Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, April 14, 2005 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Market Developments in 

the Global Satellite Services 

Industry and the 

Implementation of the 

ORBIT Act 

Statement of JayEtta Z. Hecker, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Team 

GAO-05-550T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-550T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact JayEtta Z. 

Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or 

heckerj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-550T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on 

Telecommunications and the Internet, 

Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives 

April 14, 2005

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Market Developments in the Global 

Satellite Services Industry and the 

Implementation of the ORBIT Act 

When commercial satellite technology was first deployed, a worldwide 

system was seen as the most efficient means to facilitate the advancement of 

a fully global provider. INTELSAT was thus established as an 

intergovernmental entity, originally established by 85 nations, that was 

protected from competition in its provision of global satellite 

communications services. By the 1980s, however, technology developments 

enabled private companies to efficiently compete for global communications 

services, and in 1984, President Reagan determined that it would be in the 

national interest of the United States for there to be greater competition in 

this market. New commercial satellite systems emerged, but soon found 

that INTELSAT enjoyed advantages stemming from its intergovernmental 

status and ownership by telecommunications companies in other countries 

that impeded new satellite companies from effectively competing. The new 

satellite companies began to call for INTESLAT to be privatized. Decision 

makers within INTELSAT also determined that privatization would enable 

more rapid business decisions. 

Just prior to INTELSAT’s privatization in July 2001, FCC determined that 

INTELSAT’s privatization plan was consistent with requirements of the 

ORBIT Act. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) thus 

authorized the privatized Intelsat—the official name of the company after 

privatization—to use its U.S. satellite licenses to provide services within the 

United States pending an initial public offering (IPO) of securities that was 

mandated by the ORBIT Act to occur at a later time. New legislation was 

passed in 2004 that allows Intelsat to forgo an IPO if it has achieved 

substantial dilution of its “signatory” ownership—that is, dilution of 

ownership by those entities (mostly government-controlled 

telecommunications companies) that had been the investors in INTELSAT 

when it was an intergovernmental entity. Since Intelsat has recently been 

sold to a consortium of four private investors, it no longer has, according to 

an Intelsat official, any former signatory ownership. FCC is still reviewing 

this transaction to determine whether Intelsat has met the requirements of 

the ORBIT Act as amended and thus is no longer required to hold an IPO. 

Most of the stakeholders we spoke with said that access to non-U.S. satellite 

markets has generally improved during the past decade. This improvement 

in market access is generally attributed to global trade agreements and 

privatization trends. Despite this general view, some satellite companies 

expressed concerns that some market access issues still exist. For example, 

some companies noted that some countries may favor domestic satellite 

providers or may choose to continue obtaining service from Intelsat because 

of long-term business relationships that were forged over time. 

Nevertheless, Intelsat officials noted that it seeks market access on a 

transparent and nondiscriminatory basis and that Intelsat has participated 

with other satellite operators, through various trade organizations, to lobby 

governments to open their markets. 

In 2000, the Congress passed the 

Open-market Reorganization for 

the Betterment of International 

Telecommunications Act (ORBIT 

Act) to help promote a more 

competitive global satellite services 

market. The ORBIT Act called for 

the full privatization of INTELSAT, 

a former intergovernmental 

organization that provided 

international satellite services. In 

this testimony, GAO discusses (1) 

the impetus for the privatization of 

Intelsat as competition developed 

in the 1990s, (2) the extent to 

which the privatization steps 

required by the ORBIT Act have 

been implemented, and (3) whether 

access by global satellite 

companies to non-U.S. markets has 

improved since the enactment of 

the ORBIT Act. 
Page 1 GAO-05-550T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the privatization of INTELSAT 

and the implementation of the ORBIT Act. In 2000, the Congress passed 

the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International 

Telecommunications Act1

 (ORBIT Act) to help promote a more 

competitive global satellite communication services market. Today we will 

discuss (1) the impetus for the privatization of INTELSAT2

 as competition 

developed during the 1990s, (2) the extent to which the privatization steps 

required by the ORBIT Act have been implemented, and (3) whether 

access by global satellite companies to non-U.S. markets has improved 

since the enactment of the ORBIT Act. 

To address these issues, we have drawn upon our previous work on the 

international satellite market and the ORBIT act. We issued two reports on 

the international satellite market in 1996.3

 In addition, we issued two 

reports in September 2004, one of which focused on the implementation of 

the ORBIT Act;4

 see appendix I for a list of related GAO products. For the 

latter report, we conducted semistructured interviews with satellite 

service providers and experts. Additionally, we interviewed officials from 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the United States Trade 

Representative; the Department of State; and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration of the Department of 

Commerce. We conducted our work for the September 2004 report from 

February through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

Following is a summary of our findings: 

 1

Pub. L. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000). 

2

The official name of the intergovernmental organization was INTELSAT—all capital 

letters. After privatization, the privatized company is known as Intelsat. We make this 

distinction throughout this report. 

3

See GAO, Telecommunications: Competitive Impact of Restructuring of the 

International Satellite Organizations, GAO/RCED-96-204 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1996); 

and GAO, Telecommunications: Competition Issues in International Satellite 

Communications, GAO/RCED-97-1 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 11, 1996). 

4

See GAO, Telecommunications: Intelsat Privatization and the Implementation of the 

Orbit Act, GAO-04-891 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2004); and GAO, Tax Policy: Historical 

Tax Treatment of INTELSAT and Current Tax Rules for Satellite Corporations, 

GAO-04-994 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 13, 2004). 
Page 2 GAO-05-550T 

• When commercial satellite technology was first deployed, a worldwide 

system was seen as the most efficient means to facilitate the advancement 

of a fully global provider. INTELSAT was thus established as an 

intergovernmental entity that was protected from competition in its 

provision of global satellite communications services. By the 1980s, 

however, technology developments enabled private companies to 

efficiently compete for global communications services, and in 1984, 

President Reagan determined that it would be in the national interest of 

the United States for there to be greater competition in this market. New 

commercial satellite systems emerged, but within a few years, these 

providers became concerned that INTELSAT enjoyed certain advantages 

stemming from its intergovernmental status that impeded others from 

effectively competing. The new satellite companies began to argue that the 

marketplace would not become fully competitive unless INTELSAT 

became a private company that no longer enjoyed such advantages. At 

about the same time, decision makers within INTELSAT decided to 

privatize the organization because of the difficulties of making business 

decisions within an intergovernmental entity. 

• Just prior to INTELSAT’s privatization in July 2001, FCC determined that 

INTELSAT’s privatization plan was consistent with requirements of the 

ORBIT Act. FCC thus authorized Intelsat, LLC—the U.S. subsidiary of the 

privatized entity Intelsat Ltd.—to use its U.S. satellite licenses to provide 

services within the United States pending an initial public offering (IPO) of 

securities that was mandated by the ORBIT Act to occur at a later time. In 

2004, however, new legislation allowed Intelsat to forgo an IPO if it 

achieved substantial dilution of its “signatory” ownership—or dilution of 

ownership by those entities that had been the signatories to INTELSAT 

when it was an intergovernmental entity. Since Intelsat has recently been 

sold to a consortium of four private investors, it no longer has, according 

to an Intelsat official, any former signatory ownership. FCC is still 

reviewing this transaction to determine whether Intelsat has met the 

requirements of the ORBIT Act as amended and thus no longer is required 

to hold an IPO. 

• Most of the stakeholders we spoke with said that access to non-U.S. 

satellite markets has generally improved during the past decade. This 

improvement in market access is generally attributed to global trade 

agreements and privatization trends. Despite this general view, some 

satellite companies expressed concerns that some market access issues 

still exist. These remaining market access problems were attributed to 

foreign government policies that may limit or slow satellite competitors’ 

access to certain markets. For example, some companies noted that some 

countries may favor domestic satellite providers or may choose to 
Page 3 GAO-05-550T 

continue obtaining service from Intelsat because of long-term business 

relationships that were forged over time. Nevertheless, Intelsat officials 

noted that it seeks market access on a transparent and nondiscriminatory 

basis and that Intelsat has participated with other satellite operators, 

through various trade organizations, to lobby governments to open their 

markets. 

The Congress passed the Communications Satellite Act of 1962 to promote 

the creation of a global satellite communications system. As a result of this 

legislation, the United States joined with 84 other nations in establishing 

the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization—more 

commonly known as INTELSAT—roughly 10 years later.5

 Each member 

nation designated a single telecommunications company to represent its 

country in the management and financing of INTELSAT. These companies 

were called “signatories” to INTELSAT and were typically governmentowned telecommunications companies, such as France Telecom, that 

provided satellite communications services as well as other domestic 

communications services. Unlike any of the other nations that originally 

formed INTELSAT, the United States designated a private company, 

Comsat Corporation, to serve as its signatory to INTELSAT. 

The ORBIT Act, enacted by the Congress in March 2000, was designed to 

promote a competitive global satellite communication services market. 

The act did so primarily by calling for the privatization of INTELSAT after 

about three decades of operation as an intergovernmental entity.6

 The 

ORBIT Act required, for example, that INTELSAT be transformed into a 

privately held, for-profit corporation with a board of directors that would 

be largely independent of former INTELSAT signatories. Moreover, the act 

required that the newly privatized Intelsat retain no privileges or other 

benefits from governments that had previously owned or controlled it. To 

ensure that this transformation occurred, the Congress imposed certain 

restrictions on the granting of licenses that allow Intelsat to provide 

services within the United States. The Congress coupled the issuance of 

licenses granted by FCC to INTELSAT’s successful privatization under the 

ORBIT Act. That is, FCC was told to consider compliance with provisions 

 5

By the time Intelsat privatized in 2001, 148 countries had become parties to the 

intergovernmental organization. 

6

The act also pertained to Inmarsat. A discussion of Inmarsat’s privatization is outside the 

scope of this testimony. 

Background 
Page 4 GAO-05-550T 

of the ORBIT Act as it made decisions about licensing Intelsat’s domestic 

operations in the United States. Moreover, FCC was empowered to restrict 

any satellite operator’s provision of certain new services from the United 

States to any country7

 that limited market access exclusively to that 

satellite operator.8

When satellite technology first emerged as a vehicle for commercial 

international communications, deploying a global satellite system was 

both risky and expensive. Worldwide organizations were considered the 

best means for providing satellite-based services throughout the world. 

When INTELSAT was established, the member governments put in place a 

number of protections to encourage its development. In essence, 

INTELSAT was created as an international monopoly—with little 

competition to its international services allowed by other satellite systems, 

although domestic and other satellite systems were allowed under certain 

conditions. As such, during the 1970s and early 1980s, INTELSAT was the 

only wholesale provider of certain types of global9

 satellite 

communications services such as international telephone calls and relay of 

television signals internationally.10

As satellite technology advanced, it became economically more feasible 

for private companies to develop global satellite systems. This occurred in 

part because of growing demand for communications services as well as 

falling costs for satellite system equipment. In particular, some domestic 

systems that were already in operation expressed interest in expanding 

into global markets. By the mid-1980s, the United States began 

encouraging the development of commercial satellite communications 

systems that would compete with INTELSAT. To do so under the 

 7

This provision was limited to those countries that were not members of the World Trade 

Organization. 

8

Additionally, once INTELSAT was privatized under provisions of the ORBIT Act, Comsat 

Corporation’s role as the U.S. signatory to the INTELSAT operating agreement was ended. 

9

Some other satellite companies provided fixed satellite services between some countries, 

but INTELSAT was the only provider at that time that could provide service to all parts of 

the globe. 

10While INTELSAT was the only provider at that time of what is called global fixed satellite 

services—that is, services provided between fixed points on land—another global satellite 

organization that was also formed based on amendments to the Communications Satellite 

Act provided global maritime satellite communications. This organization is commonly 

known as Inmarsat. 

Concerns That 

INTELSAT Enjoyed 

Competitive 

Advantages Provided 

Impetus for Its 

Privatization 
Page 5 GAO-05-550T 

INTELSAT treaty agreements, President Reagan determined that 

competing international satellite systems were required in the national 

interest of the United States.11 After that determination, domestic 

purchasers of international satellite communications services were 

allowed to use systems other than INTELSAT. In 1988, PanAmSat was the 

first commercial company to begin launching satellites in an effort to 

develop a global satellite system. Within a decade after PanAmSat first 

entered the market, INTELSAT faced other global satellite competitors. 

Moreover, intermodal competition emerged during the 1980s and 1990s as 

fiber optic networks were widely deployed on the ground and underwater 

to provide international communications services. 

As competition to INTELSAT grew throughout the 1990s, commercial 

satellite companies became concerned that INTELSAT enjoyed certain 

advantages stemming from its intergovernmental status. In particular, the 

new satellite companies noted that INTELSAT enjoyed immunity from 

legal liability and was often not taxed in the various countries it served. 

Additionally, new competitors noted that the signatories to INTELSAT in 

many countries were typically government-owned telecommunications 

companies, and many were the regulatory authorities that made decisions 

on satellite access to their respective domestic markets. As such, new 

satellite companies were concerned that those entities, because of their 

ownership stake in INTELSAT as signatories, might favor INTELSAT and 

thus render entry for other satellite companies more difficult. Because of 

these concerns, competitors began to argue that the satellite marketplace 

would not become fully competitive unless INTELSAT became a private 

company that operated like any other company and no longer enjoyed any 

advantages. 

During the same time frame, some of the signatories to INTELSAT came to 

believe that certain of INTELSAT’s obligations as an intergovernmental 

entity impeded its own market competitiveness. For example, decisionmakers within INTELSAT became concerned that the cumbersome nature 

of the intergovernmental decision-making process left the company unable 

to rapidly respond to changing market conditions—a disadvantage in 

comparison with competing private satellite providers. In 1999, INTELSAT 

announced its decision to become a private corporation, but to leave in 

 11See Presidential Determination Number 85-2. 
Page 6 GAO-05-550T 

place a residual intergovernmental organization that would monitor the 

privatized Intelsat’s remaining public service obligations.12

On July 18, 2001, INTELSAT transferred virtually all of its financial assets 

and liabilities to a private company called Intelsat, Ltd., a holding company 

incorporated in Bermuda. Intelsat, Ltd. has several subsidiaries, including 

a U.S.-incorporated indirect subsidiary called Intelsat LLC. Upon their 

execution of privatization, INTELSAT signatories received shares of 

Intelsat, Ltd. in proportion to their investment in the intergovernmental 

INTELSAT.13 Two months before the privatization, FCC determined that 

INTELSAT’s privatization plan was consistent with the requirements of the 

ORBIT Act for a variety of reasons, including the following: 

• Intelsat, Ltd.’s Shareholders’ Agreement provided sufficient evidence that 

the company would conduct an initial public offering (IPO). 

• Intelsat, Ltd. no longer enjoyed the legal privileges or immunities of the 

intergovernmental INTELSAT. 

• Both Intelsat, Ltd. and Intelsat LLC are incorporated in countries that are 

signatories to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and have laws that 

secure competition in telecommunications services. 

• Intelsat, Ltd. converted into a stock corporation with a fiduciary board of 

directors. 

• Measures were taken to ensure that a majority of the members of Intelsat, 

Ltd.’s Board of Directors were not directors, employees, officers, 

managers, or representatives of any signatory or former signatory of the 

intergovernmental INTELSAT. 

 12The residual intergovernmental organization is known as the International 

Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO). 

13In addition, some portion of the intergovernmental Intelsat was owned by nonsignatory—

or “investing”—entities, which also received pro rata shares in the new Intelsat, Ltd. 

FCC Believes 

INTELSAT’s 

Privatization Was 

Consistent with the 

ORBIT Act’s 

Requirements 
Page 7 GAO-05-550T 

• Intelsat, Ltd. and its subsidiaries had only arms-length business 

relationships with certain other entities that obtained INTELSAT’s assets.14

In light of these findings, FCC conditionally authorized Intelsat LLC to use 

its U.S. satellite licenses to provide services within the United States.15

However, FCC conditioned this authorization on Intelsat, Ltd. conducting 

an IPO of securities as mandated by the ORBIT Act. In the past year, 

however, several changes have occurred that alter the circumstances and 

requirements associated with Intelsat’s IPO. On August 16, 2004, Intelsat, 

Ltd. announced that its Board of Directors approved the sale of the 

company to a consortium of four private investors. According to an 

Intelsat official, this transaction, which was completed on January 28, 

2005, eliminates former signatories’ ownership in Intelsat. Additionally, on 

October 25, 2004, the President signed legislation modifying the 

requirements for privatization in the ORBIT Act. Specifically, Intelsat, Ltd. 

may forgo an IPO under certain conditions, including, among other things, 

certifying to FCC that it has achieved substantial dilution of the aggregate 

amount of signatory or former signatory financial interest in the 

company.16 FCC is still reviewing this transaction to determine whether 

Intelsat has met the requirements of the ORBIT Act as amended and thus 

is no longer required to hold an IPO. 

 14These entities include New Skies Satellites N.V., a spin-off company created 

approximately 1 year before the privatization of Intelsat that received some of INTELSAT’s 

satellites, and the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization, the ongoing 

intergovernmental organization responsible for monitoring Intelsat, Ltd.’s continuing 

“lifeline” obligations, which received start-up funding from INTELSAT when it was 

privatized. 

15In its required annual reports to the Congress on the ORBIT Act, FCC has continued to 

report that Intelsat has complied with ORBIT Act provisions. 

16In the law, significant dilution means that a majority of the financial interests in Intelsat is 

no longer held or controlled, directly or indirectly, by signatories or former signatories. 
Page 8 GAO-05-550T 

According to most stakeholders and experts we spoke with, access to nonU.S. satellite markets has generally improved during the past decade, 

which they generally attribute to global trade agreements and privatization 

trends. In particular, global satellite companies appear less likely now than 

they were in the past to encounter government restraints or business 

practices that limit their ability to provide service in non-U.S. markets. 

Satellite companies and experts we spoke with generally indicated that 

access to non-U.S. satellite markets has improved. Additionally, most 

stakeholders attributed this improved access to global trade agreements 

that helped to open telecommunications markets around the world, as 

well as to the trend toward privatization in the global telecommunications 

industry. At the same time, many stakeholders noted that the ORBIT Act 

had little to no impact on improving market access. According to several 

stakeholders, market access was already improving when the ORBIT Act 

was passed. 

Despite the general view that market access has improved, some satellite 

companies and experts expressed concerns that market access issues still 

exist. These remaining market access problems were attributed to foreign 

government policies that limit or slow satellite competitors’ access to 

certain markets. For example: 

• Some companies and experts we spoke with said that some countries have 

policies that favor domestic satellite providers over other satellite systems 

and that this can make it difficult for nondomestic companies to provide 

services in these countries. 

• Some companies and one expert we spoke with said that because some 

countries carefully control and monitor the content that is provided within 

their borders, the country’s policies may limit certain satellite companies’ 

access to their market. 

• Several companies and an expert we interviewed said that many countries 

have time-consuming or costly approval processes for satellite 

companies.17

In addition to these government policies, some stakeholders believe that 

Intelsat may benefit from legacy business relationships. Since INTELSAT 

 17Some stakeholders we spoke with who made this point also noted that the same countries 

may have bureaucratic and costly processes for any foreign company—not just satellite or 

telecommunications companies—that wants to do business in their country. 

While Market Access 

Has Improved, Some 

Companies Say That 

Certain Market 

Access Challenges 

Remain 
Page 9 GAO-05-550T 

was the dominant provider of global satellite services for approximately 30 

years, several stakeholders noted that Intelsat may benefit from the longterm business relationships that were forged over time, as 

telecommunications companies in many countries may feel comfortable 

continuing to do business with Intelsat as they have for years. 

Additionally, two stakeholders noted that because companies have plant 

and equipment as well as proprietary satellite technology in place to 

receive satellite services from Intelsat, it might cost a significant amount 

of money for companies to replace equipment in order to use satellite 

services from a different provider. Alternatively, representatives of 

Intelsat, Ltd. told us that Intelsat seeks market access on a transparent and 

nondiscriminatory basis and that Intelsat has participated with other 

satellite operators, through various trade organizations, to lobby 

governments to open their markets. Further, some companies and many of 

the experts we interviewed told us that, in their view, Intelsat does not 

have preferential access to non-U.S. satellite markets and that they have 

no knowledge that Intelsat in any way seeks or accepts exclusive market 

access arrangements or attempts to block competitors’ access to non-U.S. 

satellite markets. 

Finally, some of the companies we spoke with believe that FCC should 

take a more proactive role in improving access for satellite companies in 

non-U.S. markets. For example, one satellite company said that section 

648 of the ORBIT Act, which prohibits any satellite operator from 

acquiring or enjoying an exclusive arrangement for service to or from the 

United States, provides a vehicle for FCC to investigate the status of 

access for satellite companies to other countries’ markets. Conversely, 

FCC officials told us they do not believe that FCC should undertake 

investigations of market access concerns without specific evidence of 

violations of section 648 of the ORBIT Act. While some comments filed 

with FCC in proceedings on Intelsat’s licensing and for FCC’s annual 

report on the ORBIT Act raise concerns about market access, FCC has 

stated that these filings amount only to general allegations and fall short of 

alleging any specific statutory violation that would form a basis sufficient 

to trigger an FCC enforcement action. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may 

have at this time. 
Page 10 GAO-05-550T 

For questions regarding this testimony and the report on which it is based, 

please contact JayEtta Z. Hecker at (202) 512-2834 or heckerj@gao.gov, or 

Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Individuals 

making key contributions to this testimony included Amy Abramowitz, 

Michael Clements, Emil Friberg, Bert Japikse, Logan Kleier, Richard 

Seldin, and Juan Tapia-Videla. 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Page 11 GAO-05-550T 

Tax Policy: Historical Tax Treatment of INTELSAT and Current Tax 

Rules for Satellite Corporations. GAO-04-994. Washington, D.C.: 

September 13, 2004. 

Telecommunications: Intelsat Privatization and the Implementation of 

the ORBIT Act. GAO-04-891. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2004. 

Telecommunications: Competition Issues in International Satellite 

Communications. GAO/RCED-97-1. Washington, D.C.: October 11, 1996. 

Telecommunications: Competitive Impact of Restructuring the 

International Satellite Organizations. GAO/RCED-96-204. Washington, 

D.C.: July 8, 1996. 

Related GAO Products 

(543128) 
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. 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. 
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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (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 www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER