INDIAN ENERGY 

DEVELOPMENT

Actions Needed to 

Address BIA Management 

Challenges

Statement of Frank Rusco, Director, Natural 

Resources and Environment

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:15 p.m. ET

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

GAO-16-171T

United States Government Accountability Office
Highlights of GAO-16-171T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

October 21, 2015

INDIAN ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Actions Needed to Address BIA Management 

Challenges

Why GAO Did This Study

Indian energy resources hold 

significant potential for development, 

but according to a 2014 Interior 

document, these resources are 

underdeveloped relative to surrounding 

non-Indian resources. Development of 

Indian energy resources is a complex 

process that may involve federal, tribal, 

and state agencies. Interior’s BIA has 

primary authority for managing Indian 

energy development and generally 

holds final decision-making authority 

for leases and other permits required 

for development. 

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 

provided the opportunity for interested 

tribes to pursue TERAs—agreements 

between a tribe and Interior that allow 

the tribe to enter into energy leases 

and agreements without review and 

approval by Interior. However, no tribe 

has entered into a TERA.

This testimony highlights the key 

findings of GAO’s June 2015 report 

(GAO-15-502). It focuses on factors 

that have (1) hindered Indian energy 

development and (2) deterred tribes 

from pursuing TERAs. For the June 

2015 report, GAO analyzed federal 

data; reviewed federal, academic, and 

other literature; and interviewed tribal, 

federal and industry stakeholders. 

What GAO Recommends

In its June 2015 report, GAO 

recommended that Interior take steps 

to address data limitations, track its 

review process, and provide clarifying 

guidance. In an August 2015 letter to 

GAO after the issuance of the report, 

Interior generally agreed with the 

recommendations and identified some 

steps it intends to take to implement 

them. 

What GAO Found

In its June 2015 report, GAO found that Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA)

management shortcomings and other factors—such as a complex regulatory 

framework, limited capital and infrastructure, and varied tribal capacity—have

hindered Indian energy development. Specifically, BIA’s management has the 

following shortcomings: 

• BIA does not have the data it needs to verify ownership of some Indian oil 

and gas resources, easily identify resources available for lease, or identify 

where leases are in effect, as called for in Secretarial Order 3215. GAO

recommended that Interior direct BIA to identify land survey needs and 

enhance mapping capabilities. In response, Interior stated it will develop a 

data collection tool to identify the extent of the survey needs in fiscal year 

2016, and enhance mapping capabilities by developing a national dataset 

composed of all Indian land tracts and boundaries in the next 4 years. 

• BIA’s review and approval is required throughout the development process, 

but BIA does not have a documented process or the data needed to track its 

review and response times, as called for in implementation guidance for 

Executive Order 13604. According to a tribal official, BIA’s review of some of 

its energy-related documents, which can include leases, right-of-way 

agreements, and appraisals, took as long as 8 years. In the meantime, the 

tribe estimates it lost more than $95 million in revenues it could have earned 

from tribal permitting fees, oil and gas severance taxes, and royalties. GAO 

recommended that Interior direct BIA to develop a documented process to 

track its review and response times. In response, Interior stated it will try to 

implement a tracking and monitoring mechanism by the end of fiscal year 

2017 for oil and gas leases. However, it did not indicate whether it intends to

track and monitor the review of other energy-related documents that must be 

approved before development can occur. Without comprehensive tracking 

and monitoring of its review process, it cannot ensure that documents are 

moving forward in a timely manner, and lengthy review times may continue to 

contribute to lost revenue and missed development opportunities. 

• Some BIA regional and agency offices do not have staff with the skills 

needed to effectively evaluate energy-related documents or adequate staff 

resources. GAO is conducting ongoing work on this issue.

GAO also found in its June 2015 report that a variety of factors have deterred 

tribes from seeking tribal energy resource agreements (TERA). These factors 

include uncertainty about some TERA regulations, costs associated with 

assuming activities historically conducted by federal agencies, and a complex 

application process. For instance, one tribe asked Interior for additional guidance 

on the activities that would be considered inherently federal functions—a 

provision included in Interior’s regulations implementing TERA. Interior did not 

provide the clarification requested. Therefore, the tribe had no way of knowing

what efforts may be necessary to build the capacity needed to assume those 

activities. GAO recommended that Interior provide clarifying guidance. In 

response, Interior officials stated that the agency is considering further guidance, 

but it did not provide a timeframe for issuance.

View GAO-16-171T. For more information, 

contact Frank Rusco at (202) 512-3841 or 

ruscof@gao.gov.

United States Government Accountability Office
Letter

Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our recent report on the 

development of Indian energy resources.1 As you know, Indian energy 

resources hold significant potential for development and, for some Indian 

tribes and their members, energy development already provides 

economic benefits, including funding for education, infrastructure, and 

other public services. According to Department of the Interior (Interior) 

data, in fiscal year 2014, development of Indian energy resources 

provided over $1 billion in revenue to tribes and individual Indian resource 

owners. However, even with considerable energy resources, according to 

a 2014 Interior document, Indian energy resources are underdeveloped 

relative to surrounding non-Indian resources.

Development of Indian energy resources is a complex process that may 

involve a range of stakeholders, including federal, tribal, and state 

agencies. Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), through its various 

regional, agency, and other offices, has primary authority for managing 

Indian energy development and, in many cases, holds final decision 

making authority. Federal management and oversight of Indian energy 

development is to be conducted consistent with the federal government’s 

fiduciary trust responsibility to federally recognized Indian tribes and 

individual Indians.2 However, in recent decades, Indian tribes and 

individual Indians have asserted that Interior has failed to fulfill its trust 

responsibility, mainly with regard to the management and accounting of 

tribal and individual trust funds and trust assets. For example, Interior 

recently settled numerous “breach of trust” lawsuits, including Cobell v. 

1

GAO, Indian Energy Development: Poor Management by BIA Has Hindered Energy 

Development on Indian Lands, GAO-15-502 (Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2015). 

2

The federal trust responsibility is a fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to 

federally recognized Indian tribes and tribal members. The Supreme Court has recognized 

a general trust relationship with Indian tribes since 1831. See Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 

30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). The trust responsibility originates from the unique, historical 

relationship between the United States and Indian tribes and consists of the “highest 

moral and legal obligations” that the federal government must meet to ensure the 

protection of tribal and individual Indian lands, assets and resources, but is legally 

enforceable only to the extent it is specifically defined by federal laws. See Seminole 

Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-297 (1942), and United States v. Jicarilla 

Apache Nation, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2313 (2011). 

Letter

Page 1 GAO-16-171T 

 
Salazar, one of the largest class action suits filed against the United 

States.3

Federal policy has supported greater tribal autonomy and control by 

promoting and supporting opportunities for increased tribal selfdetermination and self-governance, including promoting tribal oversight 

and management of energy resource development on tribal lands. For 

example, in 2005, Congress passed the Indian Tribal Energy 

Development and Self-Determination Act (ITEDSA), part of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, to provide an option for federally recognized tribes to 

exercise greater control of decision-making over their own energy 

resources.4 The ITEDSA provides for interested tribes to pursue a Tribal 

Energy Resource Agreement (TERA)—an agreement between a tribe 

and the Secretary of the Interior that allows the tribe, at its discretion, to 

enter into leases, business agreements, and right-of-way (ROW) 

agreements for energy resource development on tribal lands without 

review and approval by the Secretary. However, no tribe has entered into 

a TERA with Interior, and shortcomings in BIA’s management that we 

identified in our June 2015 report highlight the need for tribes to build the 

capacity to perform the duties that would enable them to obtain greater 

tribal control and decision-making authority over the development of their 

resources.5

In this context, my testimony today discusses the findings from our June 

2015 report on Indian energy development. Accordingly, this testimony 

addresses the factors that have (1) hindered Indian energy resource 

development and (2) deterred tribes from seeking TERAs. In addition, I 

will highlight several key actions that we recommended in our report that 

Interior can take to help overcome challenges associated with the 

administration and management of Indian energy resources.

3

Cobell v. Salazar was a class action lawsuit initially filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell, a 

member of the Blackfeet Tribe, and others against the federal government concerning

Interior’s management of individual Indian trust fund accounts. Those accounts contain 

funds from leases of Indian land, some of which involve energy development. The 

settlement in Cobell required congressional authorization, which was provided in the 

Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-291, § 101, 124 Stat. 3064, 3066 (2010). 

4

Federally recognized tribes have a government-to-government relationship with the 

United States and are eligible to receive certain protections, services, and benefits by 

virtue of their unique status as Indian tribes.

5

GAO-15-502.

Page 2 GAO-16-171T 

 
To conduct the work for our June 2015 report, we reviewed and 

synthesized literature including more than 40 reports, conference 

proceedings, hearings statements, and other publications from federal 

and tribal governments; industry; academics; and nonprofit organizations. 

We also obtained available data on key dates associated with the review 

and approval of energy-related documents for planned or completed 

utility-scale renewable projects from several BIA regional and local 

officials, tribal officials, and industry representatives. Further, we 

interviewed a nongeneralizable sample of stakeholders representing 33 

Indian tribes, energy development companies, and numerous federal 

agencies and organizations, including officials from BIA, Office of Indian 

Energy and Economic Development, Department of Energy, National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM).6 We did not evaluate tribal activities or actions to govern the 

development of their resources or assess any potential barriers to energy 

development such actions or activities may pose. Our June 2015 report 

includes a detailed explanation of the scope and methodology used to 

conduct our work.

We conducted the work on which this testimony is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.

Factors, such as shortcomings in BIA’s management and additional 

factors generally outside of BIA’s management responsibilities—such as 

a complex regulatory framework, tribes’ limited capital and infrastructure, 

and varied tribal capacity—have hindered Indian energy development. 

Specifically, according to some of the literature we reviewed and several 

stakeholders we interviewed, BIA’s management has three key 

shortcomings.

6

Within BIA, we interviewed officials from all 12 BIA regional offices and 9 BIA agency 

offices. 

Shortcomings in BIA’s 

Management and a 

Variety of Other 

Factors Have 

Hindered Indian 

Energy Development

Page 3 GAO-16-171T 

 
First, BIA does not have the data it needs to verify ownership of some oil 

and gas resources, easily identify resources available for lease, or easily 

identify where leases are in effect, inconsistent with Interior’s Secretarial 

Order 3215, which calls for the agency to maintain a system of records 

that identifies the location and value of Indian resources and allows for 

resource owners to obtain information regarding their assets in a timely 

manner. The ability to account for Indian resources would assist BIA in 

fulfilling its federal trust responsibility, and determining ownership is a 

necessary step for BIA to approve leases and other energy-related 

documents. However, in some cases, BIA cannot verify ownership 

because federal cadastral surveys—the means by which land is defined, 

divided, traced, and recorded—cannot be found or are outdated. It is 

additionally a concern that BIA does not know the magnitude of its 

cadastral survey needs or what resources would be needed to address 

them.

We recommended in our June 2015 report that the Secretary of the 

Interior direct the Director of the BIA to take steps to work with BLM to 

identify cadastral survey needs.7 In its written comments on our report, 

Interior did not concur with our recommendation. However, in an August 

2015 letter to GAO after the report was issued, Interior stated that it 

agrees this is an urgent need and reported it has taken steps to enter into 

an agreement with BLM to identify survey-related products and services 

needed to identify and address realty and boundary issues. In addition, 

the agency stated in its letter that it will finalize a data collection 

methodology to assess cadastral survey needs by October 2016.

In addition, BIA does not have an inventory of Indian resources in a 

format that is readily available, such as a geographic information system 

(GIS). Interior guidance identifies that efficient management of oil and gas 

resources relies, in part, on GIS mapping technology because it allows 

managers to easily identify resources available for lease and where 

leases are in effect. According to a BIA official, without a GIS component, 

identifying transactions such as leases and ROW agreements for Indian 

land and resources requires a search of paper records stored in multiple 

locations, which can take significant time and staff resources. For 

example, in response to a request from a tribal member with ownership 

interests in a parcel of land, BIA responded that locating the information 

7

GAO-15-502.

Page 4 GAO-16-171T 

 
on existing leases and ROW agreements would require that the tribal 

member pay $1,422 to cover approximately 48 hours of staff research 

time and associated costs. In addition, officials from a few Indian tribes 

told us that they cannot pursue development opportunities because BIA 

cannot provide the tribe with data on the location of their oil and gas 

resources—as called for in Interior’s Secretarial Order 3215. Further, in 

2012, a report from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 

System found that an inventory of Indian resources could provide a road 

map for expanding development opportunities.8 Without data to verify 

ownership and use of resources in a timely manner, the agency cannot 

ensure that Indian resources are properly accounted for or that Indian 

tribes and their members are able to take full advantage of development 

opportunities.

To improve BIA’s efforts to verify ownership in a timely manner and 

identify resources available for development, we recommended in our 

June 2015 report that Interior direct BIA to take steps to complete GIS 

mapping capabilities.9 In its written comments in response to our report, 

Interior stated that the agency is developing and implementing 

applications that will supplement the data it has and provide GIS mapping 

capabilities, although it noted that one of these applications, the National 

Indian Oil and Gas Evaluation Management System (NIOGEMS), is not 

available nationally. Interior stated in its August 2015 letter to GAO that a 

national dataset composed of all Indian land tracts and boundaries with 

visualization functionality is expected to be completed within 4 years, 

depending on budget and resource availability.

Second, BIA’s review and approval is required throughout the 

development process, including the approval of leases, ROW 

agreements, and appraisals, but BIA does not have a documented 

8

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Growing Economies in Indian 

Country: Taking Stock of Progress and Partnerships, A Summary of Challenges, 

Recommendations, and Promising Efforts (April 2012). This report was the result of a 

series of workshops that included nine federal agencies, four Federal Reserve Bank 

partners, and representatives from 63 Indian tribes. The effort was focused on economic 

development in Indian Country. 

9

According to Interior’s 2014-2015 performance plan, it was to incorporate a GIS mapping 

component into its Trust Asset and Accounting Management System in fiscal year 2014. 

Page 5 GAO-16-171T 

 
process or the data needed to track its review and response times.10 In 

2014, an interagency steering committee that included Interior identified 

best practices to modernize federal decision-making processes through 

improved efficiency and transparency.11 The committee determined that 

federal agencies reviewing permits and other applications should collect 

consistent data, including the date the application was received, the date 

the application was considered complete by the agency, the issuance 

date, and the start and end dates for any “pauses” in the review process. 

The committee concluded that these dates could provide agencies with 

greater transparency into the process, assist agency efforts to identify 

process trends and drivers that influence the review process, and inform 

agency discussions on ways to improve the process.

However, BIA does not collect the data the interagency steering 

committee identified as needed to ensure transparency and, therefore, it 

cannot provide reasonable assurance that its process is efficient. A few 

stakeholders we interviewed and some literature we reviewed stated that 

BIA’s review and approval process can be lengthy. For example, 

stakeholders provided examples of lease and ROW applications that 

were under review for multiple years. Specifically, in 2014, the Acting 

Chairman for the Southern Ute Indian Tribe testified before this 

committee that BIA’s review of some of its energy-related documents took 

as long as 8 years. In the meantime, the tribe estimates it lost more than 

$95 million in revenues it could have earned from tribal permitting fees, oil 

and gas severance taxes, and royalties. According to a few stakeholders 

and some literature we reviewed, the lengthy review process can 

increase development costs and project times and, in some cases, result 

in missed development opportunities and lost revenue. Without a 

documented process or the data needed to track its review and response 

10In 2014, an interagency Steering Committee developed in response to Executive Order 

13604 identified best practices to modernize federal decision-making processes. The 

committee found that federal agencies reviewing permits and other applications should 

collect consistent data, including the date the application was received, the date the 

application was considered complete by the agency, the issuance date, and the start and 

end dates for any “pauses” in the review process. 

11This government-wide initiative was developed in response to Executive Order 13604 

and was led by an interagency Steering Committee, which is composed of Deputy 

Secretaries or their equivalent from 12 federal agencies, including the Department of the 

Interior. In 2014, the Steering Committee released an implementation plan for the 

Presidential Memorandum on Modernizing Infrastructure Permitting. Executive Order 

13604 calls for agencies to improve federal permitting and review processes.

Page 6 GAO-16-171T 

 
times, BIA cannot ensure transparency into the process and that 

documents are moving forward in a timely manner, or determine the 

effectiveness of efforts to improve the process.

To address this shortcoming, we recommended in our June 2015 report 

that Interior direct BIA to develop a documented process to track its 

review and response times and enhance data collection efforts to ensure 

that the agency has the data needed to track its review and response 

times. In its written comments, Interior did not fully concur with this 

recommendation. Specifically, Interior stated that it will use NIOGEMS to 

assist in tracking review and response times. However, this application 

does not track all realty transactions or processes and has not been 

deployed nationally. Therefore, while NIOGEMS may provide some 

assistance to the agency, it alone cannot ensure that BIA’s process to 

review energy-related documents is transparent or that documents are 

moving forward in a timely manner. In its August 2015 letter to GAO, 

Interior stated it will try to implement a tracking and monitoring effort by 

the end of fiscal year 2017 for oil and gas leases on Indian lands. The 

agency did not indicate if it intends to improve the transparency of its 

review and approval process for other energy-related documents, such as 

ROW agreements and surface leases—some of which were under review 

for multiple years.

Third, some BIA regional and agency offices do not have staff with the 

skills needed to effectively evaluate energy-related documents or 

adequate staff resources, according to a few stakeholders we interviewed 

and some of the literature we reviewed. For instance, Interior officials told 

us that the number of BIA personnel trained in oil and gas development is 

not sufficient to meet the demands of increased development. In another 

example, a BIA official from an agency office told us that leases and other 

permits cannot be reviewed in a timely manner because the office does 

not have enough staff to conduct the reviews. We are conducting ongoing 

work for this committee that will include information on key skills and staff 

resources at BIA involved with the development of energy resources on 

Indian lands.

According to stakeholders we interviewed and literature we reviewed, 

additional factors, generally outside of BIA’s management responsibilities, 

have also hindered Indian energy development, including

• a complex regulatory framework consisting of multiple jurisdictions 

that can involve significantly more steps than the development of 

Page 7 GAO-16-171T 
private and state resources, increase development costs, and add to 

the timeline for development;

• fractionated, or highly divided, land and mineral ownership interests;

• tribes’ limited access to initial capital to start projects and limited 

opportunities to take advantage of federal tax credits;

• dual taxation of resources by states and tribes that does not occur on 

private, state, or federally owned resources;

• perceived or real concerns about the political stability and capacity of 

some tribal governments; and

• limited access to infrastructure, such as transmission lines needed to 

carry power generated from renewable sources to market and 

transportation linkages to transport oil and gas resources to 

processing facilities.

A variety of factors have deterred tribes from pursuing TERAs. 

Uncertainty associated with Interior’s TERA regulations is one factor. For 

example, TERA regulations authorize tribes to assume responsibility for 

energy development activities that are not “inherently federal functions,”

but Interior officials told us that the agency has not determined what 

activities would be considered inherently federal because doing so could 

have far-reaching implications throughout the federal government. 

According to officials from one tribe we interviewed, the tribe has

repeatedly asked Interior for additional guidance on the activities that 

would be considered inherently federal functions under the regulations. 

According to the tribal officials, without additional guidance on inherently 

federal functions, tribes considering a TERA do not know what activities 

the tribe would be assuming or what efforts may be necessary to build the 

capacity needed to assume those activities.

We recommended in our June 2015 report that Interior provide additional 

energy development-specific guidance on provisions of TERA regulations 

that tribes have identified as unclear.12 Additional guidance could include 

examples of activities that are not inherently federal in the energy 

development context, which could assist tribes in identifying capacity 

building efforts that may be needed. Interior agreed with the 

12GAO-15-502.

A Variety of Factors 

Have Deterred Tribes 

from Entering into 

TERAs

Page 8 GAO-16-171T 

 
recommendation and stated it is considering further guidance but did not 

provide additional details regarding issuance of the guidance.

In addition, the costs associated with assuming activities currently 

conducted by federal agencies and a complex application process were 

identified by literature we reviewed and stakeholders we interviewed as 

other factors that have deterred any tribe from entering into a TERA with 

Interior. Specifically, through a TERA, a tribe assuming control for energy 

development activities that are currently conducted by federal agencies 

does not receive federal funding for taking over the activities from the 

federal government. Several tribal officials we interviewed told us that the 

tribe does not have the resources to assume additional responsibility and 

liability from the federal government without some associated support 

from the federal government.

In conclusion, our review identified a number of areas in which BIA could 

improve its management of Indian energy resources and enhance 

opportunities for greater tribal control and decision-making authority over 

the development of their energy resources. Interior stated it intends to 

take some steps to implement our recommendations, but we believe 

Interior needs to take additional actions to address data limitations and 

track its review process. We look forward to continuing to work with this 

committee in overseeing BIA and other federal programs to ensure that 

they are operating in the most effective and efficient manner.

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 

answer any questions that you may have at this time.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or ruscof@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this testimony. Christine Kehr (Assistant 

Director), Alison O’Neill, Jay Spaan, and Barbara Timmerman made key 

contributions to this testimony.

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgement

(361660) Page 9 GAO-16-171T 
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.
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.