This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-20 entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Fire Protection at Philadelphia Naval Business Center Meets Response Standards' which was released on October 29, 2002. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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. Report to Congressional Requesters: United States General Accounting Office: GAO: October 2002: Defense Infrastructure: Fire Protection at Philadelphia Naval Business Center Meets Response Standards: Military Bases: GAO-03-20: Contents: Letter: Results in Brief: Background: Most Enclaves Rely on Local Rather Than Federal Fire Protection: Fire Protection at the Business Center Is Similar to That Provided Elsewhere in Philadelphia: Future Development Could Affect Existing Arrangement for Fire Protection: Conclusions: Agency Comments: Scope and Methodology: Appendix I: Federal Enclave at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: Appendix II: Mutual Aid Agreement between the Navy and the City of Philadelphia: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: Tables: Table 1: Fire Protection Services at Federal Enclaves Created at Closed Installations: Table 2: Navy Fire, EMS, and Other Calls and Mutual Aid Responses by the Navy and the City of Philadelphia, 2000 to 2002 (as of September 4, 2002): Figures: Figure 1: Map of the Enclave at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: Letter: October 29, 2002: The Honorable Solomon P. Ortiz Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Military Readiness Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives: The Honorable Robert A. Brady House of Representatives: When the Department of Defense closed military installations as part of the base realignment and closure process and transferred properties to public and private ownership, it in some cases retained a portion of an installation as a military enclave. During this process, legal jurisdiction over an enclave may be transferred from the federal government to the local government. Such a transfer may incorporate provisions for fire protection and other services by local and state governments. Because of your concerns about the adequacy of fire protection at the federal enclave located on the former Naval Shipyard and Naval Station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, now called the Philadelphia Naval Business Center, we conducted this review. Our overall objectives were to determine (1) who provides fire protection services for the Navy-retained property in Philadelphia and how this fire protection compares with that at other closed military bases where some property was retained by the Department of Defense; (2) how the level of fire protection services at the business center measures up to that provided elsewhere in the City of Philadelphia; and (3) what the future prospects are for changing the way fire protection is provided at the Navy’s enclave. Results in Brief: A federal fire-fighting service provides fire protection services at the Navy’s enclave located at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center. This is one of three military enclaves, formed during the base closure and realignment process, which is still protected by federal firefighters. Twenty-four other military enclaves were converted from federal to local fire protection during the base closure process. The Navy retained a federal fire-fighting force at its enclave at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not respond to the Navy’s request to change the jurisdiction of the Navy-retained land. The Navy sought to change the jurisdiction from exclusive federal to proprietary to provide uniform fire and police protection over the business center and the Navy’s enclave there. The level of fire protection at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center is similar to that available elsewhere in the City of Philadelphia, but the arrangements for providing that protection differ. If a fire occurs on non-Navy property within the business center, both the Navy and the Philadelphia fire departments will automatically respond to the call, with the Navy as the first responder. However, if the fire is located on Navy-owned property at the business center, only Navy firefighters will automatically respond to the alarm. If they need additional fire- fighting assistance, they must first call the city fire department, which will then send assistance. These arrangements are the result of a mutual aid agreement the Navy and the City of Philadelphia signed in March 2000 that is up for renewal in March 2003. According to Navy officials, the agreement enables the Navy to meet the Department of Defense’s and the Navy’s fire response standards. In the 29 months since the agreement was signed, the Navy’s fire department has requested assistance from the Philadelphia Fire Department for one fire, but the Navy has responded to 25 fire requests at non-Navy property within the business center. Both city and Navy fire department officials told us they have found the agreement beneficial and they expect to renew it. As private development at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center continues, the fire protection arrangements are expected to be reassessed. The Commissioner of the Philadelphia Fire Department told us that, as development at the business center continues to increase, his office will need to reevaluate the location of city-owned fire stations in the area around the business center. This reevaluation could provide an opportunity for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Philadelphia, and the Navy to reassess jurisdictional issues and the need for a separate fire department to service the Navy’s enclave. In commenting on a draft of this report, the department concurred with the results. Background: To enable the Department of Defense (DOD) to close unneeded bases and realign others, Congress enacted base realignment and closure legislation that instituted base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995.[Footnote 1] In some cases, DOD retained some of the property and created military enclaves on closed installations. Generally, as part of the base closure process, DOD prefers to change the jurisdiction of the property that it has retained from exclusive federal to proprietary jurisdiction.[Footnote 2] Under exclusive federal jurisdiction, the federal government is responsible for providing all municipal services and enforcing federal laws. The state and local governments do not have any authority or obligation to provide municipal services under this type of jurisdiction, except under mutual support agreements. Under proprietary jurisdiction,[Footnote 3] the federal government has rights--similar to a private landowner--but also maintains its authorities and responsibilities as the federal government. Under this type of jurisdiction, the local government is the principal municipal police and fire authority. Following the decision to close the installations in 1991, the Naval Shipyard and the Naval Station in Philadelphia were officially closed in September 1995 and January 1996, respectively. In March 2000, the Navy transferred 1,180 acres of the property to the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, the local redevelopment authority. The Navy retained exclusive federal jurisdiction over about 270[Footnote 4] acres as a military enclave. As a result, the Navy is responsible for providing all municipal services, including fire protection, in this enclave. Similarly, the City of Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania maintain jurisdiction over the 1,180 acres that were transferred. The federal government has no jurisdiction over this land. Together, the Navy-retained and Navy-transferred property is called the Philadelphia Naval Business Center. The Navy’s 270-acre enclave in Philadelphia is made up of several distinct noncontiguous areas separated by the transferred acreage. (See app. I for a map and an aerial photograph of the enclave.) The Navy retained 67 buildings that house more than 2,300 civilian, contractor, and military employees. The majority of the Navy’s employees--about 1,800--work in about 47 office buildings. The remaining 500 Navy employees work at industrial or maintenance activities, including the Naval Foundry and Propeller Shop; a hull, mechanical, and electrical systems test facility; and a public works center. The enclave also includes a reserve basin that is used as a docking area for about 38 Navy inactive ships. In contrast, the non-Navy part of the business center includes about 45 private firms with approximately 2,500 employees. This part is being developed by the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, the City of Philadelphia’s private economic development corporation. The corporation is authorized by the local redevelopment authority to attract private business to the Philadelphia Naval Business Center, a business and industrial park that is undergoing redevelopment utilizing the 1,180 transferred acres. The Navy facilities are protected by a federal fire service consisting of 26 personnel[Footnote 5] and 2 fire engines[Footnote 6] located on the enclave. The Navy estimated that the cost was $2.5 million to operate the federal fire department at the enclave during fiscal year 2001. The City of Philadelphia is responsible for providing fire protection services to private development on non-Navy property at the business center. It is also responsible for providing additional fire protection to the Navy facilities according to a March 2000 Mutual Aid Assistance Agreement. The agreement was signed by both Navy and City of Philadelphia officials, and it is intended to provide additional fire equipment and firefighters to respond to fires and other emergencies on each other’s property at the business center. (See app. II for a copy of the agreement.) Although not specified in the agreement, enclave command officials and Navy and city fire department officials told us that in practice, the Navy firefighters are first responders to all fire alarms at the business center--on both Navy and non-Navy property. The city fire department automatically responds to fire calls on non- Navy property at the business center; it responds to a fire on Navy property if it is called by the Navy fire department. The DOD Fire and Emergency Services Program[Footnote 7] provides policy that governs fire protection at military installations. The policy states that the first arriving fire apparatus shall meet a travel time[Footnote 8] of 5 minutes for 90 percent of all alarms and that the remaining apparatus shall meet a travel time of 10 minutes for all alarms. The policy also states that the initial response to a fire will be two engine companies and one ladder company but that another engine company may replace the ladder company. The number of full-time fire and emergency service personnel and equipment needed to meet these standards at any installation may depend on the extent to which equivalent forces are available from outside sources. The DOD policy encourages installations to enter into reciprocal agreements with local fire departments for mutual fire and emergency services to meet these standards. Navy policy[Footnote 9] mirrors that of DOD. The Navy considers a number of factors, including the strategic importance, the criticality to the overall Navy mission, the degree of fire and life safety hazards, the value of facilities and equipment, and the availability of outside support, in determining fire protection requirements at each installation. Using these criteria, the federal enclave at the business center is required to have a fully staffed on- site federal fire-fighting force; however, some of the fire-fighting force may be satisfied by city assets based on a mutual aid agreement. Most Enclaves Rely on Local Rather Than Federal Fire Protection: Today, according to military service base realignment and closure officials, federal firefighters operate at only 3 of the 27 federal enclaves that were created at closed Navy, Army, and Air Force installations (see table 1). Table 1: Fire Protection Services at Federal Enclaves Created at Closed Installations: Service: Navy; Closed installations with federal enclaves: 3; Number with fire protection provided by: Federal: 1; Number with fire protection provided by: Local: 2. Service: Army; Closed installations with federal enclaves: 14; Number with fire protection provided by: Federal: 1; Number with fire protection provided by: Local: 13. Service: Air Force; Closed installations with federal enclaves: 10; Number with fire protection provided by: Federal: 1; Number with fire protection provided by: Local: 9. [A] Other military enclaves receive fire protection from local firefighters, but they had local fire protection services before the installation closed. Source: DOD data. [End of table] The enclave at the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and Naval Station is the only Navy enclave where a federal fire protection presence remains. According to Navy officials, federal fire protection was retained because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania did not respond to the Navy’s request in 1999 to change the jurisdictional status of the property from exclusive federal to proprietary jurisdiction in anticipation of the Navy transferring the ownership of excess land. In its April 1999 letter to the governor of Pennsylvania requesting the change, the Navy stated that such a change would provide uniform jurisdiction over the business center and the Navy’s enclave there. In addition, Navy officials told us that the change would mean that the City of Philadelphia would have been responsible for providing all municipal services such as fire and police protection. The Navy’s two other enclaves--the former Charleston, South Carolina, and Long Beach, California, shipyards--receive fire protection services from the local communities.[Footnote 10] A Navy official told us that the land at the former Charleston and Long Beach shipyards had already been designated as concurrent jurisdiction before they were closed, so the Navy did not have to request a change in designation. In addition, local governments agreed to provide fire protection to the federal enclaves at both former shipyards. Like the Navy, the Army retained federal firefighters at only one of its federal enclaves. The remaining 13 Army enclaves are protected by local community firefighters. According to an official in the Army’s Base Realignment and Closure Office, a federal fire-fighting force was retained at the enclave created when Fort Ord, California, was closed in order to provide fire protection for a 1,600-unit housing complex and other community support facilities, such as a military exchange and commissary. Before Fort Ord closed, the installation was under exclusive federal jurisdiction, but now the enclave is under concurrent jurisdiction. According to an Army base realignment and closure official, most of the other 13 Army installations changed from exclusive federal to proprietary jurisdiction. The Air Force also retained federal firefighters at only one of its enclaves while local firefighters provide fire protection at nine other Air Force enclaves. According to the Air Force’s Fire Protection Program Manager, a federal firefighter force was maintained at the enclave created when Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana, was closed to support the substantial flying mission that remained. Before the installation was closed, most of the land at Grissom, which is now an Air Reserve Base, was under exclusive federal jurisdiction, while a smaller portion was under proprietary jurisdiction; currently, all of the property at Grissom is under proprietary jurisdiction. The other nine Air Force enclaves are also under proprietary jurisdiction, although five had exclusive federal jurisdiction and two had a mix of exclusive and proprietary jurisdiction before the installations were closed. Fire Protection at the Business Center Is Similar to That Provided Elsewhere in Philadelphia: The level of fire protection at the business center is similar to that available elsewhere in the City of Philadelphia, but the arrangements for providing that protection are different. When a fire occurs on non- Navy property within the business center, both the City of Philadelphia Fire Department and the firefighters from the Navy’s enclave automatically respond to the call. When a fire occurs at the Navy’s enclave at the business center, only the Navy firefighters automatically respond to the alarm. If they need additional fire- fighting help, they must first call the city fire department, which will then send assistance. This mutual assistance is part of the agreement between the Navy and the City of Philadelphia, which Navy officials state enables them to meet DOD’s and Navy’s fire response requirements. Senior Philadelphia city fire department officials told us that they respond to alarms in the city or within the city-owned parts of the business center with a minimum of 2 engines, 2 ladders, and 19 firefighters. They noted that none of their 61 fire stations have the full complement of equipment and firefighters needed for the minimum response but that they rely on support from other fire stations throughout the city. Similarly, the Navy’s fire department at the federal enclave in the business center does not have--on its own--the full complement of equipment and firefighters needed for a minimum response as specified in DOD and Navy policy. However, the Navy’s fire department is able to meet DOD’s and Navy’s standards through its agreement with the City of Philadelphia. According to the Philadelphia Fire Commissioner, when the city responds to a request for assistance from the Navy, the city fire department would not necessarily respond with a ladder truck but with enough equipment and firefighters to bring the responding assets up to the city’s minimum standards. This is especially true when the call involves an emergency other than a fire. A Philadelphia Deputy Fire Commissioner estimated that the response time for an engine company from the nearest Philadelphia city fire station to the main gate of the business center would be just under 7 minutes and that the response time from the nearest ladder company would be less than 11 minutes. He also said that it would take additional time to get from the main gate to various parts of the Navy’s enclave. According to a study performed by the International Association of Firefighters,[Footnote 11] the first Philadelphia Fire Department ladder truck would arrive at the main gate of the business center in about 5 minutes and 55 seconds. Navy officials said that the Philadelphia Fire Department’s response times meet the current DOD and Navy response criteria--10 minutes for subsequent arriving vehicles-- assuming the city fire department is arriving after Navy firefighters have already responded to the alarm. The Navy’s fire department has responded to more than 300 calls each year during the last 2 full years, and it is on track for responding to more than 300 calls in 2002. These calls included fire emergencies, emergency medical service (EMS) requests, rescues, natural gas leaks, hazardous materials incidents, standby fueling operations, and alarms with no fire. During this same period, Navy data indicate the enclave’s firefighters have responded to a total of 41 fires, 16 of which were on the enclave. From the time that the agreement was signed in March 2000 to September 2002, 29 months later, City of Philadelphia firefighters responded to one fire call on the Navy’s enclave as part of the agreement. They also responded to 39 EMS calls and 4 other calls at the enclave during the same period. Table 2 shows the number of fire, EMS, and other responses that the Navy and the City of Philadelphia conducted under their mutual aid agreement. Table 2: Navy Fire, EMS, and Other Calls and Mutual Aid Responses by the Navy and the City of Philadelphia, 2000 to 2002 (as of September 4, 2002): Calendar year: 2000; Total number of Navy fire and emergency calls: 320; City aid to the Navy: Fire: 1; City aid to the Navy: EMS: 16; City aid to the Navy: Other: 1; [Empty]; Navy aid to the city: Fire: 7; Navy aid to the city: EMS: 39; Navy aid to the city: Other: 23. Calendar year: 2001; Total number of Navy fire and emergency calls: 363; City aid to the Navy: Fire: 0; City aid to the Navy: EMS: 10; City aid to the Navy: Other: 3; [Empty]; Navy aid to the city: Fire: 10; Navy aid to the city: EMS: 55; Navy aid to the city: Other: 17. Calendar year: 2002; Total number of Navy fire and emergency calls: 219; City aid to the Navy: Fire: 0; City aid to the Navy: EMS: 13; City aid to the Navy: Other: 0; [Empty]; Navy aid to the city: Fire: 8; Navy aid to the city: EMS: 56; Navy aid to the city: Other: 14. Source: Navy fire department on the business center. [End of table] On the other hand, during the same period, the Navy fire department responded to 25 mutual aid fire calls on non-Navy property at the business center. It also responded to 150 EMS and 54 other calls on non-Navy property. Both Navy and Philadelphia city fire department officials told us that they have found the agreement mutually beneficial and that they expect to renew the agreement in March 2003. Future Development Could Affect Existing Arrangement for Fire Protection: According to city fire department officials, future economic development at the business center is expected to require a reassessment of fire protection services provided by the City of Philadelphia. Currently, about 45 private tenants with about 2,500 employees are housed in 47 buildings located on non-Navy property. However, the development corporation plans to add additional office space at the business center over the next several years. For example, a 43,000-square foot building directly across from the Navy command building is under renovation; when it is completed in early 2003, it will provide office space for about 150 people. In addition, the development corporation plans to provide an additional 800,000 square feet of office space over the next 8 years. According to the Philadelphia Fire Department Commissioner, as development in the business center continues to expand, his office is expected to reevaluate the location of fire stations located near the business center. This reevaluation could provide an opportunity for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Philadelphia, and the Navy to reassess jurisdictional issues and the need for a separate fire department to service the Navy’s enclave. A recent development underscored the possibility of change in fire protection at the business center. In August 2002, the development corporation announced that a developer plans to build 230 private homes on land outside the main gate of the business center. A Philadelphia Deputy Fire Commissioner stated that the city would need to reconsider fire protection for this area once the planned development was completed. Conclusions: At the time of the transfer of excess land at the former Philadelphia Naval Shipyard and Naval Station to the redevelopment authority, the Navy tried unsuccessfully to change the jurisdiction of the 270-acre enclave it retained from exclusive federal to proprietary. This jurisdictional change would have been similar to what occurred at most other military enclaves created during the base closure and realignment process. According to Navy officials, such a change would have provided uniform jurisdiction over both the non-Navy property and the Navy-owned enclave at the business center. This change would have given the City of Philadelphia responsibility for providing all municipal services, including fire protection, at the business center. Instead, the jurisdiction at the Navy-owned enclave remains exclusively federal, and the Navy spends about $2.5 million annually to retain its fire department there. As private development at the business center and in its immediate vicinity continues to grow over the next few years, the business center’s fire protection arrangements may have to be reevaluated. Philadelphia Fire Department officials told us they recognize they will need to reevaluate the way fire protection is provided at the business center. This reevaluation could provide the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the City of Philadelphia, and the Navy with an opportunity to reconsider the jurisdictional issues and reassess the need for a separate Navy fire department to service the Navy’s enclave at the business center. Agency Comments: In commenting on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) concurred with the report. DOD’s comments are included in this report as appendix III. Scope and Methodology: We conducted our work at the Office of the Director Navy Fire and Emergency Services and Base Closure Office, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command in Washington, D.C., the Ship Systems Engineering Station and the Fire Department, the Philadelphia Naval Business Center, the Philadelphia Fire Department, and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. We also did work at the Army’s Base Realignment and Closure office, the office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, and the Air Force Base Conversion Agency. To determine how fire protection services at the business center compared with those at other federal enclaves created under base closure, we reviewed the 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 base realignment and closure reports and identified where DOD retained property on closed installations. We analyzed information from the Army and Navy base closure offices and the Air Force Base Conversion Agency on how fire protection was provided at the retained federal property on closed installations and on the jurisdiction at the installations prior to and after closure. We reviewed DOD and Navy guidance regarding the staffing and equipping of fire departments. To determine how fire responses at the business center compared with those elsewhere in the City of Philadelphia, we interviewed the Commissioner and two Deputy Commissioners in the Philadelphia Fire Department to obtain information on how city firefighters respond to fire alarms in the City of Philadelphia and on the business center. In addition, we interviewed the Chief and the Assistant Chiefs of the Navy fire department to determine how Navy firefighters respond to fire alarms on Navy and non-Navy properties within the business center and we analyzed Navy fire department workload data. We also analyzed response time information provided by the Navy and the Philadelphia fire departments. Finally, we reviewed the agreement between the Navy and the City of Philadelphia regarding fire protection at the business center. To determine how future development of the business center would affect how fire protection is provided, we interviewed the Commissioner and two Deputy Commissioners in the Philadelphia Fire Department. To obtain information on future development at the business center, we interviewed officials from the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. We conducted our review from July through September 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also provide copies to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Michael Kennedy, Richard Meeks, Aaron Loudon, Ken Patton, and Nancy Benco. Barry Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management: Signed by Barry Holman: [End of section] Appendix I: Federal Enclave at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: Figure 1: Map of the Enclave at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: [See PDF for image] Source: Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and Navy data. [End of figure] Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of the Philadelphia Naval Business Center: [See PDF for image] Source: Navy photograph. [End of figure] [End of section] Appendix II: Mutual Aid Agreement between the Navy and the City of Philadelphia: [See PDF for image] [End of section] Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: ACQUISITION. TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS: OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: 3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON, DC 20301-3000: OCT 22 2002: Mr. Barry W. Holman: Director, Defense Capabilities and Management U. S. General Accounting Office: 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548: Dear Mr. Holman: This is the Department of Defense’s response to the GAO Draft Report, GAO-03-20, “DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE: Fire Protection at Philadelphia Naval Business Center Meets Response Standards,” dated September 27, 2002 (GAO Code 350237/GAO-03-20). We concur with the results and have no additional comments. Sincerely, Raymond F. DuBois Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment): Signed by Raymond F. DuBois: [End of figure] FOOTNOTES: [1] The 1988 round was completed under the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (P.L. 100-526). The last three rounds were completed under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-510). [2] Two other types of jurisdiction exist. Under concurrent jurisdiction, federal and local agencies provide services and enforce both federal and local laws, respectively. Under partial jurisdiction, the local government retains all legislative and judicial authority not ceded to the federal government. [3] Proprietary jurisdiction over property is also sometimes described as having a proprietary interest in the property. We use the two interchangeably. [4] About 162 acres are on land and 108 acres are submerged at the enclave’s reserve basin. [5] The Navy fire service is authorized 29 staff, but 3 positions are currently vacant. The Navy’s intent is to fully staff the fire service. [6] The Navy fire service also has a reserve engine that is not staffed. [7] DOD Instruction 6055.6. [8] Travel time is defined as the amount of time it takes a fire apparatus to travel from the fire station to an emergency incident. [9] Operations Navy Instruction 11320.23F, April 25, 2001. [10] The enclave at Charleston consists of 26 acres and 15 buildings and the enclave at Long Beach consists of 15 acres and 4 buildings. [11] International Association of Firefighters, Philadelphia Naval Shipyard Federal Fire Department (NAVSSES): Feasibility Study on the Use of Philadelphia City Fire Apparatus to Comply with Department of Defense Instruction 6055.6 Fire Apparatus Deployment Requirements (Philadelphia, Pa.: June 21, 2002). GAO’s Mission: The General Accounting 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 daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports 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. General Accounting 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. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548: