Summary

The Department of Education disagrees with GAO's conclusions that the prepackaged news story and Armstrong Williams subcontract resulted in Antideficiency Act violations. We do not find persuasive the reason Education offers in its report to justify these two actions and, in fact, already addressed them in our September 30, 2005, opinions.

GAO advised Education of our concern with Education's conclusion that the Department's use of appropriated funds for the newspaper article, entitled "Parents Want Science Classes that Make the Grade," was proper. We disagree with Education's view that section 6076 of Public Law 109-13 created new law not in effect at the time that the Department contracted for the newspaper article. Congress clearly rejected the view that section 6076 imposed a new requirement. We disagree with Education's interpretation that section 6076 created a new restriction not already imposed by the publicity or propaganda prohibition.