The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided $48.1 billion in additional spending at the Department of Transportation (DOT) for investments in transportation infrastructure, including highways, passenger rail, and transit. This statement provides a general overview of (1) selected states' use of Recovery Act funds for highway programs, (2) the approaches taken by these states to ensure accountability for these funds, and (3) the selected states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds that they receive for highway programs. This statement is based on work in which GAO examined the use of Recovery Act funds by a core group of 16 states and the District of Columbia, representing about 65 percent of the U.S. population and two-thirds of the intergovernmental federal assistance available through the Act. GAO issued its first bimonthly report on April 23, 2009. According to DOT, as of mid-April, the 17 locations that GAO reviewed had obligated $3.3 billion of the over $15 billion (21 percent) in highway investment funds that DOT had apportioned to them. These funds will be used in about 900 projects. States are using existing statewide plans to quickly identify and obligate funding for Recovery Act transportation projects. Several states have generally focused on rehabilitation and repair projects, because these projects require lessenvironmental review or design work. For example, the New Jersey Department of Transportation selected 40 projects and concentrated mainly on projects that require little environmental clearance or extensive design work, such as highway and bridge painting and deck replacement. Some states also reported targeting funds toward projects with an emphasis on job creation and consideration of economically distressed areas. For example, Colorado Department of Transportation officials are emphasizing construction projects, such as highway bridge replacements, rather than projects in planning or design phases, in order to maximize job creation. The Illinois Department of Transportation reported that it is planning to spend a large share of its estimated $655 million in Recovery Act funds for highway and bridge projects in economically distressed areas. States are modifying systems to track Recovery Act funds but are concerned about tracking funds distributed directly to nonstate entities. Officials from all 16 of the states which GAO is reviewing and the District of Columbia stated that they have established or are establishing ways to identify, monitor, track, and report on the use of the Recovery Act funds. However, officials from many of these states and the District of Columbia have concerns about the ability of subrecipients, localities, and other non-state entities to separately monitor, track, and report on the Recovery Act funds these nonstate entities receive. Officials in several states also expressed concern about being held accountable for funds flowing directly to localities or other recipients and indicated that either their states would not be tracking Recovery Act funds going to the local levels or that they were unsure how much data would be available on the use of these funds. Our April 23rd report recommended that the OMB evaluate current reporting requirements before adding further data collection requirements. States vary in their responses to determining how to assess the impact of Recovery Act funds. For programs such as the Federal-aid Highway Surface Transportation Program, some states will use existing federal program guidance or performance measures to evaluate impact. However, a number of states have expressed concerns about definitions of "jobs retained" and "jobs created" under the act, as well as methodologies that can be used for the estimation of each. Given these concerns, GAO recommended in its first bimonthly report that the OMB continue to identify methodologies that can be used to determine jobs retained and created from projects funded by the Recovery Act.

This testimony discusses GAO's work examining the uses and planning by selected states and localities for funds made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Recovery Act is estimated to cost about $787 billion over the next several years, of which about $280 billion will be administered through states and localities. Funds made available under the Recovery Act are being distributed to states, localities, and other entities and individuals through a combination of grants and direct assistance. As Congress may know, the stated purposes of the Recovery Act are to: (1) preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery; (2) assist those most impacted by the recession; (3) provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health; (4) invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits; and (5) stabilize state and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases. As described in GAO's March testimony, the Recovery Act specifies several roles for GAO including conducting bimonthly reviews of selected states' and localities' use of funds made available under the act. This statement today is based on our report being released today, Recovery Act: As Initial Implementation Unfolds in States and Localities, Continued Attention to Accountability Issues Is Essential, which is the first in a series of bimonthly reviews we will do on states' and localities' uses of Recovery Act funding and covers the actions taken under the Act through April 20, 2009. Our report and our other work related to the Recovery Act can be found on our new website called Following the Money: GAO's Oversight of the Recovery Act, which is accessible through GAO's home page at www.gao.gov. Like the report, this statement discusses (1) selected states' and localities' uses of and planning for Recovery Act funds, (2) the approaches taken by the selected states and localities to ensure accountability for Recovery Act funds, and (3) states' plans to evaluate the impact of the Recovery Act funds they received. About 90 percent of the estimated $49 billion in Recovery Act funding to be provided to states and localities in FY2009 will be through health, transportation and education programs. Within these categories, the three largest programs are increased Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) grant awards, funds for highway infrastructure investment, and the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF). The funding notifications for Recovery Act funds for the 16 selected states and the District of Columbia (the District) have been approximately $24.2 billion for Medicaid FMAP on April 3, $26.7 billion for highways on March 2, and $32.6 billion for SFSF on April 2. Fifteen of the 16 states and the District have drawn down approximately $7.96 billion in increased FMAP grant awards for the period October 1, 2008 through April 1, 2009. The increased FMAP is for state expenditures for Medicaid services. The receipt of this increased FMAP may reduce the state share for their Medicaid programs. States have reported using funds made available as a result of the increased FMAP for a variety of purposes. For example, states and the District reported using these funds to maintain their current level of Medicaid eligibility and benefits, cover their increased Medicaid caseloads-which are primarily populations that are sensitive to economic downturns, including children and families, and to offset their state general fund deficits thereby avoiding layoffs and other measures detrimental to economic recovery. States are undertaking planning activities to identify projects, obtain approval at the state and federal level and move them to contracting and implementation. For the most part, states were focusing on construction and maintenance projects, such as road and bridge repairs. Before they can expend Recovery Act funds, states must reach agreement with the Department of Transportation on the specific projects; as of April 16, two of the 16 states had agreements covering more than 50 percent of their states' apportioned funds, and three states did not have agreement on any projects. While a few, including Mississippi and Iowa had already executed contracts, most of the 16 states were planning to solicit bids in April or May. Thus, states generally had not yet expended significant amounts of Recovery Act funds. The states and D.C. must apply to the Department of Education for SFSF funds. Education will award funds once it determines that an application contains key assurances and information on how the state will use the funds. As of April 20, applications from three states had met that determination- South Dakota, and two of GAO's sample states, California and Illinois. The applications from other states are being developed and submitted and have not yet been awarded. The states and the District report that SFSF funds will be used to hire and retain teachers, reduce the potential for layoffs, cover budget shortfalls, and restore funding cuts to programs. Planning continues for the use of Recovery Act funds. State activities indlude appointing Recovery Czars; establishing task forces and other entities, and developing public websites to solicit input and publicize selected projects. GAO found that the selected states and the District are taking various approaches to ensuring that internal controls manage risk up-front; they are assessing known risks and developing plans to address those risks. State auditors are also planning their work including conducting required single audits and testing compliance with federal requirements. Nearly half of the estimated spending programs in the Recovery Act will be administered by non-federal entities. State officials suggested opportunities to improve communication in several areas. Officials in nine of the 16 states and the District expressed concern about determining the jobs created and retained under the Recovery Act, as well as methodologies that can be used for estimation of each.

This testimony discusses GAO's role to help ensure accountability and transparency for science funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The purposes of the Recovery Act funds include preserving and creating jobs and promoting economic recovery; assisting those most impacted by the recession; investing in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure to provide long-term economic benefits; and stabilizing state and local government budgets. The Recovery Act, estimated to cost $787 billion, includes more than $21 billion in spending at the Departments of Energy and Commerce, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for research and development (R&D) related activities that support fundamental research, demonstrate and deploy advanced energy technologies, purchase scientific instrumentation and equipment, and construct or modernize research facilities. This statement discusses (1) GAO's responsibilities under the Recovery Act related to science funding; (2) particular R&D funding areas that deserve special attention to ensure that funds are best used; and (3) GAO's plans for carrying out its responsibilities under the act. The Recovery Act directs GAO to provide bimonthly reviews and reporting on selected states' and localities' use of funds. GAO has initiated this work and will examine 16 states and the District of Columbia that contain about 65 percent of the U.S. population and are estimated to receive about two-thirds of the intergovernmental grants funds available through the Recovery Act. Because of the scope of this work, GAO has reached out to the broader accountability community to coordinate our respective roles, planned approaches, and timelines. On February 25, 2009, GAO hosted an initial coordination meeting with the Inspectors General (IG) or their representatives from 17 agencies. In carrying out its oversight roles related to science funding, GAO plans to work together with the IGs as they seek to ensure that Energy, Commerce, NSF, and NASA spend the Recovery Act's R&D-related monies promptly, effectively, and in compliance with applicable laws. GAO's prior work has identified several Energy, Commerce, NSF, and NASA programs that deserve special attention from management and the IG's office to ensure that funds are put to best use. For example, the Recovery Act made $6 billion available to Energy to support $60 billion in new loan guarantees under its innovative technology loan guarantee program. However, in July 2008, GAO reported that DOE was not well positioned to manage the loan guarantee program effectively and maintain accountability because it had not completed a number of key management and internal control activities. GAO recommended, among other things, that DOE complete detailed internal loan selection policies and procedures that lay out roles and responsibilities and criteria and requirements for conducting and documenting analyses and decision making. The act also made $3.5 billion available to Energy to fund R&D on renewable energy and fossil energy. In December 2008, GAO reported that DOE does not formally assess whether industry would undertake oil and gas R&D without federal funding, raising questions about the appropriate use of federal funds, and recommended that DOE assess the likelihood that the R&D would not occur without federal funding. The Recovery Act provided a total of $1 billion to NASA, including $400 million for exploration. In March 2009, GAO reported that 10 of 13 NASA projects with life-cycle costs exceeding $250 million had experienced significant cost and/or schedule growth--on average, development costs had increased by 13 percent and launch had been delayed by 11 months. To make the most effective and efficient use of resources, GAO plans to fulfill its Recovery Act responsibilities by working together with the IGs to leverage strengths and avoid duplication of effort wherever possible. In consultation with Congress as part of its general responsibilities, GAO also will target at- risk programs for review and expand its work on base programs to examine any related stimulus funding.

Congress asked GAO to estimate the state allocations that would likely occur if an across-the-board percentage point increase in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) replaced Section 5001 of the proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, while maintaining the same funding level that the Congressional Budget Office estimated for this section. This correspondence responds to your request for state-by-state, quarter-by-quarter estimates of the Medicaid funding states would receive with such an across-the-board increase.