This is the accessible text file for CG Presentation GAO-06-1083CG 
entitled 'Defense Transformation Accountability Challenges' which was released on August 25, 2006. 

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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 21st Century 
Accountability Challenges: 

Association of Defense Auditors: 
August 22, 2006: 

The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 

Evolving Challenges for SAls and OlGs: 

Public expectations of government are changing: 

- Zero tolerance for corruption: 

-Desire for enhanced results and improved responsiveness: 

-Selected trends and challenges that have no boundaries: 

* Long-Term Fiscal Imbalance 

* National Security: 

* Global Interdependence 

* Changing Economy: 

* Demographics: 

* Science and Technology 

* Quality of Life: 

* Governance: 

Three Key Elements for Success: 

Incentives: 

Transparency: 

Accountability: 

Contributing Elements: 

Incentives: 
Government Examples: 
* Rule of law; 
* Professional Civil Service; 
* Checks and balances. 

Transparency: 
Government examples: 
* Financial disclosure; 
* Due process; 
* Free press. 

Accountability: 
Government examples: 
* Enforcement of law; 
* Oversight; 
* Independent judiciary. 

Incentives: 
SAI/IG Examples: 
* Independence; 
* Resources. 

Transparency: 
SAI/IG Examples: 
* Protocols; 
* Public reporting. 

Accountability: 
SAI/IG Examples: 
* Enforcement of access rights; 
* Peer review: 

Possible SAI / IG Roles: 

[See PDF for Image]

Pyramid starting with: 

1. Facilitating Foresight; 
2. Increasing Insight; 
3. Enhancing Economy, Efficiency, Transparency, and Effectiveness; 
4. Assuring Accountability; 
5. Combating Corruption. 

[End of Figure] 

GAO's Role: 

GAO's role has been to support the Congress in carrying out its 
constitutional responsibilities help improve the performance and assure 
accountability of government for the American people:  

We do this in four fundamental ways:  

-Oversight-preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse: 

-Insight-making government more efficient and effective: 

-Foresight-examining the role of government: 

-Adjudication-bid protest resolution, legal opinions (e.g. 
appropriations law): 

GAO's Strategic Plan: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Serving The Congress And The Nation: 

GAO's Strategic Plan Framework: 

Mission: 

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the 
accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the 
American people. 

Themes: 

Long-Term Fiscal Imbalance: 

National Security: 

Global Interdependence: 

Changing Economy: 

Demographics: 

Science and Technology: 

Quality of Life: 

Governance: 

Provide Timely, Quality to the Congress and the Federal Government 
to... 

Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial 
Security of the American People related to... 

* Health care needs and financing; 
* Effective system of justice; 
* Education and protection of children; 
* Viable communities; 
* Work opportunities and worker; 
* Natural resources use and protection environmental protection; 
* Retirement income security; 
* Physical infrastructure. 

Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of Global 
interdependence involving. . . 

* Emerging threats; 
* Advancement of U.S. interests; 
* Military capabilities and readiness; 
* Global market forces.  

Help Transform the Federal Government's Role and How It Does Business 
to Meet 21st Century Challenges by addressing...

* Roles in achieving federal objectives; 
* Key management challenges and program risks;   
* Government transformation; 
* Fiscal position and financing of the government.   

Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency and a World- 
Class Professional Services Organization in the areas of... 

* Client and customer satisfaction; 
* Process improvement; 
* Strategic leadership; 
* Employer of choice; 
* Institutional knowledge and experience. 

Core Values: 

Accountability, Integrity, Reliability: 

GAO Strategic Plan 2004-2009: 

Source: GAO. 

[End of Figure] 

The Case for Change: 

The federal government is on a "burning platform," and the status quo 
way of doing business is unacceptable for a variety of reasons, 
including: 

Past fiscal trends and significant long-range challenges: 

Rising public expectations for demonstrable results and enhanced 
responsiveness: 

Selected trends and challenges having no boundaries: 

Additional resource demands due to Iraq, Afghanistan, incremental 
homeland security needs, and recent natural disasters in the United 
States: 

Numerous government performance/accountability and high risk 
challenges: 

Outdated federal organizational structures, policies, and practices: 

Composition of Federal Spending: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text 

3 pie charts with 5 items each. 

1965: 
Defense: 43.0%; 
Social Security: 15.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 0%; 
Net interest: 7.0%; 
All other spending: 35.0%. 

1985: 
Defense: 27.0%; 
Social Security: 20.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 9.0%; 
Net interest: 14.0%; 
All other spending: 30.0%. 

2005: 
Defense: 20.0%; 
Social Security: 21.0%; 
Medicare & Medicaid: 19.0%; 
Net interest: 7.0%; 
All other spending: 32.0%. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget. 

[End of figure] 

Federal Spending for Mandatory and Discretionary Programs: 

[See PDF for image] - graphic text 

3 pie charts with 3 items each. 

1965: 
Discretionary: 66%; 
Mandatory: 27%; 
Net Interest: 7%. 

1985: 
Discretionary: 44%; 
Mandatory: 42%; 
Net Interest: 14%. 

2005: 
Discretionary: 39%; 
Mandatory: 54%; 
Net Interest: 7%. 

Source: Office of Management and Budget. 

[End of figure] 

Fiscal Year 2004 and 2005 Deficits and Net Operating Costs: 

(Numbers in parenthesis means Dollars in billions)  

On-Budget Deficit: 
Fiscal Year 2004: (568); 
Fiscal year 2005: (494). 

Off-Budget Surplus*: 
Fiscal Year 2004: 155; 
Fiscal year 2005: 175. 

Unified Deficit: 
Fiscal Year 2004: (413); 
Fiscal year 2005: (318). 

Net Operating Cost: 
Fiscal year 2004: (616); 
Fiscal year 2005: (760). 

*Includes $151 billion in fiscal year 2004 and $173 billion in fiscal 
year 2005 in Social Security surpluses and $4 billion in fiscal year 
2004 and $2 billion in fiscal year 2005 in Postal Service surpluses. 

Sources: The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of the 
Treasury. 

[End of table] 

Estimated Fiscal Exposures ($ trillions): 

Explicit liabilities: 
* Publicly held debt; 
* Military & civilian pensions & retiree health; 
* Other; 
2000: $6.9; 
2005: $9.9. 

Commitments and Contingencies: E.g., PBGC, undelivered orders; 
2000: 0.5; 
2005: 0.9. 

Implicit exposures;
2000: 13.0; 
2005: 35.6. 

Implicit exposures: Future Social Security benefits; 
2000: 3.8; 
2005: 5.7. 

Implicit exposures: Future Medicare Part A benefits; 
2000: 2.7; 
2005: 8.8. 

Implicit exposures: Future medicare Part B benefits; 
2000: 6.5; 
2005: 12.4. 

Implicit exposures: Future Medicare Part D benefits; 
2000: N/A; 
2005: 8.7. 

Total; 
2000: $20.4; 
2005: $46.4. 

Source: U.S. government's consolidated financial statements (CFS). 

Note: Estimates for Social Security and Medicare are at present value 
as of January 1 of each year as reported in the CFS and all other data 
are as of September 30. 

[End of table] 

Current Fiscal Policy Is Unsustainable: 

The "Status Quo" is Not an Option: 

* We face large and growing structural deficits largely due to known 
demographic trends and rising health care costs. 

* GAO's simulations show that balancing the budget in 2040 could 
require actions as large as: 

- Cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or: 

- Raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level: 

Faster Economic Growth Can Help, but It Cannot Solve the Problem: 

* Closing the current long-term fiscal gap based on reasonable 
assumptions would require real average annual economic growth in the 
double digit range every year for the next 75 years. 

* During the 1990s, the economy grew at an average 3.2 percent per 
year. 

* As a result, we cannot simply grow our way out of this problem. Tough 
choices will be required.  

The Way Forward: A Three-Pronged Approach: 

1. Strengthen Budget and Legislative Processes and Controls: 

2. Improve Financial Reporting and Performance Metrics: 

3. Fundamental Reexamination & Transformation for the 21St Century: 

Solutions Require Active Involvement from both the Executive and 
Legislative Branches: 

Key National Indicators: 

What: A portfolio of economic, social, and environmental outcome-based 
measures that could be used to help assess the nation's and other 
governmental jurisdictions' position and progress: 

Who: Many countries and several states, regions, and localities have 
already undertaken related initiatives (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, 
Canada, United Kingdom, Oregon, Silicon Valley (California) and 
Boston). 

Why: Development of such a portfolio of indicators could have a number 
of possible benefits, including: 

* Serving as a framework for related strategic planning efforts: 

* Enhancing performance and accountability reporting: 

* Informing public policy decisions, including much needed baseline 
reviews of existing government policies, programs, functions, and 
activities: 

* Facilitating public education and debate as well as an informed 
electorate: 

Way Forward: Consortium of key players housed by the National Academies 
domestically and related efforts by the OECD and others 
internationally. 

Key National Indicators: Where the World's Sole Superpower Ranks: 

The United States may be the only superpower, but compared to most 
other OECD countries on selected key economic, social, and 
environmental indicators, on average, the U.S. ranks: 

16 0UT OF 28: 

OECD Categories for Key Indicators: 

* Population/Migration; 
* Energy; 
* Environment; 
* Quality of Life; 
* Macroeconomic Trends; 
* Labor Market; 
* Education; 
* Economic Globalization;  
* Prices; 
* Science & Tech; 
* Public Finance. 

Source: 2006 OECD Factbook: 

GAO's High-Risk List 2006: 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems and the 
Nation's Critical Infrastructures; 
Designated High Risk: 1997. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
Strategic Human Capital Management[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2001. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlook[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2001. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
Managing Federal Real Property[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security; 
Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-Sharing Mechanisms 
to Improve Homeland Security; 
Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Supply Chain Management 
(formerly Inventory Management); 
1990. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Weapon Systems 
Acquisition; 
Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Business Systems 
Modernization; 
Designated High Risk: 1995. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Financial Management; 
Designated High Risk: 1995. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Support Infrastructure 
Management; 
Designated High Risk: 1997. 

High-Risk Areas: Addressing Challenges in Broad-based Transformations: 
DOD Approach to Business Transformation[A]: DOD Personnel Security 
Clearance Program; 
Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High Risk Areas: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: DOE 
Contract Management; 
Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High Risk Areas: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: NASA 
Contract Management; 
Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High Risk Areas: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: DOD 
Contract Management; 
Designated High Risk: 1992. 

High Risk Areas: Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively: 
Management of Interagency Contracting; 
Designated High Risk: 2005. 

High Risk Areas: Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law 
Administration: Enforcement of Tax Laws[A,B]; 
Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High Risk Areas: Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law 
Administration: IRS Business Systems Modernization[C]; 
Designated High Risk: 1995. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Medicare Program[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 1990. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing 
Assistance Programs; 
Designated High Risk: 1994. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Medicaid Program[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Modernizing Federal Disability Programs[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer 
Insurance Program[A]; 
Designated High Risk: 2003. 

High Risk Areas: Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit 
Programs: National Flood Insurance Program; 
Designated High Risk: 2006. 

High Risk Areas: Other: FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization; 
Designated High Risk: 1995. 

[A] Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions 
by the executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk 
area. 

[B] Two high-risk areas-Collection of Unpaid Taxes and Earned Income 
Credit Noncompliance-have been consolidated to make this area. 

[C] The IRS Financial Management high-risk area has been incorporated 
into this high-risk area. 

[End of table] 

21st Century Challenges Report: 

Provides background, framework, and questions to assist in reexamining 
the base: 

Covers entitlements & other mandatory spending, discretionary spending, 
and tax policies and programs: 

Based on GAO's work for the Congress: 

Issued February 16, 2005: 

Twelve Reexamination Areas: 

Mission Areas: 

* Defense: 

* Education & Employment: 

* Financial Regulation & Housing: 

* Health Care: 

* Homeland Security: 

* International Affairs:  

* Natural Resources, Energy & Environment:  

* Retirement & Disability:  

* Science & Technology:  

* Transportation: 

Crosscutting Areas: 

* Improving Governance:  

* Reexamining the Tax System:  

Generic Reexamination Criteria and Sample Questions: 

Relevance of purpose and the federal role: 

Why did the federal government initiate this program and what was the 
government trying to accomplish? 

Have there been significant changes in the country or the world that 
relate to the reason for initiating it? 

Measuring success: 

Are there outcome-based measures? If not, why? 

If there are outcome-based measures, how successful is it based on 
these measures? 

Targeting benefits: 

Is it well targeted to those with the greatest needs and the least 
capacity to meet those needs? 

Affordability and cost effectiveness: 

Is it using the most cost-effective or net beneficial approaches when 
compared to other tools and program designs? 

Best practices: 

Is the responsible entity employing prevailing best practices to 
discharge its responsibilities and achieve its mission? 

Illustrative 21St Century Questions: National Defense: 

How should the historical allocation of resources across services and 
programs be changed to reflect the results of a forward-looking 
comprehensive threat/risk assessment as part of DOD's capabilities- 
based approach to determining defense needs? 

Can DOD afford to invest in transformational systems such as the Future 
Combat System and national missile defense at the same time it 
continues to pursue large investments in legacy systems such as the F- 
22A and new systems like the Joint Strike Fighter, especially if cost 
growth and schedule delays continue at historical rates? 

Given the global availability of rapidly advancing technology, does DOD 
need to reconsider its approach for identifying critical technologies 
and protecting those technologies from being exploited in order to 
maintain its military superiority? 

Given the growing encumbrance of pay and benefit costs, especially 
health care, within DOD's budget, how might DOD's recruitment, 
retention, and compensation strategies (including benefit programs) be 
reexamined and revised to ensure that DOD maintains a total military 
and civilian workforce with the mix of skills needed to execute the 
national security strategy while using resources in a more targeted, 
evidence-based, and cost-effective manner? 

Do the role, size, and structure of forces and capabilities comprising 
the strategic triad need to be adjusted to meet the challenges of 
providing strategic deterrence in the new security and fiscal 
environment? 

Does DOD need to create a senior management position responsible and 
accountable for taking a strategic, integrated, and sustained approach 
to managing the day-to-day business operations of the department, 
including ongoing efforts to transform DOD's business operations and 
address the many related and longstanding high-risk areas? Should 
specific qualifications requirements and periods of tenure or terms be 
established for selected DOD positions related to key business 
operations?  

Selected Potential DOD Related Actions: Transformation Strategy: 

Revise the current approach to developing national military strategy 
(e.g., order, integration): 

Take a longer range, and more enterprise-wide approach to program 
planning and budget integration (e.g., life cycles, opportunity costs, 
wants vs. needs): 

Employ a total force management approach to planning and execution 
(e.g., military, civilian, contractors): 

Create a Chief Management Officer to drive the business transformation 
process: 

Revise the process for developing and communicating key changes (e.g., 
DOD transformation, NSPS legislative proposal): 

Reduce the number of layers, silos, and footprints: 

Strengthen emphasis on horizontal and external activities (e.g., 
partnerships): 

Selected Potential DOD Related Actions: Business Operations and Human 
Capital: 

Focus on achieving real success in connection with financial management 
efforts (e.g., systems, controls, information, compliance and 
opinions): 

Differentiate between war fighting and business systems development, 
implementation and maintenance (e.g., resource control, project 
approval): 

Employ a more reasonable, strategic, and integrated approach to 
business information system efforts and financial audit initiatives: 

Recognize the difference between approving and informing: 

Get the design and implementation of the NSPS right, including 
modernizing and integrating the DOD, Service, domain, unit and 
individual performance measurement and reward systems: 

Employ a more targeted and market-based approach to compensation and 
other key human capital strategies: 

Provide for longer tours of duty in connection with key acquisitions 
and operations positions to strengthen responsibility and enhance (e.g. 
program manager): 

Selected Potential DOD Related Actions: Acquisitions and Contracting: 

Reconcile the difference between wants and needs, and affordability and 
sustainability on an enterprise-wide basis considering current and 
future threats and resource levels: 

Nail down system requirements and ensure the maturity of technology in 
order to improve performance and enhance accountability (don't let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good): 

Employ spiral development and plug and play concepts to technology: 

Streamline yet strengthen current commercial contracts (e.g., 
performance and outcome-based, appropriate risk-sharing, including 
cancellation clauses: 

Pay performance-based contract incentives for positive outcomes: 

Make it okay to pull the plug or reduce quantities of weapon systems 
and information systems projects when the facts and circumstances 
warrant it: 

GAO's Work to Modernize the Accountability Profession: 

GAO is actively working to modernize and transform the accountability 
profession, both inside the government and in the private sector, and 
to lead by example in this area: 

Strengthening the independence of the FASAB: 

Revitalizing the JFMIP principals' efforts, including definitions of 
success, accelerated reporting, etc. 

Creating of the U.S Auditing Standards Coordinating Forum (i.e., GAO, 
PCAOB, ASB): 

Leading strategic planning and coordination efforts with major 
accountability organizations around the world (e.g., INTOSAI, IGAF) 
that includes oversight, insight, and foresight dimensions: 

2003 revision of Government Auditing Standards (2006 revision is in 
process): 

Modernizing of the accounting/reporting and audit models (e.g. IFAC, 
IAASB, FASB, GASB, FASAB, etc. ): 

Enhancing federal financial reporting and pursuing publication of a 
summary annual report:  

Assuring appropriate treatment of restatements by auditors and others: 

Monitoring implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including 
providing suggestions for possible actions by the PCAOB and the SEC in 
connection with the internal control reporting requirements under 
Section 404: 

Considering whether reform elements similar to those in Sarbanes-Oxley 
make sense for the federal government: 

Exploring additional opportunities for employing more frequent 
reporting and continuous auditing approaches: 

Exploring revised approaches to quality assurance programs, including 
internal inspections and peer reviews: 

Selected Government Accountability Issues Leading by Example: 

Definition of success in financial management: 

* Clean opinion on financial statements 

* No major control weaknesses: 

* No major compliance issues: 

* Systems that produce timely, accurate, and useful financial and 
management information: 

Scope of audit: 

* Internal controls (GAO's audit and selected others currently) 

* Compliance matters (all currently): 

* Performance and projection information (future): 

Additional issues: 

* Accelerated and enhanced financial reporting (all agencies) 

* Audit/ financial management committees (GAO and selected other 
agencies):  

The Federal Financial Audit Environment: 

The federal financial audit environment is evolving: 

* Closer to an opinion on the consolidated financial statements of the 
U.S. government (CFS), but DOD is the key challenge: 

* GAO, as the auditor of the CFS, needs to be able to use the work of 
the auditors of the agency financial statements: 

* Agencies need to meet accelerated due dates, minimize restatements, 
maintain unqualified opinions, and address their internal control and 
financial management system deficiencies: 

* Performance and projection reporting need to expand over time: 

* More timely financial and performance reporting should not come at 
the price of less reliable reporting: 

Key Leadership Attributes Needed for These Challenging and Changing 
Times: 

Courage 
Integrity 
Creativity 
Stewardship: 

On the Web: 

Web site: [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cghome.htm]: 

Contact: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, Public Affairs AndersonP1 @gao.gov 
(202) 512-4800: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Copyright: 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. The published product 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-06-1083CG: 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

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: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: