efforts,
noncombatant evacuation operations, and international disaster relief
efforts.
[6] Department of Defense, Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14-R,
vol. 12, ch. 23. This regulation generally establishes financial policy
and procedures related to DOD contingency operations. Volume 6A,
chapter 2, and volume 3, chapter 8, of the DOD Financial Management
Regulation also include provisions to ensure the accuracy of cost
reporting.
[7] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1221(c) (2006).
[8] For more information see GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to
Improve the Reliability of Cost Data and Provide Additional Guidance to
Control Costs, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-882]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005); and Global War on Terrorism: DOD
Needs to Take Action to Encourage Fiscal Discipline and Optimize the
Use of Tools Intended to Improve GWOT Cost Reporting, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-68] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6,
2007).
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-68].
[10] For more information see GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs
to More Accurately Capture and Report the Costs of Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-302] (Washington, D.C., Mar. 17,
2009).
[11] We calculated this difference by comparing available data on
appropriations and reported obligations.
[12] Appropriations for military personnel and operation and
maintenance are usually available for 1 year, while appropriations for
research, development, test and evaluation are usually available for 2
years; procurement funds (with the exception of ship building funds,
which are sometimes available longer) are usually available for 3
years; and military construction funds are usually available for 5
years.
[13] We have not reviewed DOD's determination of what appropriations
should be considered non-overseas contingency operations.
[End of section]
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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
