TRADE 

ENFORCEMENT

Information on U.S. 

Agencies' Monitoring 

and Enforcement 

Resources for 

International Trade 

Agreements

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2017

GAO-17-399

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-399, a report to

congressional committees

April 2017

TRADE ENFORCEMENT

Information on U.S. Agencies’ Monitoring and 

Enforcement Resources for International Trade 

Agreements

What GAO Found

Eleven U.S. agency offices and bureaus have responsibilities for monitoring and 

enforcing international trade agreements; however, they do not have information 

that allows for a definitive count of the staff resources and related funding used 

to carry out these responsibilities. This is because many of the staff who conduct 

trade monitoring and enforcement activities at these agencies do so as part of a 

broader portfolio of activities, and none of the agencies routinely tracks staff time 

at this level of detail. In response to GAO’s request for information, the 11 offices 

and bureaus used a variety of methods to develop estimates of the number of 

full-time equivalent (FTE) staff they believe worked on trade monitoring and 

enforcement activities in 2016 and the approximate costs associated with 

salaries and benefits for these FTEs. The estimates suggest that in fiscal year 

2016, these 11 offices and bureaus dedicated over 700 FTEs at a cost of more 

than $100 million to monitor and enforce trade agreements. However, the

estimates do not fully include all related costs (such as overhead costs) and, in 

some cases, may not represent all staff who conducted trade monitoring and 

enforcement activities. 

U.S. agencies provide trade capacity-building assistance to help partner 

countries meet their obligations under free trade agreements (FTA) with the 

United States, such as their labor and environmental commitments. In fiscal year 

2016, U.S. agencies oversaw 80 trade capacity-building projects intended to help 

partner countries meet their obligations as parties to FTAs. These projects, many 

of which spanned multiple years, amounted to about $256 million in obligated 

and planned funding. About 80 percent of project funding was related to helping 

partner countries comply with labor or environmental commitments.

Distribution of Funding for Trade Capacity-Building Projects Active in Free Trade Agreement 

Partner Countries in Fiscal Year 2016, by Project Objective

View GAO-17-399. For more information, 

contact Kimberly Gianopoulos at (202) 512-

8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Monitoring and enforcing trade 

agreements is a key element of the 

U.S. government’s efforts to boost 

exports of U.S. goods and services. 

The vast majority of U.S. exports, 

which totaled $2.26 trillion in 2015, are 

covered by at least one trade 

agreement to which the United States 

is a party. These agreements include

multilateral World Trade Organization 

agreements and bilateral or regional 

FTAs with 20 countries. The Office of 

the U.S. Trade Representative and 

several other federal agencies share 

responsibility for monitoring and 

enforcing partner countries’ 

compliance with trade agreements. 

The U.S. government also provides 

trade capacity-building assistance, 

which includes goals to help partner 

countries meet their obligations under 

trade agreements. 

The Trade Facilitation and Trade 

Enforcement Act of 2015, Public Law

114-25, includes a provision for GAO 

to examine federal agencies’ resources 

to monitor and enforce international 

trade agreements. This report (1) 

examines agencies’ resources and 

activities for monitoring and enforcing 

international trade agreements in fiscal 

year 2016 and (2) identifies agencies’ 

trade capacity-building projects, active 

in fiscal year 2016, to assist FTA 

partner countries in meeting their 

obligations under these agreements. 

GAO reviewed agency documents, 

interviewed agency officials, and 

analyzed agencies’ estimates of 

resources used to monitor and enforce 

trade agreements. 

GAO is making no recommendations in 

this report.
Page i GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Letter 1

Background 3

Information Is Not Available to Definitively Determine Resources 

Expended for Monitoring and Enforcing Trade Agreements 10

USAID, State, and DOL Provided Trade Capacity-Building 

Assistance to FTA Partner Countries 15

Agency Comments 19

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 20

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 24

Tables

Table 1: U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA) in Force as of 

February 2017 4

Table 2: U.S. Offices and Bureaus with Responsibility for 

Monitoring and Enforcing Trade Agreements 7

Table 3: Agencies’ Activities to Monitor and Enforce Trade 

Agreements in Fiscal Year 2016 10

Table 4: Estimated Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff and Funding 

U.S. Agencies Used for Monitoring and Enforcing Trade 

Agreements, Fiscal Year 2016 13

Figures

Figure 1: Total Funding Amounts for Trade Capacity-Building 

Projects Active in Free Trade Agreement Partner 

Countries during Fiscal Year 2016, by Agency 16

Figure 2: Distribution of Agencies’ 80 Trade Capacity-Building 

Projects Active in Free Trade Agreement Partner 

Countries in Fiscal Year 2016, by Project Objective 18

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Abbreviations

CAFTA-DR The Dominican Republic – Central American – United 

States Free Trade Agreement

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Commerce Department of Commerce

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOL Department of Labor

FAS Foreign Agricultural Service

FCS Foreign Commercial Service

FTA free trade agreement

FTE full-time equivalent

ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ITA International Trade Administration

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

State Department of State

TBT technical barriers to trade

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USDA Department of Agriculture

USTR Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

WTO World Trade Organization

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.
Page 1 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 13, 2017

The Honorable Orrin Hatch

Chairman

The Honorable Ron Wyden

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable Kevin Brady

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Neal

Ranking Member

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

Monitoring and enforcing trade agreements is a key element of the U.S. 

government’s efforts to boost exports of U.S. goods and services. The 

vast majority of U.S. exports—totaling $2.26 trillion in 2015—are covered 

by at least one trade agreement to which the United States is a party. 

These include the multilateral World Trade Organization (WTO) 

agreements with 164 members and 14 bilateral or regional free trade 

agreements (FTA) with 20 countries. The Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR) and several other U.S. agencies share 

responsibility for monitoring and enforcing trade agreements intended to 

open markets to American goods and services while strengthening 

trading partners’ protection of workers’ rights, the environment, and 

intellectual property rights. In addition to USTR, other U.S. agencies with 

this responsibility include the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), 

Commerce (Commerce), Homeland Security (DHS), Labor (DOL), and 

State (State). In addition, the U.S. government provides trade capacitybuilding assistance, which includes goals to help partner countries meet 

their obligations under trade agreements. The U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID), along with DOL and State, provides 

this assistance to FTA partner countries.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 includes a 

provision for GAO to analyze and report on relevant federal agencies’

funding and employees for carrying out activities related to trade 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

enforcement.1 This report (1) examines agencies’ resources and activities 

for monitoring and enforcing international trade agreements in fiscal year 

2016 and (2) identifies agencies’ trade capacity-building assistance 

projects, active in fiscal year 2016, to assist FTA partner countries in 

meeting their obligations under these agreements.

To determine relevant agencies’ estimated full-time equivalent (FTE) staff 

resources and funding used to monitor and enforce trade agreements in 

fiscal year 2016, we first identified which agencies had responsibilities for 

monitoring and enforcement efforts and had committed resources to 

these efforts by reviewing agencies’ budget reports, strategic plans, and 

annual reports and interviewing relevant agency officials.2 None of the 

relevant agencies we identified routinely tracks staff resources and 

funding specifically for monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements. 

Thus, in response to our request for information, these agencies told us 

that they would have to develop estimates of their fiscal year 2016 FTEs 

and funding used for these activities. To collect these estimates and to 

identify the types of monitoring and enforcement activities involved, we 

developed and circulated a data collection instrument to these agencies. 

Recognizing that agency officials would have to rely on different 

information sources and apply professional judgment, we asked them for 

estimates of fiscal year 2016 FTEs and dollar costs devoted to monitoring 

and enforcement. Agencies’ estimates of funding associated with their 

FTEs used to monitor and enforce trade agreements generally reflected 

the average annual salaries and benefits of the staff involved. To assess 

the reliability of agencies’ FTE and funding estimates for monitoring and 

enforcement of trade agreements, we included questions in our data 

collection instrument about their methodologies for developing their 

estimates, the agency officials they consulted, and the strengths and 

weaknesses of their estimates. Based on these responses, which showed 

 1

See Pub. L. No. 114-125, Tit. VI, § 611(f), 130 Stat. 122, 194. The provision also asked 

GAO to make recommendations on additional employees and resources that these 

agencies may need to enforce FTAs; however, we did not identify a basis for such 

recommendations. Agencies generally had not identified additional resources needed 

specifically for monitoring and enforcing trade agreements in their budget request 

documents. We are reporting separately on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) 

trade enforcement efforts in response to a separate provision in the act, Title I, Section 

102.

2

Officials from the Department of the Treasury, the International Trade Commission, and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that they did not commit any 

significant resources for monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements in fiscal year 

2016.
Page 3 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

that the agencies had to rely on different information sources and apply 

professional judgment, we determined these estimates could only be 

used to provide a broad indication of the FTEs and staff costs in fiscal 

year 2016 across agencies, but that they could not be used for precise 

comparisons.

To identify U.S. trade capacity-building assistance projects to help partner 

countries meet their obligations under FTAs, we collected available 

information on relevant capacity-building projects that were active in fiscal 

year 2016. We identified the recipient FTA partner countries and the 

subject matter focus of the projects, such as assistance with meeting 

labor or environment obligations, and collected obligated and planned 

funding amounts for projects within FTA partner countries. We did not 

assess the implementation or effectiveness of these projects. To assess 

the reliability of data on trade capacity-building projects, we compared 

information provided by these agencies with source databases, discussed 

discrepancies with agency officials, and reviewed agencies’ procedures 

for assessing the completeness and accuracy of the project data 

collection and storage. We determined that the data we obtained were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review. For a full description of 

our scope and methodology, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to April 2017 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.

The United States is a party to a variety of international trade 

agreements, including WTO agreements, FTAs, bilateral investment 

treaties, and trade and investment framework agreements. The WTO, 

which currently has 164 members, including the United States, provides a 

forum for enforcing U.S. rights under various WTO agreements. WTO 

members commit to a number of agreements covering goods, services, 

intellectual property rights, and a dispute settlement process. Members 

participate in more than 20 WTO committees to oversee implementation 

of these agreements. For example, committees exist for agreements on 

Background

International Trade 

Agreements with the 

United States
Page 4 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

market access, agriculture, sanitary and phytosanitary measures,3

technical barriers to trade (TBT),4 financial services, and protection of 

intellectual property rights. U.S. agency staff participate in multiple WTO 

committee meetings throughout the year to track member countries’

policies and practices and seek their compliance with obligations under 

these agreements.

The United States is also a party to 14 FTAs involving 20 partner 

countries—Australia, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the 

Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, 

Mexico, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, Singapore, and 

South Korea (see table 1).

Table 1: U.S. Free Trade Agreements (FTA) in Force as of February 2017

FTAs Entry into force

Agreement on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area 

between the Government of Israel and the 

Government of the United States of America

1985

North American Free Trade Agreementa 1994

Agreement between the United States of America and 

the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan on the 

Establishment of a Free Trade Area

2001

United States – Chile Free Trade Agreement 2004

United States – Singapore Free Trade Agreement 2004

United States – Australia Free Trade Agreement 2005

United States – Bahrain Free Trade Agreement 2006

United States – Morocco Free Trade Agreement 2006

The Dominican Republic – Central American – United 

States Free Trade Agreementb 2006 –2009

Agreement between the Government of the United 

States of America and the Government of the 

Sultanate of Oman on the Establishment of a Free 

Trade Area

2009

United States – Peru Trade Promotion Agreement 2009

 3

The WTO Agreement on Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures aims to 

ensure that WTO members’ food safety and animal and plant health measures do not 

create unnecessary obstacles to trade. 

4

The WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade aims to ensure that technical 

regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures are nondiscriminatory and 

do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.
Page 5 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

FTAs Entry into force

United States – Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement 2012

Free Trade Agreement between the United States and 

the Republic of Korea

2012

United States – Panama Trade Promotion Agreement 2012

Source: Department of State. | GAO-17-399

a

The North American Free Trade Agreement is an agreement between the United States, Canada, 

and Mexico.

b

The Dominican Republic – Central America – United States Free Trade Agreement is an agreement 

between the United States and several Central American countries. For El Salvador, Guatemala, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua, the agreement entered into force in 2006; for the Dominican Republic, the 

agreement entered into force in 2007; and for Costa Rica, the agreement entered into force in 2009.

FTAs phase out barriers to trade in goods with particular countries or 

groups of countries and contain rules designed to improve access to 

foreign markets for U.S. services, investment, and intellectual property 

rights as well as rules of origin and dispute settlement. Most of these 

agreements also include chapters that address workers’ rights and the 

environment and provide cooperation mechanisms through which the 

United States provides trade capacity-building assistance to help partner 

countries meet their obligations under these agreements.

In addition, the United States has bilateral investment treaties in force 

with 40 countries.5 According to USTR, such treaties provide binding legal 

rules regarding one country’s treatment of investors and investments from 

another country to help promote economic reforms, improve investment 

climates, and attract new investment. According to State, one of the basic 

aims of the U.S. bilateral investment treaty program is to encourage the 

adoption of policies that treat private investment in a nondiscriminatory 

way. Moreover, State explains that these treaties limit the conditions in 

which performance requirements, such as local content requirements, 

may be imposed. According to State, these treaties also include a dispute 

settlement mechanism giving investors the right to submit an investment 

dispute to international arbitration.

The United States is also a party to 52 bilateral and regional trade and 

investment framework agreements that, according to USTR, provide 

strategic frameworks and principles for dialogue on trade and investment 

issues. These agreements all serve as a forum for the United States and 

other governments to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest with the 

 5

These treaties are in addition to investment chapters in FTAs in force with 17 countries.
Page 6 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

objective of improving cooperation and enhancing opportunities for trade 

and investment, according to USTR. The United States and partner 

countries consult on a wide range of issues related to trade and 

investment. Topics for consultation and possible further cooperation 

include market access issues, labor, the environment, protection and 

enforcement of intellectual property rights, and, in appropriate cases, 

capacity-building, according to USTR.

We have previously reported that U.S. government efforts to monitor and 

enforce trade agreements pursue three broad goals: ensuring foreign 

compliance, providing credible deterrence, and inspiring confidence that 

trade agreements benefit U.S. citizens as intended.6 “Monitoring” refers to 

activities agencies undertake to identify instances where foreign laws, 

regulations, and practices may be inconsistent with trade agreement 

provisions. “Enforcement” refers to actions agencies take to secure 

foreign compliance with trade agreements, which can include initiating 

dispute settlement procedures that certain trade agreements provide.7

According to USTR, the majority of efforts to resolve trade disputes and 

ensure compliance with trade agreements occur outside of the context of 

formal dispute settlement procedures. These efforts include analysis of 

trading partners’ policies and procedures, formal and informal plurilateral 

and bilateral engagement, participation in WTO and FTA committees and 

other plurilateral or bilateral fora, public outreach, and trade capacitybuilding. If these efforts fail to achieve the desired outcomes, the United 

States relies on dispute settlement procedures, according to USTR. In 

March 2017, USTR reported that the United States has filed 110

complaints at the WTO since its inception in 1994 and had successfully 

concluded 81 of them by settling 34 disputes favorably and prevailing in 

 6

See GAO, International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed Have 

Resulted in Commercial Benefits, but Challenges on Labor and Environment Remain, 

GAO-09-439 (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2009).

7

For past GAO work related to enforcement of trade agreements, see GAO-09-439; Free 

Trade Agreements: U.S. Partners Are Addressing Labor Commitments, but More 

Monitoring and Enforcement Are Needed, GAO-15-160 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2014); 

and GAO, Free Trade Agreements: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Should 

Continue to Improve Its Monitoring of Environmental Commitments, GAO-15-161 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 6, 2014).

Monitoring and 

Enforcement of Trade 

Agreements
Page 7 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

47 others through litigation before WTO panels and the Appellate Body.8

USTR has lead responsibility for litigating disputes but relies on support 

and expertise from other federal agencies.

USTR, which is part of the Executive Office of the President, and several 

other U.S. government agencies have responsibility for monitoring and 

enforcing trade agreements. These agencies are USDA, Commerce, 

DHS, DOL, and State. Table 2 shows key monitoring and enforcement 

roles and responsibilities of offices or bureaus within these agencies.

Table 2: U.S. Offices and Bureaus with Responsibility for Monitoring and Enforcing Trade Agreements

Agency Key roles and responsibilities related to monitoring and enforcing trade agreements

Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representative (USTR)

Leads interagency efforts to monitor and enforce trade agreements.

Identifies, analyzes, and seeks to resolve trade barriers that may be inconsistent with U.S. trade 

agreements or have an adverse effect on U.S. interests under those agreements.

Leads U.S. government participation in committees, working groups, and negotiating bodies under 

various World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements and free trade agreements (FTA) to secure 

U.S. trade interests and ensure that partner countries adhere to their commitments under these 

agreements.

Litigates disputes that the United States files with the WTO, under an FTA involving the United States 

or involving another international trade agreement.

Foreign Agricultural Service, 

Department of Agriculture 

Analyzes foreign government measures to determine whether they are impeding U.S. agricultural 

exports to foreign markets or are inconsistent with the foreign country’s commitments under trade 

agreements.

Participates in WTO and FTA committees and dispute settlement cases related to agriculture, sanitary 

and phytosanitary measures, and technical barriers to trade (TBT) issues.

Serves as a major U.S. government access point for U.S. businesses and agricultural industry groups 

to report trade problems and investigate them.

Workforce includes agricultural attachés and locally employed staff in over 90 overseas offices who 

conduct intelligence gathering and engagement with trading partners to identify trade barriers and 

resolve disputes under trade agreements. 

 8

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Trade Policy Agenda and 2016 Annual 

Report of the President of the United States on the Trade Agreements Program 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2017).

U.S. Agencies Involved in 

Enforcement and 

Monitoring of Trade 

Agreements
Page 8 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Agency Key roles and responsibilities related to monitoring and enforcing trade agreements

International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce (Commerce) 

Identifies and investigates trade barriers caused by foreign government noncompliance with trade 

agreements and engages those governments to convince them to remove these barriers.

Serves as a major U.S. government access point for U.S. businesses to report trade barriers for U.S. 

government action.

Participates in WTO and FTA committees to secure U.S. trade interests and ensure compliance with 

commitments under these agreements.

Provides support, information, and analysis for various WTO dispute settlement cases involving the 

United States and administers the U.S. Trade Agreement Secretariat responsible for the fair and 

impartial administration of dispute settlement actions under FTAs.

Workforce includes Foreign Commercial Service officers and locally employed staff in over 70 

countries who assist in monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements, among other 

responsibilities.

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology (NIST), 

Commerce 

Maintains U.S. point of contact, called an “inquiry point,” related to the WTO TBT Agreement. NIST’s 

inquiry point responds to questions from interested parties and other WTO members regarding 

technical regulations, standards developed by government bodies, and conformity assessment 

procedures (e.g., procedures for sampling, testing, and inspection of products).

Inquiry point also notifies the WTO of proposed U.S. and state-level technical regulations that meet 

certain conditions in the TBT agreement.

Provides technical expertise in standards and measurements to review issues raised in the WTO 

committee on TBT. 

U.S. Patent and Trademark 

Office, Commerce 

Assists with the drafting, reviewing, and implementation of intellectual property obligations in bilateral 

and multilateral treaties and trade agreements.

Supports USTR and U.S. agencies in international consultations on intellectual property issues.

U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS) 

Conducts verifications of importers’ claims for trade benefits under FTAs and trade preference 

programs. Verifications ensure compliance with trade agreements by checking for fraudulent 

practices, transshipments, false importer claims, improper description of merchandise, and 

undervaluation and undercounting of goods.

Conducts site visits to overseas textile factories to verify compliance with FTA and trade preference 

programs through validation of production capacities associated with imported textile and apparel 

goods.

U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), 

DHS

Conducts investigations of false claims of country of origin to gain the trade benefits under FTAs; this 

is one of several types of trade fraud investigations ICE conducts.

Participates with CBP on site visits to textile factories to verify the origin of imported textile and 

apparel goods and compliance with FTAs and trade preference programs.

Bureau of International Labor 

Affairs, Department of Labor

Monitors implementation of FTA labor provisions, which includes investigating public complaints and 

engaging with partner countries to redress inconsistencies with labor commitments of FTAs.

Provides trade capacity-building assistance to help FTA partner countries meet their obligations 

related to labor conditions under these agreements.

Bureau of Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor, 

Department of State (State)

Coordinates with State’s Foreign Service labor officers, who carry out regular monitoring and reporting 

and day-to-day interaction with foreign governments on labor matters related to FTA labor provisions.

Provides trade capacity-building assistance to help FTA partner countries meet their obligations to 

protect workers’ rights under these agreements.
Page 9 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Agency Key roles and responsibilities related to monitoring and enforcing trade agreements

Bureau of Economic and 

Business Affairs, State

Coordinates with other agencies and State’s Foreign Service economic officers based in overseas 

posts throughout the world to resolve trade disputes or trade barriers and monitor and enforce 

compliance with trade agreements—including agreements related to investment, intellectual property, 

and telecommunications.

Works with other State offices, U.S. embassies, and other agencies on WTO and FTA dispute 

settlement cases.

Bureau of Oceans and 

International Environmental 

and Scientific Affairs, State 

Coordinates with State’s Foreign Service environment, science, technology, and health officers to 

implement environmental cooperation agreements related to FTAs and monitor partner countries’

compliance.

Provides trade capacity-building assistance to help FTA partner countries meet their environmental 

commitments under these agreements.

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. agency information. | GAO-17-399

Note: These are key roles and responsibilities and may not necessarily include each agency’s full 

range of monitoring and enforcement responsibilities.

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 established a 

“Trade Enforcement Trust Fund” from which USTR or other federal 

agencies can receive funding to monitor and enforce WTO agreements 

and FTAs and also to support trade capacity-building assistance to help 

partner countries meet their FTA obligations and commitments.9 These 

funds may not be used or transferred to other agencies unless authority is 

provided in an appropriations act; however, as of April 2017, Congress 

has not passed an appropriations act with the necessary authority. USTR 

officials stated that they have not taken any action regarding the use of 

the Trust Fund, given the absence of such an authority in an

appropriations act.

 9

See Pub. L. No. 114-25, § 611. The act directs the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 

up to $15 million from the general fund of the Treasury to the Trust Fund annually, with the 

total balance in the Trust Fund at any one time not to exceed $30 million.

Trade Enforcement Trust 

Fund Established by 

Congress
Page 10 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Eleven offices or bureaus within six U.S. federal agencies told us that 

they had staff that worked on monitoring and enforcement of trade 

agreements in fiscal year 2016. They also identified the range of activities 

this work involved (see table 3).10

Table 3: Agencies’ Activities to Monitor and Enforce Trade Agreements in Fiscal Year 2016

Monitoring and 

enforcement activity

ITA/

DOC

FAS/ 

USDA

USTR CBP/

DHS 

EB/ 

State

ILAB/

DOL 

ICE/

DHS 

OES/

State 

NIST/

DOC 

USPTO/

DOC 

DRL/

State 

Monitoring or 

resolving compliance 

with World Trade 

Organization (WTO) 

agreements

X X X X X X X X X

WTO dispute 

settlement cases

X X X X X

Monitoring or 

resolving compliance 

with Free Trade 

Agreements (FTA)

X X X X X X X X X

FTA dispute 

settlement cases

X X X X X X

Investigating formal 

and informal public 

complaints regarding 

trade agreement 

violations

X X X X X X X X X X

Monitoring or 

enforcing other 

agreements, such as 

bilateral investment 

treaties

X X X X X X X X

 10We did not determine the share of time agencies devoted to these activities nor did we 

independently verify that these activities took place.

Information Is Not 

Available to 

Definitively Determine 

Resources Expended 

for Monitoring and 

Enforcing Trade 

Agreements
Page 11 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Monitoring and 

enforcement activity

ITA/

DOC

FAS/ 

USDA

USTR CBP/

DHS 

EB/ 

State

ILAB/

DOL 

ICE/

DHS 

OES/

State 

NIST/

DOC 

USPTO/

DOC 

DRL/

State 

Monitoring countries’

intellectual property 

rights enforcement

X X X X X X

Monitoring 

telecommunications 

trade agreements

X X X

Preparing required 

reports on monitoring 

and enforcement 

efforts

X X X X X X X

Verifications of claims 

for trade benefits 

under FTAs for 

imports into the 

United States

X X X

Inspections of 

overseas textile 

factories to validate 

production capacities 

and processes in 

connection with 

claims for preferential 

tariff treatment for 

imported goods

X X

Investigations of 

fraudulent claims for 

FTA trade benefits

X X

Legend:

ITA/DOC: International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce

FAS/USDA: Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Agriculture

USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

CBP/DHS: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security

EB/State: Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, Department of State

ILAB/DOL: Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor

ICE/DHS: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security

OES/State: Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Department of State

NIST/DOC: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce

USPTO/DOC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce

DRL/State: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Department of State

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by federal agencies. | GAO-17-399

Although agencies were able to describe the types of activities their staff 

undertook to monitor and enforce trade agreements in fiscal year 2016, 

they did not have key information needed to definitively determine the 

resources expended on such activities. With the exception of 
Page 12 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),11 all 

the agencies we queried indicated that some of their staff responsible for 

monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements also had other 

responsibilities. However, none of the agencies routinely tracks staff time 

at a level of detail that distinguishes time specifically dedicated to trade 

agreement monitoring and enforcement from time spent on these other 

responsibilities.

While agencies were unable to definitively determine the resources they 

used for monitoring and enforcement, they nevertheless provided 

estimates of the number of FTEs they believe were involved in such 

activities. They did so based on approaches such as reviewing staff 

portfolios or work records, obtaining staff input, and applying professional 

judgment after discussions among managers in response to our request 

for this information. The agencies estimated the funding levels associated 

with these FTEs by calculating the average salaries and benefits of the 

staff time used for these efforts. Table 4 shows the agencies’ estimates of 

FTEs and the associated salary and benefit costs for efforts to monitor 

and enforce trade agreements in fiscal year 2016. The estimates suggest 

that in fiscal year 2016, 11 agency offices and bureaus dedicated over 

700 FTEs and over $100 million to monitoring and enforcing trade 

agreements.

 11NIST indicated having a total of two FTEs based on two staff whose responsibilities 

mainly consisted of monitoring and enforcing trade agreements. 
Page 13 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Table 4: Estimated Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Staff and Funding U.S. Agencies 

Used for Monitoring and Enforcing Trade Agreements, Fiscal Year 2016

Agency Staff resources Funding for FTE 

salaries/benefits

Full-time equivalents Dollars in thousandsa

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce

277 $46,500

Foreign Agricultural Service, 

Department of Agriculture

175 18,200

Office of the U.S. Trade 

Representativeb 117 21,500

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

Department of Homeland Security 

102 12,100

Bureau of Economic and Business 

Affairs, Department of Statec 21 2,800

Bureau of International Labor Affairs, 

Department of Labor

10 1,200

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, Department of 

Homeland Security 

8 1,300

Bureau of Oceans and International 

Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 

Department of Statec

7 900

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, Department of 

Commerce

2 300

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 

Department of Commerce 

2 300

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, 

and Labor, Department of Statec 1 100

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. agency information. | GAO-17-399

a

Dollars are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

b

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) estimates do not include time spent by 23 detailees 

from other agencies. Detailees’ staff time related to monitoring and enforcing trade agreements in 

fiscal year 2016 amounted to about 15 additional FTEs, according to a USTR official.

c

Department of State (State) estimates do not include efforts of overseas Foreign Service officers 

who may play a significant role in monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements. For example, 

State has over 600 economic officer positions in the Foreign Service that may have trade-related 

responsibilities as part of their portfolios. However, State officials said that they do not have the 

means to track the time, which may vary widely, that the overseas officers spend on these 

responsibilities. 

However, these totals and the underlying estimates do not fully include all 

costs related to trade monitoring and enforcement and, for some 

agencies, may not represent all staff who were involved in such activities. 

With respect to costs, some agencies could not accurately estimate 
Page 14 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

administrative overhead costs. Consequently, we were unable to capture 

administrative overhead costs consistently across agencies and could not 

include those costs as part of the funding estimates.

With respect to staff, many of the agencies responsible for monitoring and 

enforcing trade agreements rely on overseas staff, in addition to 

headquarters staff, to support these efforts. These overseas staff also 

work on other issues besides trade agreement monitoring and 

enforcement. Some, but not all, agencies were able to estimate the share 

of time their overseas staff spent on trade agreement monitoring and 

enforcement. For example, the International Trade Administration (ITA), 

which is part of Commerce, told us that its Foreign Commercial Service 

(FCS) contributes significant staff time to monitoring and enforcement of 

trade agreements, which complements the work of ITA’s headquarters 

staff. According to ITA’s estimate, FCS has 970 officers and locally 

employed staff, based overseas, who spent an average of 13 percent of 

their time on monitoring and enforcement activities in fiscal year 2016. 

Similarly, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), which is part of USDA, 

estimated that 285 of its overseas workforce of 456 FAS officers and 

locally employed staff spent a share of their time on monitoring and 

enforcement efforts in fiscal year 2016.

In contrast, State officials said that, although they relied on State’s 

workforce of overseas Foreign Service officers to carry out monitoring 

and enforcement efforts in fiscal year 2016, they had no method to 

estimate the share of time these officers spent on these efforts. State 

officials told us that State has over 600 economic officer positions at 

overseas posts throughout the world that may include trade monitoring 

and enforcement among their responsibilities. The role of these officers 

varies widely, depending on the unique circumstances of the post. For 

instance, posts without the presence of FAS or FCS officers may rely 

more heavily on State Foreign Service officers.12 State officials also noted 

that the department has labor officers and environment, science, 

technology, and health officers based overseas who may participate in 

monitoring and enforcing partner countries’ implementation of labor and 

environment chapters of FTAs.

 12According to officials, FCS and FAS officers based overseas are responsible for 

engaging directly with foreign governments and assisting in monitoring their trade policies 

and resolving trade barriers. They also have other responsibilities, such as promoting U.S. 

exports to foreign markets.
Page 15 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

USAID, State, and DOL had 80 trade capacity-building assistance 

projects13 active in fiscal year 2016 that supported FTA partner countries’

compliance with their FTA obligations.14 The total funding for these 

projects was about $256 million. USAID, DOL, and State obligated about 

$122 million, $95 million, and $14 million, respectively.15 In addition, State 

and USAID jointly funded one environmental project totaling about $25 

million (see fig. 1).

 13Distribution of the 80 trade capacity-building projects active in fiscal year 2016 included 

13 funded by USAID, 42 funded by State, 24 funded by DOL, and 1 jointly funded by State 

and USAID.

14This report solely identifies trade capacity-building projects related to FTAs. We 

previously reported on all U.S. trade capacity-building projects worldwide. See GAO, 

Foreign Assistance: USAID Should Update Its Trade Capacity-Building Strategy, 

GAO-14-602 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 12, 2014).

15Funding data for DOL and State represent obligated funds. In addition to including 

obligated funds, USAID’s funding data also include planned future funding that, according 

to USAID, would depend on future appropriations from Congress and subsequent 

obligation by USAID.

USAID, State, and 

DOL Provided Trade 

Capacity-Building 

Assistance to FTA 

Partner Countries

Trade Capacity-Building 

Project Funding Spanned 

Multiple Agencies and 

Years
Page 16 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Figure 1: Total Funding Amounts for Trade Capacity-Building Projects Active in 

Free Trade Agreement Partner Countries during Fiscal Year 2016, by Agency

Note: The figures shown here represent the total project amounts for trade capacity-building projects 

active in fiscal year 2016 that existed in free trade agreement (FTA) countries. These project amounts 

generally represent obligated funds. However, funding data from USAID included both obligated 

amounts and planned funding that, according to USAID, would depend on future appropriations from 

Congress and subsequent obligation by USAID. These projects typically spanned more than 1 fiscal 

year. The source funding for the projects active in fiscal year 2016 often came from prior fiscal years. 

DOL’s and State’s projects were specifically dedicated to helping FTA partner countries meet their 

obligations under the FTAs, according to DOL and State officials. Funding for USAID’s projects 

supported goals related to helping countries meet FTA obligations as well as broader capacitybuilding goals in these countries, according to USAID officials. USAID could not separate funding 

amounts for assistance related to broader goals from assistance related to FTA obligations.

Total funding amounts for the 80 projects ranged from $64,000 to almost 

$35 million per project. For example, State dedicated $64,000 to a trade 

capacity-building project, operating during 5 fiscal years, related to 

environmental obligations under the United States–Chile Free Trade 

Agreement. USAID obligated almost $35 million to an environmental 

project, operating during 6 fiscal years, which included trade capacitybuilding aspects of the United States–Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. 

Trade capacity-building projects active in fiscal year 2016 supported 

activities in 14 countries that were parties to the following 9 of the 14 U.S. 

FTAs:
Page 17 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

• The Dominican Republic – Central American – United States Free 

Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR)

• United States – Chile Free Trade Agreement

• United States – Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement

• Agreement between the United States of America and the Hashemite 

Kingdom of Jordan on the Establishment of a Free Trade Area

• United States – Morocco Free Trade Agreement

• North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Mexico only)

• Agreement between the Government of the United States of America 

and the Government of the Sultanate of Oman on the Establishment 

of Free Trade Area

• Panama Free Trade Agreement

• United States – Peru Trade Promotion Agreement

The most active trade capacity-building projects during fiscal year 2016—

34 active projects— occurred in CAFTA-DR countries, while the fewest—

3 active projects—occurred in Mexico. Some trade capacity-building 

projects involved multiple FTA partner countries. For example, a DOL 

project involved countries from the CAFTA-DR, NAFTA, Jordan, and 

Morocco FTAs.

Of the trade capacity-building projects active in fiscal year 2016, the 

majority—both in terms of the number of projects and the amount of 

funding—focused on labor and environmental issues. Forty-one (51 

percent) and 32 (40 percent) of the 80 trade capacity-building projects 

were related to labor or the environment, respectively. DOL and State 

oversaw the most labor and environmental trade capacity-building 

projects, respectively. Specifically, DOL oversaw 24 labor-related trade 

capacity-building projects, while State oversaw 35 environmentally related 

projects. Labor and environmental trade capacity-building projects also 

received about 80 percent of the total funding for projects active in fiscal 

year 2016. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of trade capacity-building 

projects and funding by project objective.

Most Capacity-Building 

Projects for FTA Partner 

Countries Addressed 

Labor and Environmental 

Commitments
Page 18 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Figure 2: Distribution of Agencies’ 80 Trade Capacity-Building Projects Active in Free Trade Agreement Partner Countries in 

Fiscal Year 2016, by Project Objective

Note: The “Other” category consists of seven projects that were funded by the U.S. Agency for 

International Development and included assistance for trade facilitation and implementation, 

enterprise development, and food safety and agricultural sustainability training.

Labor and environmental projects covered a wide range of issues within 

FTA partner countries. For example, State oversaw environmental 

projects related to combating illegal logging in CAFTA-DR countries and 

improving fisheries management in Chile. DOL oversaw labor projects 

related to ending child labor in Jordan, Colombia, Morocco, Peru, 

Panama, and CAFTA-DR countries as well as promoting international 

labor standards in Colombia.

According to agency officials, some of the trade capacity-building projects 

included goals to assist FTA partner countries in meeting their FTA 

obligations in addition to other goals. Some of these projects also 

included countries with which the United States does not have an FTA. 

For example, a DOL project on child labor issues had 45 participating 

countries, of which 5 were FTA partner countries. According to USAID 

officials, all of USAID’s trade capacity-building projects that were active in 
Page 19 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

fiscal year 2016 included goals to help FTA partner countries meet their 

FTA obligations; however, all projects also included broader goals not 

related to FTA obligations. For example, USAID’s active project 

“Implementing Anti-Monopoly Policies” in Mexico had a total funding of 

about $615,000 but was part of a larger USAID-funded capacity-building 

project in Mexico that received about $22.3 million in total project funding. 

According to DOL officials, all DOL projects in FTA partner countries 

contributed to helping FTA partner countries meet their FTA labor 

obligations. State officials noted that State’s labor projects only included 

goals related to FTA labor obligations.

We provided a draft of this report to USDA, Commerce, DHS, DOL, State, 

USAID, and USTR for their review. None of these agencies provided 

formal comments. USDA, Commerce, DOL, and USTR provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Homeland 

Security, Labor, and State; the U.S. Trade Representative; and the 

USAID Administrator. In addition, the report will be available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Kimberly Gianopoulos

Director, International Affairs and Trade

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 20 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

To determine which agencies may have committed resources for 

monitoring and enforcing trade agreements in fiscal year 2016, we 

reviewed agencies’ budget reports, strategic plans, and annual reports 

and interviewed relevant agency officials. In total, we determined that 11 

offices or bureaus within the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 

(USTR) and the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Commerce 

(Commerce), Homeland Security (DHS), Labor (DOL), and State (State) 

had committed resources to monitor and enforce trade agreements.1 To 

solicit these agencies’ estimates of staff resources and funding and to 

identify the types of monitoring and enforcement activities involved, we 

developed a data collection instrument that we sent to the agencies. We 

first pretested the instrument with USTR, the International Trade 

Administration (ITA) in Commerce, and the Foreign Agricultural Service 

(FAS) in USDA. We refined our data collection instrument based on 

discussions with officials at these agencies and then circulated it for 

completion to all the relevant agencies we had identified. Some agencies 

provided separate responses from multiple units with responsibility for 

monitoring and enforcement, which we then summed up. For example, 

we received separate responses from three units within FAS and three 

units within ITA and provided the sum of those responses for each 

agency.2

Because none of the relevant agencies routinely tracks staff resources 

and funding specifically for monitoring and enforcement of trade 

agreements, these agencies had to develop estimates of their fiscal year 

2016 full-time equivalents (FTE) and funding used for these activities in 

response to our request for information. As many agency staff 

responsible for monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements also had 

other responsibilities, agencies had to estimate the portion of staff time 

spent on monitoring and enforcement to develop their FTE estimates. 

Officials reported a range of approaches to estimating staff time, including 

referring to data in staff surveys, reviewing staff portfolios and work 

descriptions, and holding discussions with managers. Moreover, 

limitations in the available data also required agencies to rely on their 

professional judgment to estimate the average amount of time that their 

staff spent on monitoring and enforcement. For example, ITA estimated 

 1

We also met with officials from the Department of the Treasury, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration in Commerce, and the International Trade Commission, who 

told us that they did not commit any significant resources for this purpose.

2

FAS and ITA each have headquarters-based units that work on monitoring and 

enforcement of trade agreements along with their overseas workforces.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 21 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

that its Foreign Commercial Service, based overseas, devoted about 13 

percent of its time to activities related to monitoring and enforcing trade 

agreements, whereas State told us that it could not confidently estimate 

the share of time its Foreign Service officers spent on activities related to 

monitoring and enforcing trade agreements within their portfolios. 

Consequently, FTE and funding estimates for State offices only include 

headquarters staff.

While other agencies generally had to estimate the portion of time their 

staff spent on monitoring and enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) 

based their FTE estimates on accounting code charges for specific 

activities during fiscal year 2016 to monitor and enforce trade 

agreements. CBP based its FTE estimate mainly on time spent 

conducting verifications of free trade agreement (FTA) claims by 

importers and overseas inspections of textile factories to validate 

production capacities in connection with FTA rules.3 ICE’s FTE estimate 

was based on the number of investigative hours attributed to FTA fraud 

investigations.4

Agencies’ estimates of funding associated with their FTE estimates 

generally reflected the average annual salaries and benefits of the staff 

involved. Some of the agencies could not accurately estimate 

administrative overhead costs associated with monitoring and 

enforcement of trade agreements; therefore, we were unable to include 

administrative overhead costs consistently across agencies and are not 

including those costs as part of the funding estimates.

To assess the reliability of agencies’ FTE and funding estimates for 

monitoring and enforcement of trade agreements, we included questions 

in our data collection instrument about their methodologies for developing 

their estimates, the agency officials they consulted, and the strengths and 

 3

CBP has over 900 “import specialists” based in the United States who may be called on 

to conduct these verifications and textile factory visits. CBP’s Office of Field Operations 

has a mechanism in place to track time spent by import specialists in conducting 

verifications of claims made under FTAs and trade preference programs, according to 

CBP officials.

4

ICE criminal investigators in domestic field units and in overseas posts may be called on 

to investigate a variety of trade fraud schemes, including fraud related to FTAs. ICE’s 

Investigative Case Management System tracks the number of investigative hours for 

investigative categories, according to ICE officials.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 22 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

weaknesses of their estimates. In addition, based on our review of the 

agencies’ responses to our data collection instrument, we asked follow-up 

questions to the agencies as needed. A key limitation was the lack of data 

systems that record staff time on these activities and the reliance on selfreporting or judgments of unit managers to estimate the share of time 

staff spent on monitoring and enforcement activities. In addition, USTR 

officials noted that time spent on monitoring and enforcement was likely 

to vary widely from year to year depending on demands created by other 

responsibilities such as trade negotiations or urgent trade disputes. 

Nevertheless, based on our analysis of the agencies’ responses, we 

determined that these estimates could be used to provide a broad 

indication of the FTEs and staff costs in fiscal year 2016 across agencies, 

but that they could not be reliably used to make precise comparisons.

To identify U.S. trade capacity-building assistance projects to help partner 

countries meet their obligations under FTAs, we collected available 

information on relevant trade capacity-building projects that were active in 

2016. State, DOL, and the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) were the three agencies that provided funding for active projects 

in fiscal year 2016.5 We identified the recipient FTA partner countries and 

subject matter focus of the projects, such as assistance with meeting 

labor or environment obligations, and calculated total funding for projects 

within FTA partner countries. We did not assess the implementation or 

effectiveness of these projects. State provided data on obligated funding 

that was directly tied to assisting FTA partner countries in meeting their 

FTA obligations. DOL provided data on obligated funding that contributed 

to helping FTA partner countries meet their FTA labor obligations. USAID 

provided data on obligated or planned funding amounts for projects in 

FTA partner countries but could not isolate amounts specifically related to 

FTA implementation from broader capacity-building goals, according to 

USAID officials. 

To assess the reliability of data on trade capacity-building projects, we 

compared information provided by these agencies with source databases, 

discussed discrepancies with agency officials, and reviewed agencies’

procedures for assessing the completeness and accuracy of the project 

data collection and storage. We determined that the data we obtained 

were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our review.

 5

In some instances, U.S. agencies—such as the U.S. Forest Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency—implemented but did not fund the projects.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 23 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

We conducted this performance audit from May 2016 to April 2017 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.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 24 GAO-17-399 Trade Enforcement

Kimberly M. Gianopoulos (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Joyee Dasgupta (Assistant 

Director), Howard Cott (Analyst-in-Charge), Lynn Cothern, Martin de 

Alteriis, Neil Doherty, Grace Lui, and Ian P. Moloney made significant 

contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(100842)
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, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

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

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

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

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.