United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the Federal 

Workforce and Agency Organization, 

Committee on Government Reform, U.S. 

House of Representatives 

HUMAN CAPITAL 

Trends in Executive and 

Judicial Pay Suggest a 

Reexamination of the Total 

Compensation Package 

Statement of David M. Walker 

Comptroller General of the United States 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

 

GAO-06-1116T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 20, 2006

HUMAN CAPITAL

Trends in Executive and Judicial Pay 

Suggest a Reexamination of the Total 

Compensation Package 

Highlights of GAO-06-1116T, a testimony 

before the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

the Federal Workforce and Agency 

Organization, Committee on Government 

Reform, U.S. House of Representatives 

People are critical to the success of 

the federal government’s overall

transformation effort. Yet the

government has not transformed,

in many cases for decades, how it

classifies, compensates, develops, 

and motivates its employees to 

achieve maximum results with 

available resources and existing

authorities. This is especially the 

case with the federal government’s 

top leadership and federal justices 

and judges.

Leading organizations understand

that they must often change their 

culture to successfully transform 

themselves, and that such a change

starts with top leadership. Most 

importantly, senior leaders who are 

drivers of continuous improvement 

are needed to stimulate and 

support efforts to facilitate change 

and achieve related transformation 

efforts for the federal government.

At the Chairman’s request, we

recently reported on executive and

judicial pay—Human Capital: 

Trends in Executive and Judicial 

Pay (GAO-06-708). This testimony

highlights information from that

report. 

The pay rates for selected executive-level positions have not kept pace with 

the growth of wages from 1970 to 2006, as measured by the National Income 

and Product Accounts wage index for private industries. As shown below, 

for example, wages grew at nearly double the rate of basic pay for Executive 

Schedule level I positions, such as cabinet secretaries, and the Chief Justice. 

Cumulative Growth of Selected Executive-Level Pay Rates Compared to Prices and Wages 

To remain competitive in the market, organizations, including the federal 

government, may need to be flexible in the balance between cash and 

benefits that comprise the total compensation offered to employees. Total 

compensation includes elements such as cash—basic pay, locality pay, cash 

awards/bonuses; noncash benefits—annual and sick leave, health insurance; 

and deferred benefits—retirement (i.e., pension and health), life insurance. 

Any restructuring of executive and judicial pay should consider basic pay 

received as one part of the total compensation package. 

While the types of experiences, responsibilities, required knowledge and 

skills, type of appointment, and length of service vary both within and across 

executive-level positions, moving forward, a commission may be an option 

for reexamining executive and judicial pay and compensation to ensure that 

the federal government’s total compensation is both reasonable and 

competitive in order for the government to obtain and retain the top talent it 

needs to address current and emerging 21st century challenges in a 

responsible and sustainable manner. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1116T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Lisa Shames at 

(202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov. 
Chairman Porter, Representative Davis, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss our recent report 

on long-term trends in executive and judicial pay that we prepared at your 

request, Chairman Porter.1

 As I have stated frequently, people are critical 

to the success of the federal government’s overall transformation effort. 

While progress has been made in addressing human capital challenges in

the last few years, significant opportunities exist to improve strategic 

human capital management to respond to current and emerging 21st 

century challenges. For example, the government has not transformed, in 

many cases for decades, how it classifies, compensates, develops, and 

motivates its employees to achieve maximum results within available 

resources and existing authorities.2

 This is especially the case with the 

federal government’s top leadership and federal justices and judges. 

Leading organizations understand that they must often change their 

culture to successfully transform themselves, and that such a change 

starts with top leadership. Most importantly, senior leaders who are 

drivers of continuous improvement are needed to stimulate and support 

efforts to facilitate change and achieve related transformation efforts for 

the federal government. 

In our report on executive and judicial pay, we found that generally the 

salaries for the federal government’s senior leaders, including political 

appointees and federal justices and judges, have not been keeping pace 

with inflation or the growth of wages over the past 30 years. Our work is 

consistent with the National Commission on the Public Service’s findings

that the salaries for top-level government officials have not been keeping 

pace with inflation or maintaining reasonable relationships to the market. 

In 2003, the Commission recommended that top-level officials in the 

executive, legislative, and judicial branches receive significant increases in

their salaries to ensure a reasonable relationship to relevant professional 

positions, such as leaders in not-for-profit and educational organizations 

or state and local governments.3

 The Commission also recommended that

 1

GAO, Human Capital: Trends in Executive and Judicial Pay, GAO-06-708 (Washington,

D.C.: June 21, 2006). 

2

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal Government, 

GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005). 

3

The National Commission on the Public Service, Urgent Business for America: 

Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century (Washington, D.C.: January

2003). 

Page 1 GAO-06-1116T 
Congress break the statutory link, which has been in place since 1989,

between the salaries of Members of Congress and those of federal justices 

and judges and senior political appointees. The Commission noted that 

this contributes to the salaries of executive-level positions falling 

substantially behind cost-of-living increases and trends in the market’s 

compensation. 

Today, I will focus on three key points. Specifically, I will discuss (1) how 

trends in executive and judicial pay have generally not kept pace with 

inflation or the growth of wages, (2) how basic pay should be considered 

along with other benefits when examining the value of total compensation 

in order to remain competitive to the market for executive and judicial 

positions, and (3) what principles should guide any possible restructuring 

of executive and judicial pay in order to attract the talent needed to 

address 21st century challenges. We have also identified illustrative issues 

that deserve further reconsideration in moving forward with any executive

and judicial pay restructuring. My statement is based on published GAO 

products that were conducted in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards. 

A key trend we reported is that executive-level pay rates generally have

not kept pace with inflation since 1970, regardless of the inflation index 

used. In our recent report, we adjusted the basic pay rates from 1970 for 

selected executive-level positions to calendar year 2006 dollars using the 

Bureau of Economic Analysis’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price 

deflator and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s Consumer Price Index (CPI). 

From 1970 to 2006, the CPI has increased at an average annual rate of 4.7 

percent, whereas the GDP price deflator has increased at an average 

annual rate of 4.0 percent. While each index has its strengths and 

weaknesses in measuring inflation, historically inflation as measured by 

the CPI has tended to outpace inflation as measured by the GDP price 

deflator.4

 For detailed information on the executive-level positions within 

the selected pay plans and the differences in their nominal and inflationadjusted basic pay rates, see appendix I. 

Trends in Executive 

and Judicial Pay 

 4

For more information on these inflation indexes, see the full report on trends in executive 

and judicial pay, GAO-06-708. 

Page 2 GAO-06-1116T 
Using the GDP price deflator to adjust for inflation, the basic pay for 

selected Executive Schedule positions and federal justices and judges has 

declined from 1970 to 2006, as shown in figure 1. For example, in 1970, 

• cabinet secretaries (paid at Executive Schedule level I) were paid 

$250,204 (in 2006 dollars) compared to $183,500 in 2006—a decline of

about 27 percent; 

• deputy secretaries (paid at Executive Schedule level II) were paid 

$177,228 (in 2006 dollars) compared to $165,200 in 2006—a decline of

about 7 percent; 

• the Chief Justice was paid $260,629 (in 2006 dollars) compared to 

$212,100 in 2006—a decline of about 19 percent; and 

• district judges were paid $166,802 (in 2006 dollars) compared to 

$165,200 in 2006—a decrease of about 1 percent.

Figure 1: Basic Pay Rates for Selected Executive-Level Positions Adjusted for 

Inflation Using the Gross Domestic Product Price Deflator (in 2006 Dollars) 

Page 3 GAO-06-1116T 
Similarly, the value of the basic pay for selected Executive Schedule 

positions and federal justices and judges has declined when adjusted for 

inflation using the CPI. Specifically, as shown in figure 2, in 1970, 

• cabinet secretaries (paid at Executive Schedule level I) were paid 

$309,049 (in 2006 dollars) compared to $183,500 in 2006—a decline of

about 41 percent; 

• deputy secretaries (paid at Executive Schedule level II) were paid 

$218,910 (in 2006 dollars) compared to $165,200 in 2006—a decline of

about 25 percent; 

• the Chief Justice was paid $321,926 (in 2006 dollars) compared to 

$212,100 in 2006—a decline of about 34 percent; and 

• district judges were paid $206,033 (in 2006 dollars) compared to 

$165,200 in 2006—a decrease of about 20 percent. 

Figure 2: Basic Pay Rates for Selected Executive-Level Positions Adjusted for 

Inflation Using the Consumer Price Index (in 2006 Dollars) 

Page 4 GAO-06-1116T 
As I previously mentioned, the CPI has tended to outpace inflation as 

measured by the GDP price deflator. Thus, the differences in inflationadjusted basic pay rates from 1970 to 2006 are greater when using the CPI 

than the GDP price deflator. 

Another trend we reported is that selected executive-level pay rates have

not kept pace with the growth of wages from 1970 to 2006. To measure the 

growth of wages, we used the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s National 

Income and Product Accounts wage index for private industries.5

 As 

shown in figure 3, wages have grown at a greater rate from 1970 to 2006

compared to the basic pay for selected executive-level positions. 

Specifically, wages grew at nearly double the rate of basic pay for 

Executive Schedule level I positions, such as cabinet secretaries, and the 

Chief Justice. 

 5

This wage index provided a continuous series of wage data from 1970 to 2006. Wage and 

salary data pertaining to a more narrowly defined sector of the nonfederal workforce (e.g., 

white collar workers) was not available during this time period. 

Page 5 GAO-06-1116T 
Figure 3: Cumulative Growth of Selected Executive-Level Pay Rates Compared to Prices and Wages 

Notes: Cumulative growth when normalized to 1970 values (1970=1). Price growth is based on the 

GDP price deflator and the CPI. Wage growth is based on the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s 

National Income and Product Accounts wage index for private industries. 

While executive and judicial pay overall has declined in value when 

adjusted for inflation, any restructuring of executive and judicial pay 

should consider basic pay received as one part of the total compensation 

package. We have reported that a competitive compensation system that 

provides individuals a mix of base pay plus other incentives can help 

organizations attract, motivate, and retain a quality workforce.6

 Total 

compensation includes elements such as cash—basic pay, locality pay, 

cash awards/bonuses; noncash benefits—annual and sick leave, health

insurance; and deferred benefits—retirement (i.e., pension and health), life 

insurance. 

The Value of Total 

Compensation for 

Executive and 

Judicial Positions 

 6

GAO, Human Capital: Symposium on Designing and Managing Market-Based and More

Performance-Oriented Pay Systems, GAO-05-832SP (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2005). 

Page 6 GAO-06-1116T 
It is important to note that the value of the total compensation will differ 

given an individual’s choice (e.g., to use child care facilities or purchase 

life insurance), each agency’s program decision (e.g., to participate in the

student loan repayment program), and the types of compensation 

elements that are offered to different positions. In particular, we found 

that the cash, noncash, and deferred benefits vary within and across the 

different executive-level positions. For example, at present, selected

Executive Schedule positions, administrative law judges (ALJs), 

inspectors general (IGs), and federal justices and judges do not receive

cash awards/bonuses due to the nature of their positions, while career 

senior executives may receive them. All of the executive-level positions 

may receive noncash benefits, such as health and life insurance and 

retirement. However, there are differences in retirement, such as larger 

benefits, for federal justices and judges compared to other executive-level 

positions. 

Organizations, including the federal government, may need to be flexible

in the balance between cash and benefits that comprise the total 

compensation offered to employee groups in order to remain competitive 

in the market. For example, we recently reported for military personnel 

that the current mix of compensation is highly inefficient for meeting nearterm recruiting and retention needs.7

 We reported that pay received today 

is generally accepted as a far more efficient tool than future cash or 

benefits for recruitment and retention of military personnel, especially 

given the fact that the active duty workforce is mainly comprised of people

in their twenties. The vast majority of that workforce preferred a lumpsum cash payment versus deferred compensation in the form of an annuity 

when given the choice. More generally, in discussing what incentives 

attract individuals to public service, the Merit Systems Protection Board 

has reported that people come to work for and stay with the federal 

government for a variety of reasons besides base pay. Among these 

reasons, obviously, is the desire to make a contribution and the personal 

pride or satisfaction in their work as well as the variety of benefits 

provided to employees.8

 7

GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve the Transparency and Reassess the 

Reasonableness, Appropriateness, Affordability, and Sustainability of Its Military

Compensation System, GAO-05-798 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2005). 

8

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Federal Workforce for the 21st Century: Results

of the Merit Principles Survey 2000 (Washington, D.C.: September 2003).

Page 7 GAO-06-1116T 
Thus, the federal government may need to shift the balance of total 

compensation between pay and benefits in its pay plans in order to recruit 

and retain the needed talent. While we did not determine in our recent 

report the balance of total compensation between pay and benefits within 

and across executive-level positions, overall federal civilian employees 

receive, in broad terms, most of their compensation—about 67 percent—

in salary and wages and about 33 percent in the form of benefits or 

deferred compensation.9

 For workers in private industries, we recently 

reported that their salary and wages made up 71 percent of total 

compensation, while benefits accounted for 29 percent.10 However, 

additional analysis would be needed to determine if these ratios 

correspond to executive and judicial positions. For example, unlike other 

federal employees, federal justices and judges are permitted to retire with 

full pay and benefits when the sum of the judge’s age and number of years 

on the bench is 80. 

The federal government needs to attract and retain the quality and quantity

of executive leadership necessary to address 21st century challenges. To

help the government remain competitive with the relevant markets, any 

restructuring of executive and judicial pay should be guided by a set of 

principles. Executive and judicial pay plans should be 

• sensitive to hiring and retention trends—actual trends, such as 

demographic, workforce, and economic trends and their effects on the 

federal government’s ability to hire and retain high-quality persons for 

these positions are considered; 

Principles for 

Restructuring 

Executive and 

Judicial Pay 

• reflective of responsibilities, knowledge and skills, tenure, and 

contributions—the positions are appropriately compensated to 

reflect these differences both within and across executive-level pay 

plans; 

• transparent—Congress, leadership, and the public can easily 

understand the value of the compensation and contributions; 

 9

GAO-05-798. 

10GAO, Employee Compensation: Employer Spending on Benefits Has Grown Faster 

Than Wages Due Largely to Rising Costs for Health Insurance and Retirement Benefits, 

GAO-06-285 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2006). 

Page 8 GAO-06-1116T 
• market-sensitive—the compensation of the relevant markets (e.g., 

private or nonprofit sectors) is appropriately considered; 

• flexible to economic change—changes in the nation’s economy, such 

as extraordinary economic circumstances or severe budgetary 

constraints, can be accommodated; 

• sustainable—over the longer term, given known cost trends and risks 

and future fiscal imbalances, executive-level pay plans are financially 

sustainable; and 

• competitive—reasonable total compensation and other elements 

necessary to attract and retain leadership can help ensure the optimum 

use of taxpayers’ dollars and make the most efficient allocation

between cash and noncash benefits. 

While the types of experiences, responsibilities, and required knowledge 

and skills vary both within and across executive-level positions, as well as 

the type of appointment and length of service, there are several illustrative 

issues that deserve further reconsideration in possibly restructuring 

executive and judicial pay. 

• Maintaining a reasonable relationship across executive-level 

positions. In 1970, there was no overlap in the pay for the Executive 

Schedule and the other executive-level positions, such as career senior 

executives. Specifically, the lowest pay level of the Executive Schedule 

(level V) covering positions such as commissioners or general counsels 

of smaller agencies was greater than the maximum basic pay for career 

senior executives. By 1990, these pay plans began to overlap so that the 

lowest paid political appointees under the Executive Schedule were 

making less than the highest paid career senior executives. By 2006, the 

pay for Executive Schedule level II covering positions such as deputy 

secretaries of cabinet departments equaled the maximum basic pay for 

career senior executives not including cash awards/bonuses. 

A commission may be an option for reexamining executive and judicial 

pay and compensation and exploring ways to maintain a reasonable 

relationship across these executive-level positions and to the relevant

markets, such as nonprofit and educational organizations or state and 

local governments. This would help ensure that the federal

government’s total compensation is reasonable and competitive in 

order for the government to obtain and retain the top talent it needs. In 

Issues for 

Reconsideration in 

Executive and 

Judicial Pay 

Page 9 GAO-06-1116T 
1967, Congress established the Commission on Executive, Legislative,

and Judicial Salaries (known as the Quadrennial Commission) to study 

salaries of political appointees, Members of Congress, federal justices 

and judges, and other top-level government officials every 4 years and 

report to the President on its recommendations for salary increases. 

The Commission—composed of nine individuals appointed from the 

private sector—was to recommend salary increases for these positions 

in order to maintain a reasonable relationship between these positions 

and with private sector salaries. The President accepted the 

recommended salary increases for these positions, which went into 

effect in 1969. For example, the salary for cabinet secretaries increased 

from $35,000 in 1968 to $60,000 in 1969. In 1989, Congress abolished the

Quadrennial Commission, transferring its authority and responsibilities 

to the Citizens’ Commission on Public Service and Compensation. 

However, this Commission, which was to be appointed during fiscal 

year 1993 and then every fourth fiscal year, has never been appointed. 

Commission members were to be appointed from private life by the 

President, Congressional leadership, and the Chief Justice, among 

others. 

• Recognizing equity issues. At our recent panel on the authorities and 

responsibilities of IGs, the majority of panel participants stated that the 

pay structure for IGs needed to be addressed given the importance of 

providing reasonable and competitive compensation.11 Currently, there 

are differences in the basic pay rates for IGs based on the level of 

appointment, even though the powers and duties extended to IGs in 

either appointment are essentially the same. Most IGs for cabinet 

departments and major agencies are appointed by the President subject 

to Senate confirmation (paid at Executive Schedule level IV). However, 

IGs for some agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and 

the Securities and Exchange Commission, are appointed by the agency

head and paid at varying amounts including General Schedule grade 15 

or Senior Executive Service (SES) pay rates. Such equity issues should 

be examined in any restructuring of executive-level pay. 

• Considering performance-based bonuses. There are executive-level 

positions that are not eligible to receive bonuses (or awards) due to the 

nature of the positions. For example, selected Executive Schedule 

positions that are appointed by the President subject to Senate 

 11GAO, Highlights of the Comptroller General’s Panel on Federal Oversight and the 

Inspectors General, GAO-06-931SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 11, 2006).

Page 10 GAO-06-1116T 
confirmation (including selected IGs), ALJs, and federal justices and 

judges do not. Bonuses awarded within a system that incorporates 

appropriate safeguards may be an option for rewarding individuals in 

these positions for their contributions. Appropriate safeguards, 

including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 

mechanisms, can help ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Any bonuses 

must be performance-based with a mechanism for assessing 

individuals’ performance from multiple sources of input. In addition, 

checks and balances to help ensure that the positions’ independence is 

not compromised are especially important for IGs, federal justices and 

judges, and selected other positions. 

• Recognizing anomalies between comparable pay plans. There are 

anomalies between comparable pay plans, such as for the career SES 

and senior level/scientific or professional (SL/ST) positions. For 

example, as of January 2004, the aggregate pay cap (basic pay plus 

awards/bonuses) for SES and SL/ST positions is higher for individuals 

whose agencies have performance management systems certified by 

the Office of Personnel Management with concurrence from the Office 

of Management and Budget. However, the higher basic pay cap only 

applies to SES members under certified performance management 

systems, not SL/ST positions. 

As I have discussed, leading organizations understand that they must often 

change their culture to successfully transform themselves, and that such a 

change starts with top leadership. To help attract this talent, restructuring 

of executive and judicial pay—guided by a set of principles—may be 

necessary to help the government remain competitive with the relevant 

markets. However, any restructuring of executive and judicial pay should 

consider basic pay received by executive-level positions as one part of the 

total compensation package. Further, the federal government may need to

shift the mix of total compensation between pay and benefits in order to 

recruit and retain the needed executive-level talent. Moving forward, a 

commission may be an option for reexamining executive and judicial pay 

and compensation to ensure that the federal government’s total 

compensation is both reasonable and competitive in order for the 

government to obtain and retain the top talent it needs to address current 

and emerging 21st century challenges in a responsible and sustainable 

manner. 

Conclusions 

Page 11 GAO-06-1116T 
Chairman Porter, Representative Davis, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you may have. 

For further information regarding this statement, please contact Lisa 

Shames, Acting Director, at (202) 512-6806 or shamesl@gao.gov. Janice

Latimer made key contributions to this statement. 

Contact and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 12 GAO-06-1116T 
Appendix I: Percentage Differences in 

Nominal and Inflation-Adjusted Basic Pay 

Rates for Executive-Level Positions from 

1970 to 2006 

Executive Schedule—level I (e.g., cabinet

secretaries) $60,000 $250,204 $309,049 $183,500 206 (27) (41)

Executive Schedule—level II (e.g., deputy

secretaries, Senators, and Members of the

House of Representatives) 42,500 177,228 218,910 165,200 289 (7) (25)

Executive Schedule—level III (e.g.,

undersecretaries and deputies of most

agencies) 40,000 166,802 206,033 152,000 280 (9) (26)

Executive Schedule—level IV (e.g.,

selected inspectors general, chief financial

and information officers) 38,000 158,462 195,731 143,000 276 (10) (27)

Executive Schedule—level V (e.g.,

commissioners, associate directors) 36,000 150,122 185,429 133,900 272 (11) (28)

Senior Executive Service—for agencies

with performance management systems

that are not certified 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17) 

Senior Executive Service—for agencies

with certified performance management

systems 35,505 148,058 182,880 165,200 365 12 (10)

Senior-level/scientific or professional 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17)

Administrative law judges 35,505 148,058 182,880 152,000 328 3 (17)

Members of Boards of Contract Appeals 29,752 124,068 153,247 152,000 411 23 (1)

General Schedule grade 15, step 10 29,752 124,068 153,247 139,774 370 13 (9)

Chief Justice 62,500 260,629 321,926 212,100 239 (19) (34)

Associate justices 60,000 250,204 309,049 203,000 238 (19) (34)

Circuit judges 42,500 177,228 218,910 175,100 312 (1) (20)

District judges 40,000 166,802 206,033 165,200 313 (1) (20)

Judges of the U.S. Court of

International Trade 40,000 166,802 206,033 165,200 313 (1) (20)

Executive-level

positions within the

selected pay plans Nominal

Inflationadjusted

(GDP)

Inflationadjusted

(CPI) Nominal

Inflationadjusted

(GDP)

Inflationadjusted

(CPI)

Nominal/

Inflation-adjusted

(GDP and CPI)

Source: GAO.

1970—Pay rates

(in dollars)

2006—Pay rates

(in dollars)

Percentage differences from

1970 to 2006

Notes: We provided the maximum basic pay rates for the Senior Executive Service, seniorlevel/scientific or professional, administrative law judge, and Board of Contract Appeals positions and

included locality pay for the Washington, D.C./Baltimore area in the basic pay rates for the seniorlevel/scientific or professional, administrative law judge, Board of Contract Appeals, and General 

Schedule grade 15, step 10, positions in 2006. 

Page 13 GAO-06-1116T (450532) 
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