GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

A

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management, 

Finance, and Accountability, Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT 

Wednesday, April 5, 2006

FINANCIAL 

MANAGEMENT 

Challenges Continue in 

Meeting Requirements of 

the Improper Payments 

Information Act

Statement of McCoy Williams, Director

Financial Management and Assurance

GAO-06-581T
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

April 5, 2006

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

Challenges Continue in Meeting 

Requirements of the Improper Payments 

Information Act 

Highlights of GAO-06-581T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Government 

Management, Finance, and Accountability,

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

The federal government continues to make progress in identifying programs 

susceptible to the risk of improper payments in addressing the new IPIA 

requirements. At the same time, significant challenges remain to effectively 

achieve the goals of IPIA. The 33 fiscal year 2005 PARs GAO reviewed show 

that some agencies still have not instituted systematic methods of reviewing 

all programs and activities, have not identified all programs susceptible to 

significant improper payments, or have not annually estimated improper 

payments for their susceptible programs as required by the act. 

The full magnitude of the problem remains unknown because some agencies 

have not yet prepared estimates of improper payments for all of their 

programs. Of the 33 agencies reviewed, 18 reported over $38 billion of 

improper payments in 57 programs. This represented almost a $7 billion, or 

16 percent, decrease in the amount of improper payments reported by 17 

agencies in fiscal year 2004. However, as shown in the table below, the total 

improper payments estimate does not include 7 major agency programs with 

outlays totaling about $228 billion. 

Major Programs That Have Not Reported Improper Payments Estimates 

Dollars in billions

Agency Program

Fiscal year 

2005 outlays 

Target fiscal year 

for estimating

Department of Agriculture School Programs $8.2 2007

Department of Health and 

Human Services

State Children’s Insurance 

Program 5.1 2008

Department of Agriculture Women, Infants, and 

Children 4.8 2008

Department of Health and 

Human Services Medicaid 181.7 2008

Department of Health and 

Human Services

Child Care and Development 

Fund 4.9 Did not report

Department of Health and 

Human Services

Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families 17.4 Did not report

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

Community Development 

Block Grant 5.4 Did not report

Total $227.5

Sources: Office of Management and Budget and cited agencies’ fiscal year 2005 PARs. 

Further, agency auditors have identified major management challenges

related to agencies’ improper payment estimating methodologies and 

significant internal control weaknesses for programs susceptible to 

significant improper payments. In addition, two agency auditors cited 

noncompliance with IPIA in their annual audit reports. 

For fiscal year 2005 PARs, agencies that entered into contracts with a total 

value exceeding $500 million annually were required to report additional 

information on their recovery audit efforts. Nineteen agencies reported 

reviewing over $300 billion in vendor payments, identifying approximately 

$557 million to be recovered, and actually recovering about $467 million.

Improper payments are a longstanding, widespread, and 

significant problem in the federal 

government. The Congress

enacted the Improper Payments 

Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) to

address this issue. Fiscal year

2005 marked the second year that

agencies were required to report

improper payment information 

under IPIA. One result of IPIA has 

been increased visibility over

improper payments by requiring

executive branch agencies to 

identify programs and activities 

susceptible to significant improper

payments, estimate the amount of

their improper payments, and 

report on the amounts of improper

payments and their actions to 

reduce them in their annual

performance and accountability

reports (PAR). 

Because of continued interest in

addressing the governmentwide 

improper payments issue, GAO

was asked to report on the

progress made by agencies in

complying with requirements of 

IPIA and the status of efforts to

identify, reduce, and eliminate

improper payments. As part of the

review, GAO looked at (1) the 

extent to which agencies have

performed risk assessments, (2) 

the annual amount of improper 

payments estimated, and (3) the 

amount of improper payments 

recouped through recovery audits. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-581T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact McCoy 

Williams at (202) 512-9095 or 

williamsm1@gao.gov. 
Page 1 GAO-06-581T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the governmentwide problem of 

improper payments in federal programs and activities.1

 Our work over the 

past several years has demonstrated that improper payments are a longstanding, widespread, and significant problem in the federal government. 

The extent of the problem initially had been masked because only a limited 

number of agencies reported their annual payment accuracy rates and 

estimated improper payment amounts prior to the passage of the Improper 

Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA).2

Fiscal year 2005 marked the second year that federal agencies 

governmentwide were required to report improper payment information 

under IPIA in their performance and accountability reports (PAR). IPIA has 

increased visibility over improper payments to a higher, more appropriate 

level of importance by requiring executive agency heads, based on 

guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),3

 to identify 

programs and activities susceptible to significant improper payments, 

estimate amounts improperly paid, and report on the amounts of improper 

payments and their actions to reduce them. Further, in fiscal year 2005, 

OMB began to separately track the elimination of improper payments 

under the President’s Management Agenda (PMA).

As collected from agencies’ fiscal year 2005 PARs, the governmentwide 

improper payment estimate for fiscal year 2005 exceeded $38 billion, but 

did not include any amounts for some of the highest risk programs, such as 

Medicaid with outlays exceeding $181 billion for fiscal year 2005. I highlight 

these omissions later in my testimony. From our review, we noted that 

agencies made progress in addressing improper payments by implementing 

processes and controls to identify, estimate, and reduce improper 

payments. For example, agencies demonstrated improved error detection 

and measurement by addressing and reporting improper payments

1

We use the term improper payments to include inadvertent errors, such as duplicate 

payments; payments for services not rendered; payments to ineligible beneficiaries; and 

payments resulting from fraud by program participants, federal employees, or both. 

2

Pub. L. No. 107-300, 116 Stat. 2350 (Nov. 26, 2002).

3

OMB Memorandum M-03-13, Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107-300), May 21, 2003.
Page 2 GAO-06-581T 

estimates for 17 newly reported programs4 totaling about $1.2 billion, 

which are included in the governmentwide improper payments estimate 

now totaling over $38 billion. However, we noted that some agencies still 

have not instituted systematic methods of reviewing all programs and 

activities, have not identified all programs susceptible to significant 

improper payments, or have not annually estimated improper payments for 

their high-risk programs. 

Because of the Subcommittee’s interest in addressing the governmentwide 

improper payments issue, you asked us to report on the progress made by 

agencies in complying with requirements of IPIA and the status of efforts to 

identify, reduce, and eliminate improper payments. In my testimony today, 

I will discuss (1) the extent to which agencies have performed the required 

assessments to identify programs and activities that are susceptible to 

significant improper payments, (2) the annual amount of improper 

payments estimated by the reporting agencies, and (3) the amount of 

improper payments recouped through recovery audits. A list of related 

GAO products is provided at the end of this testimony.

The scope of our review included the 35 federal agencies5 that the 

Department of the Treasury (Treasury) determined to be significant to the 

U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements. Based on available 

information, we reviewed improper payment information reported by 33 

agencies6

 in their fiscal year 2005 PARs or annual reports. We further 

reviewed OMB guidance on implementation of IPIA and its report on the 

results of agency-specific reports, significant findings, agency 

accomplishments, and remaining challenges. We did not independently 

validate the data that agencies reported in their PARs or annual reports or 

that OMB reported. However, we are providing these agency-reported data 

as descriptive information that will inform interested parties about the 

magnitude of governmentwide improper payments and other improper 

payments related information. We believe the data to be sufficiently 

reliable for this purpose. We conducted our work from February 2006 to 

4

Fiscal year 2005 was the first time that these agency programs were reported under the 

reporting requirements of IPIA.

5

See Treasury Financial Manual, vol. 1, part 2, ch. 4700. A list of the 35 agencies is included 

in app. II. 

6

Two agencies’ annual reports were not available prior to the end of our fieldwork.
Page 3 GAO-06-581T 

March 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 

Background Before I discuss our review of agencies’ fiscal year 2005 PARs, I would like 

to summarize IPIA, related OMB initiatives, and statutory requirements for 

recovery audits. The act, passed in November 2002, requires executive 

branch agency heads to review their programs and activities annually and 

identify those that may be susceptible to significant improper payments. 

For each program and activity agencies identify as susceptible, the act 

requires them to estimate the annual amount of improper payments and to 

submit those estimates to the Congress. The act further requires that for 

programs for which estimated improper payments exceed $10 million, 

agencies are to report annually to the Congress on the actions they are 

taking to reduce those payments. 

The act requires the Director of OMB to prescribe guidance for agencies to 

use in implementing IPIA. OMB issued guidance in May 20037

 requiring the 

use of a systematic method for the annual review and identification of 

programs and activities that are susceptible to significant improper 

payments. The guidance defines significant improper payments as those in 

any particular program that exceed both 2.5 percent of program payments 

and $10 million annually. It requires agencies to estimate improper 

payments annually using statistically valid techniques for each susceptible 

program or activity. For those agency programs determined to be 

susceptible to significant improper payments and with estimated annual 

improper payments greater than $10 million, IPIA and related OMB 

guidance require each agency to report the results of its improper payment 

efforts for fiscal years ending on or after September 30, 2004. OMB 

guidance requires the results to be reported in the Management Discussion 

and Analysis section of the agency’s PAR.

In August 2004, OMB established Eliminating Improper Payments as a new 

program-specific initiative under the PMA. This separate improper 

payments PMA program initiative began in the first quarter of fiscal year 

2005. Previously, agency efforts related to improper payments were tracked 

along with other financial management activities as part of the Improving 

Financial Performance initiative of the PMA. The objective of establishing a 

7

OMB Memorandum M-03-13. 
Page 4 GAO-06-581T 

separate initiative for improper payments was to ensure that agency 

managers are held accountable for meeting the goals of IPIA and are 

therefore dedicating the necessary attention and resources to meeting IPIA 

requirements. With this new initiative, 15 agencies are to measure their 

improper payments annually, develop improvement targets and corrective 

actions, and track the results annually to ensure the corrective actions are 

effective. 

In August 2005, OMB revised its Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements, and incorporated IPIA reporting details from its May 2003 

IPIA implementing guidance. Among other things, OMB Circular No. A-136 

includes requirements for agencies to report on their risk assessments; 

annual improper payment estimates; corrective action plans; and recovery 

auditing efforts, including the amounts recovered in the current year. 

Section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 20028

contains a provision that requires all executive branch agencies entering 

into contracts with a total value exceeding $500 million in a fiscal year to 

have cost-effective programs for identifying errors in paying contractors 

and for recovering amounts erroneously paid. The legislation further states 

that a required element of such a program is the use of recovery audits and 

recovery activities. The law authorizes federal agencies to retain recovered 

funds to cover in-house administrative costs as well as to pay contractors, 

such as collection agencies. Agencies that are required to undertake 

recovery audit programs were directed by OMB to provide annual reports 

on their recovery audit efforts, along with improper payment reporting 

details9

 in an appendix to their PARs. 

The fiscal year 2005 PARs, the second set of annual reports representing 

the results of agency assessments of improper payments for all federal 

programs, were due November 15, 2005. In our December 2005 report10 on 

8

Pub. L. No. 107-107, div. A, title VIII § 831, 115 Stat. 1012, 1186 (Dec. 28, 2001) (codified at 31 

U.S.C. §§ 3561-3567).

9

In November 2005, OMB issued draft revisions to its IPIA implementing guidance. This 

revised implementing guidance, together with recovery auditing guidance, is to be 

consolidated into Parts I and II of future Appendix C to OMB Circular No. A-123, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal Controls (Dec. 21, 2004).

10For GAO’s audit report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for 

fiscal year 2005, see Department of the Treasury, Financial Report of the United States 

Government (Washington, D.C.: December 2005), 135-154, which can be found on GAO’s 

Internet site at www.gao.gov.
Page 5 GAO-06-581T 

the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years 

ended September 30, 2005, and 2004, which includes our associated 

opinion on internal control, we reported improper payments as a material 

weakness in internal control. Specifically, we reported that while progress 

had been made to reduce improper payments, significant challenges 

remain to effectively achieve the goals of IPIA.

Some Agencies Still 

Have Not Assessed All 

Programs and 

Activities for Risk of 

Improper Payments 

We reviewed the fiscal year 2005 PARs or annual reports for 33 of the 35 

federal agencies that the Treasury determined to be significant to the U.S. 

government’s consolidated financial statements and that were available as 

of March 2006. Of those 33 agencies, 23 reported that they had completed 

risk assessments for all programs and activities. See appendix II for 

detailed information on each agency. This was the same number of 

agencies that reported having completed risk assessments in our prior year 

review.11 The remaining 10 agencies either were silent on IPIA reporting 

details in their PARs or annual reports or had not yet assessed the risk of 

improper payments for all their programs. 

In addition, we noted that selected agency auditors reviewed agencies’ risk 

assessment methodologies and identified issues of noncompliance or other 

deficiencies. For example, auditors for the Departments of Justice and 

Homeland Security cited agency noncompliance with IPIA in their fiscal 

year 2005 annual audit reports, primarily caused by inadequate risk 

assessments. The Department of Justice auditor stated that one agency 

component had not established a program to assess, identify, and track 

improper payments. The agency acknowledged this noncompliance in its 

PAR as well. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) auditor 

reported that the department did not institute a systematic method of 

reviewing all programs and identifying those it believed were susceptible to 

significant erroneous payments. This was the second consecutive year that 

the auditor reported IPIA noncompliance for DHS. Although the auditors 

identified the agency’s risk assessment methodology as inadequate, DHS 

reported in its PAR that it had assessed all of its programs for risk. A third 

agency auditor reported that the Department of Agriculture needed to 

strengthen its program risk assessment methodology to identify and test 

critical internal controls over program payments totaling over $100 million.

11GAO, Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Requirements of the Improper 

Payments Information Act, GAO-05-417 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005).
Page 6 GAO-06-581T 

Magnitude of Improper 

Payments Is Still 

Unknown

As I highlighted in my introduction, agencies’ reported estimates of 

improper payments for fiscal year 2005 exceeded $38 billion. This 

represents almost a $7 billion, or 16 percent, decrease in the amount of 

improper payments reported by 17 agencies in fiscal year 2004.12 On the 

surface, this appears to be good news. However, the magnitude of the 

governmentwide improper payment problem remains unknown. This is 

because, in addition to not assessing all programs, some agencies had not 

yet prepared estimates of significant improper payments for all programs 

determined to be at risk. Specifically, of the 33 agency PARs included in our 

review, 18 agencies reported improper payment estimates totaling in 

excess of $38 billion for some or all of their high-risk programs. The $38 

billion represents estimates for 57 programs. Of the remaining 15 agencies 

that did not report estimates, 8 said they did not have any programs 

susceptible to significant improper payments, 6 were silent about whether 

they had programs susceptible to significant improper payments, and the 

remaining 1 agency identified programs susceptible to significant improper 

payments and said it plans to report an estimate by fiscal year 2007. Further 

details are included in appendix I. 

Regarding the reported $7 billion decrease in the governmentwide 

improper payment estimate for fiscal year 2005, we determined that this 

decrease was primarily due to a $9.6 billion reduction in the Department of 

Health and Human Services’s (HHS) Medicare program improper payment 

estimate, which was partially offset by more programs reporting estimates 

of improper payments, resulting in a net decrease of $7 billion. Based on 

our review, HHS’s $9.6 billion decrease13 in its Medicare program improper 

payment estimate was principally due to its efforts to educate health care 

providers about its Medicare error rate testing program and the importance 

of responding to its requests for medical records to perform detailed 

statistical reviews of Medicare payments. HHS reported that these more 

intensive efforts had dramatically reduced the number of “no 

documentation” errors in its medical reviews. The relevance of this 

significant decrease is that when providers do not submit documentation to 

12In their fiscal year 2005 PARs, selected agencies updated their fiscal year 2004 improper 

payment estimates to reflect changes since issuance of their fiscal year 2004 PARs. These 

updates increased the governmentwide improper payment estimate for fiscal year 2004 from 

$45 billion to $46 billion.

13HHS reported an improper payment estimate for its Medicare program of $12.1 billion for 

fiscal year 2005 and $21.7 billion for fiscal year 2004.
Page 7 GAO-06-581T 

justify payments, these payments are counted by HHS as erroneous for 

purposes of calculating an annual improper payment estimate for the 

Medicare program. HHS reported marked reductions in its error rate 

attributable to (1) nonresponses to requests for medical records and 

(2) insufficient documentation submitted by the provider. We noted that 

these improvements partially resulted from HHS extending the time that 

providers have for responding to documentation requests from 55 days to 

90 days. 

These changes primarily affected HHS’s processes related to its efforts to 

perform detailed statistical reviews for the purposes of calculating an 

annual improper payment estimate for the Medicare program. While this 

may represent a refinement in the program’s improper payment estimate, 

the reported reduction may not reflect improved accountability over 

program dollars. Our work did not include an overall assessment of HHS’s 

estimating methodology. However, we noted that the changes made for the 

fiscal year 2005 estimate were not related to improvements in prepayment 

processes, and we did not find any evidence that HHS had significantly 

enhanced its preventive controls in the Medicare payment process to 

prevent future improper payments. Therefore, the federal government’s 

progress in reducing improper payments may be exaggerated because the 

reported improper payments decrease in the Medicare program accounts 

for the bulk of the overall reduction in the governmentwide improper 

payments estimate. Mr. Chairman, I think the only valid observation at this 

time is that improper payments are a serious problem, agencies are 

working on this issue at different paces, and the extent of the problem and 

the level of effort necessary to control these losses are as yet unknown.

What is clear is that there is a lot of work to do in this area. Agency auditors 

have reported major management challenges related to agencies’ improper 

payment estimating methodologies and highlighted internal control 

weaknesses that continue to plague programs susceptible to significant 

improper payments. For example, the Department of Labor’s agency 

auditor reported that inadequate controls existed in the processing of 

medical bill payments for its Federal Employees’ Compensation Act 

program.14 As a result, medical providers were both overpaid and 

underpaid. Internal control weaknesses were also identified in the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 7(a) Business Loan program. SBA did not 

14 This act was repealed and parts of it are now codified in code sections of Title 1, 5, and 18 

of the United States Code.
Page 8 GAO-06-581T 

consistently identify instances of noncompliance with its own 

requirements, resulting in improper payments. In another example, agency 

auditors for the Department of Education (Education) raised concerns 

about the methodology Education used to estimate improper payments for 

its Federal Student Aid program. The auditors reported that the 

methodology used did not provide a true reflection of the magnitude of 

improper payments in the student loan programs. To overcome these major 

management challenges, agencies will need to aggressively deploy more 

innovative and sophisticated approaches to correct such deficiencies and 

identify and reduce improper payments. 

Also, I would like to point out that the fiscal year 2005 governmentwide 

improper payments estimate of $38 billion did not include seven major 

programs, with outlays totaling over $227 billion for fiscal year 2005. OMB 

had specifically required these seven programs to report selected improper 

payment information for several years before IPIA reporting requirements 

became effective.15 After passage of IPIA, OMB’s implementing guidance 

required that these programs continue to report improper payment 

information under IPIA. As shown in table 1, the fiscal year 2005 

governmentwide improper payment estimate does not include one of the 

largest federal programs determined to be susceptible to risk, HHS’s 

Medicaid program, with outlays exceeding $181 billion annually. 

15Prior to the governmentwide IPIA reporting requirements beginning with fiscal year 2004, 

former section 57 of OMB Circular No. A-11, required certain agencies to submit similar 

information, including estimated improper payment target rates, target rates for future 

reductions in these payments, the types and causes of these payments, and variances from 

targets and goals established. In addition, these agencies were to provide a description and 

assessment of the current methods for measuring the rate of improper payments and the 

quality of data resulting from these methods.
Page 9 GAO-06-581T 

Table 1: Major Programs That Did Not Report Improper Payment Estimates as 

Previously Required by OMB and Target Dates for Estimates 

Sources: OMB and cited agencies’ fiscal year 2005 PARs.

Of these seven programs, four programs reported that they would be able 

to estimate and report on improper payments sometime within the next 3 

fiscal years, but could not do so for fiscal year 2005. For the remaining 

three programs, the agencies did not estimate improper payment amounts 

in their fiscal year 2005 PARs and were silent about whether they would 

report estimates in the future. As a result, improper payments for these 

programs susceptible to risk will not be known for at least several years, 

even though these agencies had been required to report this information 

since 2002, with their fiscal year 2003 budget submissions under previous 

OMB Circular No. A-11 requirements. OMB reported that some of the 

agencies were unable to determine the rate or amount of improper 

payments because of measurement challenges or time and resource 

constraints, which OMB expects to be resolved in future reporting years. 

However, in the case of the HHS programs, the agency auditor recognized 

Dollars in billions

Target date for improper 

payment estimates

Agency/program

Fiscal year 

2005 outlays

Fiscal 

year 

2007

Fiscal 

year 

2008

Did not report 

target date

Department of Agriculture—School 

Programs

$8.2 X

Department of Health and Human 

Services—State Children’s Insurance 

Program

5.1 X

Department of Agriculture—Women, 

Infants, and Children

4.8 X

Department of Health and Human 

Services—Medicaid 

181.7 X

Department of Health and Human 

Services—Child Care and 

Development Fund

4.9 X

Department of Health and Human 

Services—Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families

17.4 X

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development—Community 

Development Block Grant

5.4 X

Total $227.5 1 3 3
Page 10 GAO-06-581T 

this lack of reporting as a reportable condition related to the reliability of 

the department’s financial statements. In the component of its fiscal year 

2005 audit report dealing with compliance with laws and regulations, the 

auditor reported that HHS potentially had not fully complied with IPIA 

because nationwide improper payment estimates and rates for significant 

health programs were under development and the agency did not expect to 

complete the estimation process until fiscal year 2007. 

Also, as mentioned earlier and shown in appendix I, 8 of 33 agencies said 

they did not have programs susceptible to significant amounts of improper 

payments. However, certain programs associated with the government’s 

response to mitigate the effects of Hurricane Katrina, one of the largest 

natural disasters in our nation’s history, had material risks of improper 

payments. In order to respond to the immediate needs of disaster victims 

and to rebuild the affected areas, government agencies used streamlined 

eligibility verification requirements for delivery of benefits and expedited 

contracting methods in order to commit contractors to begin work 

immediately. These expedited processes can increase the potential for 

improper payments. 

For example, from our recent review of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s (FEMA) Individuals and Households Program 

(IHP)16 we identified significant flaws in the process for registering disaster 

victims for assistance payments. As part of its relief efforts, FEMA had 

distributed nearly $5.4 billion in IHP assistance, with $2.3 billion in the 

form of expedited assistance, as of mid-December 2005. These payments 

were made via checks, electronic fund transfers, and debit cards. We found 

limited procedures in place designed to prevent, detect, and deter certain 

types of duplicate and potentially fraudulent disaster registrations. As a 

result, we determined that thousands of registrants provided incorrect 

Social Security numbers, dates of birth, and addresses to obtain assistance 

and found that FEMA made duplicate assistance payments to about 5,000 

of the nearly 11,000 debit card recipients. 

16GAO, Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: FEMA’s Control 

Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Significant Fraud and Abuse, GAO-06-403T

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2006). 
Page 11 GAO-06-581T 

In one example of expedited contracting, the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) Office of Inspector General (OIG)17 determined that DOT had 

overpaid a contractor by approximately $32 million for services to provide 

buses for evacuating hurricane victims from the New Orleans area. 

According to the OIG, the overpayment occurred because DOT had made 

partial payments based on initial task estimates and without 

documentation that substantiated the dollar amount of services actually 

provided to date. Although DOT promptly recovered the funds, the nature 

of these types of exigencies to adequately respond to the hurricane victims 

makes it likely that future improper payments are likely to occur. As a 

result, selected agencies, such as DHS and DOT, have said they plan to 

perform concentrated reviews of payments related to relief efforts to 

identify the extent of improper payments, develop actions to reduce these 

types of payments, and enhance internal controls for future relief efforts. 

Additional Reporting 

Requirements for 

Recovery Auditing 

Information

Section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 

provides an impetus for applicable agencies to systematically identify and 

recover contract overpayments. Recovery auditing is another method that 

agencies can use to recoup detected improper payments. Recovery 

auditing focuses on the identification of erroneous invoices, discounts 

offered but not received, improper late penalty payments, incorrect 

shipping costs, and multiple payments for single invoices. Recovery 

auditing can be conducted in-house or contracted out to recovery audit 

firms. The law authorizes federal agencies to retain recovered funds to 

cover in-house administrative costs as well as to pay contractors, such as 

collection agencies. Any residual recoveries, net of these program costs, 

shall be credited back to the original appropriation from which the 

improper payment was made, subject to restrictions as described in 

legislation. As we previously reported,18 with the passage of this law, the 

Congress has provided agencies a much needed incentive for identifying 

and reducing their improper payments that slip through agency 

prepayment controls. The techniques used in recovery auditing offer the 

opportunity for identifying weaknesses in agency internal controls, which 

17Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, Internal Controls Over the 

Emergency Disaster Relief Transportation Services Contract, AV-2006-032 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 20, 2006).

18GAO, Financial Management: Challenges Remain in Addressing the Government’s 

Improper Payments, GAO-03-750T (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2003).
Page 12 GAO-06-581T 

can be modified or upgraded to be more effective in preventing improper 

payments before they occur.

For fiscal year 2005, OMB expanded the type of recovery auditing 

information that applicable agencies are to report in their annual PARs. 

Prior to fiscal year 2005, applicable agencies were only required to report 

on the amount of recoveries expected, the actions taken to recover them, 

and the business process changes and internal controls instituted or 

strengthened to prevent further occurrences. In addition, OMB was not 

reporting on a governmentwide basis agencies’ recovery audit activities in 

its annual report on agencies’ efforts to improve the accuracy and integrity 

of federal payments. 

In fiscal year 2005, OMB revised its recovery auditing reporting 

requirements and required applicable agencies to provide more detailed 

information on their recovery auditing activities. Specifically, in addition to 

the prior year requirements, agencies that entered into contracts with a 

total value exceeding $500 million annually were required to discuss any 

contract types excluded from review and justification for doing so. In 

addition, agencies were required to report, in table format, various 

amounts related to contracts subject to review and actually reviewed, 

contract amounts identified for recovery and actually recovered, and prior 

year amounts. 

For fiscal year 2005, 19 agencies19 reported entering into contracts with a 

total value in excess of the $500 million reporting threshold. These 19 

agencies reported reviewing more than $300 billion in contract payments to 

vendors. From these reviews, agencies reported identifying about $557 

million in improper payments for recovery and reported actually 

recovering about $467 million, as shown in table 2. 

19We identified one additional agency—the Department of Commerce—that should have 

reported recovery auditing amounts in its PAR and followed the required reporting format 

included in OMB’s guidance. According to Commerce, the results of its recovery audit 

revealed no significant improper payments or internal control deficiencies. However, 

subsequent to its PAR issuance, Commerce reported to OMB that based on its final recovery 

auditing report, the amount identified for recovery totaled $96,354 and the amount actually 

recovered totaled $84,551 for fiscal year 2005. We also noted that the Department of Labor 

did not follow the required reporting format included in OMB’s guidance. Labor reported 

that no improper payments were noted from its recovery auditing activities for fiscal year 

2005 and that recovery audit efforts were not necessary.
Page 13 GAO-06-581T 

Table 2: Improper Payment Amounts Identified and Recovered in Fiscal Year 2005

Sources: OMB and cited agencies’ fiscal year 2005 PARs.

a

HHS reported that of the $2.1 million identified as potential improper payments, $1.3 million was 

determined to be related to payments that were either voided, subsequently credited, or both. 

b

For fiscal year 2005, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported that 

contracts subject to review totaled about $2.3 billion. Of this amount, HUD reported reviewing about 

$207 million in contract payments, but identified no improper payments for recovery.

Concluding 

Observations

In closing, I want to say that we recognize that measuring improper 

payments and designing and implementing actions to reduce them are not 

simple tasks and will not be easily accomplished. The ultimate success of 

the governmentwide effort to reduce improper payments depends, in part, 

on each agency’s continuing diligence and commitment to meeting the 

Department or agency

Amount 

identified for 

recovery in 

fiscal year 2005

Amount 

recovered in 

fiscal year 2005

1 Agency for International Development $5,900,000 $5,782,000

2 Department of Agriculture 333,000 189,000

3 Department of Defense 473,000,000 418,500,000

4 Department of Education 274,367 112,506

5 Department of Energy 10,600,000 9,500,000

6 Department of Health and Human Services 2,100,000a 14,430

7 Department of Homeland Security 2,191,000 1,207,000

8 Department of Housing and Urban 

Developmentb

0 0

9 Department of the Interior 1,548,620 195,479

10 Department of Justice 1,044,320 765,086

11 National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

617,442 617,442

12 Department of State 5,350,000 5,190,000

13 Department of Transportation 2,663,984 2,663,984

14 Department of the Treasury 428,977 364,680

15 Department of Veterans Affairs 23,001,137 12,957,264

16 Environmental Protection Agency 130,000 130,000

17 General Services Administration 26,638,654 8,317,187

18 Social Security Administration 317,000 50,000

19 Tennessee Valley Authority 909,573 443,763

Total $557,048,074 $466,999,821
Page 14 GAO-06-581T 

requirements of IPIA and the related OMB guidance. The level of 

importance each agency, the administration, and the Congress place on the 

efforts to implement the act will determine its overall effectiveness and the 

level to which agencies reduce improper payments and ensure that federal 

funds are used efficiently and for their intended purposes. With budgetary 

pressures rising across the federal government, and the Congress’s and the 

American public’s increasing demands for accountability over taxpayer 

funds, identifying, reducing, and recovering improper payments become 

even more critical. Fulfilling the requirements of IPIA will require sustained 

attention to implementation and oversight to monitor whether desired 

results are being achieved. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond 

to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments

For more information regarding this testimony, please contact McCoy 

Williams, Director, Financial Management and Assurance, at (202) 512-9095 

or by e-mail at williamsm1@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

included Carla Lewis, Assistant Director; Francine DelVecchio; Christina 

Quattrociocchi; and Donell Ries.
Page 15 GAO-06-581T 

Appendix I

Agency Improper Payment Estimate 

Reporting in Fiscal Year 2005 ApendxiI

Agency did not report estimate

 Department or agency

Agency reported 

estimate for one 

or more programs

Agency reported that 

no programs were 

susceptible to significant 

improper payments

Agency silent as to 

whether it had programs 

susceptible to significant 

improper payments

Agency reported 

future date to 

report estimate

1 Agency for International 

Development 

X

2 Department of Agriculture X

3 Department of Commerce X

4 Department of Defense X

5 Department of Education X

6 Department of Energy X

7 Environmental Protection 

Agency

X

8 Export-Import Bank of the 

United States

X

9 Federal Communications 

Commission

X

10 Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation

X

11 General Services 

Administration

X

12 Department of Health and 

Human Services

X

13 Department of Homeland 

Security

X

14 Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 

X

15 Department of the Interior X

16 Department of Justice X

17 Department of Labor X

18 National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

X

19 National Science Foundation X

20 Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

X

21 Office of Personnel 

Management

X

22 Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation

X

23 Postal Service X
Appendix I

Agency Improper Payment Estimate 

Reporting in Fiscal Year 2005

Page 16 GAO-06-581T 

Source: GAO’s analysis of cited agencies’ fiscal year 2005 performance and accountability reports (PAR) or annual reports.

24 Railroad Retirement Board X

25 Securities and Exchange 

Commission

X

26 Small Business 

Administration 

X

27 Smithsonian Institution X

28 Social Security 

Administration 

X

29 Department of State X

30 Tennessee Valley Authority X

31 Department of Transportation X

32 Department of the Treasury X

33 Department of Veterans 

Affairs

X

 Total 18 8 6 1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Agency did not report estimate

 Department or agency

Agency reported 

estimate for one 

or more programs

Agency reported that 

no programs were 

susceptible to significant 

improper payments

Agency silent as to 

whether it had programs 

susceptible to significant 

improper payments

Agency reported 

future date to 

report estimate
Page 17 GAO-06-581T 

Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports ApendxiI

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments

1. Agency for 

International 

Development 

1. All programs and 

activities

0.0a 0.0a

2. Department of 

Agriculture

 All programs and 

activities

X

 2. Marketing Assistance 

Loan Program 

(previously Commodity 

Loan Programs)

0.0a $45.0 X

 3. Food Stamp Program $1,400.0b 1,432.0 X

 4. School Programsc 0.0 0.0 X

 5. Women, Infants, and 

Childrenc

0.0 0.0 X

 6. Child and Adult Care 

Food Program

0.0a 0.0a

 7. Wildland Fire 

Suppression 

Management

0.0a 73.0

 8. Rental Assistance 

Program

20.0b 27.0

 9. Federal Crop 

Insurance Corporation

125.0 28.0

 10. Farm Security and 

Rural Investment

0.0a 16.0

 11. Milk Income Loss 

Contract Program

0.0a 0.2

 12. Loan Deficiency 

Payments

0.0a 5.0

3. Department of 

Commerce 

13. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X

4. Department of 

Defense 

 All programs and 

activities

X
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 18 GAO-06-581T 

 14. Military Retirement 

Fund

66.0b 49.3 X Xd

 15. Military Health Benefits 99.6b 150.0 X Xd

 16. Military Pay 0.0a 432.0

5. Department of 

Education

 All programs and 

activities

X

 17. Student Financial 

Assistance—Pell 

Grantse

571.0b 617.0 X

18. Student Financial 

Assistance—Federal 

Family Education 

Loane

10.0b 16.0

 19. Title I 0.0a 149.0 X Xd

6. Department of 

Energy 

20. Payment programs 20.3 14.5 X Xd

7. Environmental 

Protection Agency

21. Clean Water State 

Revolving Funds 

10.3 3.1 X X 

 22. Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund

0.0f 0.0f X X 

8. Export-Import Bank 

of the United 

Statesi

23. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

9. Farm Credit System 

Insurance 

Corporationh

24. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

10. Federal 

Communications 

Commission

 All programs and 

activities

X

 25. Universal Service 

Fund’s Schools and 

Libraries

0.0a 0.0a

 26. High Cost Support 

Program

0.0a 0.0a

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 19 GAO-06-581T 

11. Federal Deposit 

Insurance 

Corporationi

27. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

12. General Services 

Administration

28. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X

13. Department of 

Health and Human 

Services

 All programs and 

activities

X

 29. Medicaidc 0.0 0.0 X X 

 30. Medicare 21,700.0 12,100.0 X X 

 31. Head Start 255.0 110.0 X Xd

 32. Temporary Assistance 

for Needy Familiesc

0.0 0.0 X X 

 33. Foster Care—Title IV-E 186.0b 182.0 X X 

 34. State Children’s 

Insurance Programc

0.0 0.0 X X 

 35. Child Care and 

Development Fundc

0.0 0.0 X X 

14. Department of 

Homeland Security

36. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X 

15. Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 37. Low Income Public 

Housing

356.0 326.0g X

 38. Section 8 Tenant 

Based

840.0 551.0g X

 39. Section 8 Project 

Based

511.0 324.0g X

 40. Community 

Development Block 

Grant (Entitlement 

Grants, States/Small 

Cities)c

0.0 0.0 X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 20 GAO-06-581T 

 41. Federal Housing 

Administration’s Single 

Family Acquired Asset 

Management System

26.1 2.2 X

 42. Public Housing Capital 

Fund

0.0a 133.5

16. Department of the 

Interior

43. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X

17. Department of 

Justice

44. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X

18. Department of 

Labor 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 45. Unemployment 

Insurance

3,861.0 3,267.0 X

 46. Federal Employees’ 

Compensation Act 

6.4 3.3 X X

 47. Workforce Investment 

Act

0.0a 7.9 X X

19. National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration

48. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X

20. National Credit 

Union 

Administrationh

49. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

21. National Science 

Foundation 

50. Research and 

Education Grants and 

Cooperative 

Agreements

4.4 1.1 X X X 

22. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

51. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X X

23. Office of Personnel 

Management

 All programs and 

activities

X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 21 GAO-06-581T 

 52. Retirement Program 

(Civil Service 

Retirement System 

and Federal 

Employees Retirement 

System)

197.7 152.2 X X 

 53. Federal Employees 

Health Benefits 

Program 

86.1 196.5 X X 

 54. Federal Employees 

Group Life Insurance 

2.1 2.0 X X 

24. Pension Benefit 

Guaranty 

Corporationi

55. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

25. Postal Servicei 56. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

26. Railroad 

Retirement Board 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 57. Retirement and 

Survivors Benefits 

147.9b 150.6 X Xd

 58. Railroad 

Unemployment 

Insurance Benefits 

2.6b 2.3 X X

27. Securities and 

Exchange 

Commission

59. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0 X

28. Small Business 

Administration 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 60. 7(a) Business Loan 

Program

0.0a 31.4 X

 61. 504 Certified 

Development 

Companies

0.0 0.0 X X

 62. Disaster Assistance 1.1 1.6 X X

 63. Small Business 

Investment Companies

129.0 10.5 X Xd

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 22 GAO-06-581T 

29. Smithsonian 

Institutioni

64. All programs and 

activities

0.0 0.0

30. Social Security 

Administration 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 65. Old Age and Survivors’ 

Insurance

1,707.0 3,681.0 X Xd

 66. Disability Insurance 0.0f 0.0f X Xd

 67. Supplemental Security 

Income Program

2,639.0 2,910.0 X

31. Department of 

State

 All programs and 

activities

X

 68. International Narcotic 

and Law Enforcement 

Affairs-Narcotics 

Program

1.7 0.6

 69. International 

Information Program—

U.S. Speaker and 

Specialist Program

1.4 1.9

 70. Vendor payments 0.8 0.4 X

 71. Structures and 

Equipment

0.3b 0.2 X

32. Tennessee Valley 

Authority

72. Payment programs 8.1 36.3

33. Department of 

Transportation 

 All programs and 

activities

X

 73. Airport Improvement 

Program

0.0j 0.0j X X

 74. Highway Planning and 

Construction

0.0j 0.0j X X

 75. Federal Transit—

Capital Investment 

Grants

0.0j 0.0j X X

 76. Federal Transit—

Formula Grants

0.0j 0.0j X X

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Appendix II

Improper Payment Estimates Reported in 

Agency Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005 PARs or 

Annual Reports

Page 23 GAO-06-581T 

Source: GAO's analysis of cited agencies’ fiscal year 2005 performance and accountability reports (PAR) or annual reports.

a

Agency did not report an annual improper payment estimate.

b

Fiscal year 2004 estimates were updated to the revised estimates reported in the fiscal year 2005 

PARs.

c

See table 1 of this testimony.

d

The agency reported that this program was not high risk, meaning not susceptible to significant 

improper payments because it did not meet the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reporting 

threshold of exceeding both $10 million and 2.5 percent of program payments.

e

Student Financial Assistance—Pell Grants and Federal Family Education Loan are combined together 

as Student Financial Assistance in OMB Circular No. A-11, Section 57.

f

Agency combined with the above program.

g

An additional $266 million of improper payments exist for these three programs. In its PAR, HUD did 

not provide a breakout of this amount among the three programs.

h

Agency fiscal year 2005 PAR or annual report information not available as of the end of our fieldwork.

i

Agency did not address improper payments or the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) 

requirements for this program in its fiscal year 2005 PAR or annual report.

j

Agency reported that the annual improper payment amount was zero.

34. Department of the 

Treasury

 All programs and 

activities

X

 77. Earned Income Tax 

Credit

10,300.0b 10,500.0 X

35. Department of 

Veterans Affairs

 All programs and 

activities

X

 78. Compensation 302.4b 322.9 X

 79. Dependency and 

Indemnity 

Compensation

0.0f 0.0f X

 80. Education programs 70.0b 64.0

 81. Pension 280.7b 261.0 X

 82. Insurance programs 0.3b 0.3 X X

 83. Loan Guaranty 6.3 4.2

 84. Vocational 

Rehabilitation

9.5 9.8

 Total $45,962.1 $38,404.8 46 23 43

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

 

Improper payment 

estimates reported 

Department or 

agency Program or activity 2004 2005

Previous OMB 

Circular No. 

A-11 reporting 

requirements

Agency 

reported it 

had assessed 

all programs

Programs that 

the agency 

reported were 

not susceptible 

to significant 

improper 

payments
Page 24 GAO-06-581T 

Related GAO Products

Financial Management: Challenges Remain in Meeting Requirements of 

the Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-06-482T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 9, 2006.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Governmentwide 

Improper Payment Requirements. GAO-05-907T. Washington, D.C.: July 

20, 2005.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Requirements of the 

Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-05-605T. Washington, D.C.: 

July 12, 2005.

Financial Management: Challenges in Meeting Requirements of the 

Improper Payments Information Act. GAO-05-417. Washington, D.C.: 

March 31, 2005.

Financial Management: Fiscal Year 2003 Performance and 

Accountability Reports Provide Limited Information on 

Governmentwide Improper Payments. GAO-04-631T. Washington, D.C.: 

April 15, 2004.

Financial Management: Status of the Governmentwide Efforts to Address 

Improper Payment Problems. GAO-04-99. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 

2003.

Financial Management: Effective Implementation of the Improper 

Payments Information Act of 2002 Is Key to Reducing the Government’s 

Improper Payments. GAO-03-991T. Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2003.

Financial Management: Challenges Remain in Addressing the 

Government’s Improper Payments. GAO-03-750T. Washington, D.C.: May 

13, 2003.

(195084)
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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 

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