United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Management,

Information and Technology, Committee on Government

Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:30 a.m.

Thursday,

June 18, 1998

FINANCIAL

MANAGEMENT

Fostering the Effective

Implementation of

Legislative Goals

Statement of Gene L. Dodaro

Assistant Comptroller General

Accounting and Information Management Division

GAO/T-AIMD-98-215

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to discuss ways the Congress can help ensure that

agencies effectively implement federal financial management reform

legislation. This legislative framework includes the 1990 Chief Financial

Officers (CFO) Act, as expanded by the 1994 Government Management

Reform Act, as well as the 1996 Federal Financial Management

Improvement Act (FFMIA). These statutes establish a broad-based set of

expectations for improving financial management, such as producing

reliable financial reports, generating sound cost and performance

information, fixing weaknesses in systems and controls, and building

effective financial management organizations.

An essential foundation to help achieve these goals is the requirement that

the 24 CFO Act agencies annually prepare financial statements and subject

them to an independent audit, beginning with those for fiscal year 1996.

Additionally, audited consolidated financial statements for the U.S.

government are now required annually, starting with those for fiscal year

1997. To further promote needed reforms, FFMIA calls for agencies to meet

various financial management standards and requirements and, if they do

not, to prepare remediation plans.

These reforms begin to subject the federal government to the same fiscal

discipline imposed for years on the private sector and state and local

governments. This discipline is needed to correct long-standing serious

weaknesses in federal financial management systems, controls, and

reporting practices. Considerable effort is underway across government to

make needed improvements and progress is being made, but a great deal

of perseverance will be required to fully attain the legislative goals set by

federal financial management statutes.

To build upon these efforts, the Subcommittee is exploring ways to

expedite fixing the problems that hamper effective financial management

across government today. The Subcommittee’s efforts are in concert with

the House of Representatives resolution (H.Res. 447), passed on June 9,

1998, which underscored congressional demands for quickly resolving

outstanding financial management problems.

The federal government can continue to make progress in implementing

financial management reforms, but the pace and extent of improvement

will depend upon the dedication of agency heads and their senior

management teams, especially the Chief Financial Officers, and the ability

Page 1 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
to deal with a range of financial management systems issues, as well as

continuing emphasis by the Congress on financial management reform.

Broad oversight by the Congress will be very important to holding agency

heads accountable for needed financial management improvements. The

Congress would make a significant contribution to ensuring satisfactory

results in this area if the results of financial audits and needed

improvements became a routine part of its normal annual appropriation,

authorization, and oversight deliberations.

Progress Is Being

Made

Since the CFO Act’s passage, steady progress has been made in improving

federal financial management. A set of comprehensive accounting

standards has been completed by the Federal Accounting Standards

Advisory Board (FASAB), agencies are progressing in receiving unqualified

audit opinions on financial statements, and structures are in place to

identify and resolve governmentwide financial management issues.

FASAB was created by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of Office

of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Comptroller General in

October 1990 to consider and recommend federal accounting standards.

Treasury, OMB, and GAO then decide whether to adopt the recommended

standards; if they do, the standards are published by OMB and GAO and

become effective. Statements of federal financial accounting concepts and

standards, which are listed in attachment I, now provide for reporting on

the federal government’s financial condition, as well as on the costs of its

programs.

For fiscal year 1996, when agencywide financial statements were required

across government for the first time, 6 of the 24 CFO Act agencies received

unqualified audit opinions. For the next year, fiscal year 1997, 9 agencies

received unqualified audit opinions, and OMB expects an additional agency

to receive an unqualified opinion by the end of June 1998.1

 The preparation

of financial statements and independent audit opinions required by the

expanded CFO Act are bringing greater clarity and understanding to the

scope and depth of problems and needed solutions.

Some individual agencies have successfully solved these problems. For

example, the Social Security Administration (SSA) prepared financial

1

These agencies are the Social Security Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, the General Services

Administration, the Department of Labor, the Small Business Administration, the Environmental

Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior. OMB expects the Department of Education to

receive an unqualified opinion by June 30, 1998.

Page 2 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
statements for fiscal year 1987—prior to the expanded CFO Act’s

requirement—addressed financial weaknesses, and attained its first

unqualified audit opinion for fiscal year 1994. As this Subcommittee heard

at its April 17, 1998, hearing, SSA now produces financial statements within

2 months of the close of the fiscal year and continues to receive

unqualified audit opinions annually.

At the Department of Energy, the Inspector General identified problems

related to the balance sheet Energy prepared for fiscal year 1995. The

problems, for example, involved identifying liabilities associated with

environmental cleanup and controls over property and equipment, which

Energy worked to correct. The following year, fiscal year 1996, Energy

prepared agencywide financial statements that received an unqualified

opinion and sustained these results for fiscal year 1997.

Many people are actively working to resolve federal financial management

problems. For example, OMB has issued guidance to agencies on producing

useful financial reports that meet FASAB standards. In addition to individual

CFOs working to address issues in their agencies, the CFO Council, working

with OMB, develops an annual financial management status report and

5-year plan. Inspectors General are carrying out their responsibilities to

ensure annual audits of financial statements.

Reaction to the First

Governmentwide

Financial Statement

Audit Results

On March 31, 1998, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the

Director of OMB, issued the 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements of the

United States Government. These audited governmentwide financial

statements were the first prepared and issued under provisions of the

expanded CFO Act and included our first report required by the act.2

On April 1, 1998, we testified3 before this Subcommittee on the results of

our audit. Our testimony framed the most serious financial management

improvement challenges facing the federal government. In summary,

significant financial systems weaknesses; problems with fundamental

recordkeeping; incomplete documentation; and weak internal controls,

including computer controls, prevented the government from accurately

reporting a large portion of its assets, liabilities, and costs. Our audit of the

federal government’s consolidated financial statements and the Inspectors

2

Financial Audit: 1997 Consolidated Financial Statements of the United States Government

(GAO/AIMD-98-127, March 31, 1998).

3

U.S. Government Financial Statements: Results of GAO’s Fiscal Year 1997 Audit (GAO/T-AIMD-98-128,

April 1, 1998).

Page 3 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
General audits of agencies’ financial statements have resulted in an

identification and analysis of deficiencies in the government’s

recordkeeping and control system and recommendations to correct them.

The executive branch recognizes the extent and severity of the financial

management deficiencies and that addressing them will require concerted

improvement efforts across government. Financial management has been

designated one of the President’s priority management objectives, with the

goal of having performance and cost information in a timely, informative,

and accurate way, consistent with federal accounting standards. Also, the

administration has set goals for individual agencies, as well as the

government as a whole, to complete audits and gain unqualified opinions.

To help achieve these objectives, the President issued a May 26, 1998,

memorandum to the heads of executive departments and agencies on

actions needed to improve financial management. The President’s message

points to several areas requiring agencies additional attention: practices

related to the government’s property, federal credit programs, liabilities

related to the disposal of hazardous waste and remediation of

environmental contamination, federal government employment-related

benefits liabilities, and transactions between federal entities. These areas

reflect the serious deficiencies that prevented us from being able to form

an opinion on the reliability of the consolidated financial statements of the

U.S. government.

The President’s directive places additional accountability on agency heads

and gives OMB more responsibility for addressing these problems.

Specifically, he has directed that:

• OMB identify agencies subject to reporting under the President’s

memorandum and monitor their progress towards the goal of having an

unqualified audit opinion on the governmentwide financial statements for

fiscal year 1999.

• The head of each agency identified by OMB submit to OMB a plan, including

milestones, for resolving by September 30, 1999, financial reporting

deficiencies identified by auditors. The initial agency plans are due to OMB

by July 31, 1998.

• The head of each agency submitting a plan provide quarterly reports to

OMB, starting on September 30, 1998, describing progress in meeting the

milestones in their action plan and any impediments that would impact the

governmentwide goal.

Page 4 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
• OMB provide periodic reports to the Vice President on the agency

submissions and governmentwide actions taken to meet the

governmentwide goal.

Specific agencies, such as the Department of Defense (DOD), are also

reacting to the results of the most recent financial audits. As we testified

before this Subcommittee on April 16, 1998, material financial

management deficiencies identified at DOD, taken together, represent the

single largest obstacle that must be effectively addressed to achieve an

unqualified opinion on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial

statements.4

 In response to DOD’s unfavorable financial audit results over

the last several years, the Secretary of Defense announced on May 15,

1998, that initiatives to improve the accuracy, timeliness, and usefulness of

financial information are to be developed through the Defense

Management Council. The Secretary has (1) instructed the Under

Secretary (Comptroller) to oversee departmentwide efforts to improve the

manner in which financial information is captured and reported in all DOD

systems—not just its financial systems—and (2) directed the secretaries of

the military departments, and other top DOD officials, to support the Under

Secretary (Comptroller) in DOD’s financial business practices reform.

Reactions such as these to address the problems identified through the

first audit of the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statements are

positive steps. In the short term, the quality of the action plans agency

heads submit to OMB in response to the President’s directive will be

critical. It is essential for these plans to define financial management

problems precisely, establish specific strategies and corrective measures

for resolving them, include implementation time frames, fix accountability

for needed actions, and be prepared in consultation with auditors.

Moreover, our experience has shown that considerable hard work,

commitment, and oversight will be necessary to translate planned steps

into concrete improvements.

The aggressiveness with which agencies implement the action plans and

pursue solutions to financial management problems will be a strong

indication of whether agency heads have a sustained commitment to

achieving financial management reform goals. Ultimately, agency heads

and their senior management team have to be accountable for results.

Again, the auditors have key roles in providing perspectives on actions

4

Department of Defense: Financial Audits Highlight Continuing Challenges to Correct Serious

Financial Management Problems (GAO/T-AIMD/NSIAD-98-158, April 16, 1998).

Page 5 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
needed to attain improvements and in assessing progress toward

implementing the action plans.

Year 2000 Computing

Crisis and

Modernizing Financial

Systems

Federal agencies will have great difficulty meeting expectations for

modernizing their financial management systems unless they effectively

meet the Year 2000 computing challenge.5

 As we have discussed in

numerous testimonies before this Subcommittee, this issue is the most

sweeping and urgent information technology challenge facing

organizations today. Strong leadership is needed to avoid major

disruptions in services and financial operations, such as processing

financial transactions, reporting financial information, controlling

property, and collecting revenue.

Unless this issue is successfully addressed, serious consequences could

occur. For example:

• payments to veterans with service-connected disabilities could be severely

delayed if the system that issues them either halts or produces checks so

erroneous that it must be shut down and checks processed manually;

• the SSA process to provide benefits to disabled persons could be disrupted

if interfaces with state systems fail;

• federal systems used to track student loans could produce erroneous

information on loan status, such as indicating that a paid loan was in

default;

• IRS tax systems could be unable to process returns, thereby jeopardizing

revenue collection and delaying refunds; and

• the military services could find it extremely difficult to efficiently and

effectively equip and sustain U.S. forces around the world.

This Subcommittee’s emphasis has helped to focus on the potential

consequences of the Year 2000 computing crisis and the need for added

impetus by some agencies to overcome vast difficulties within the next 18

months. In our most recent testimony before the Subcommittee on

June 10, 1998, we reported that progress in addressing Year 2000 continues

at a slow pace, and that as the amount of time to the turn of the century

shortens, the magnitude of what must be accomplished becomes more

5

For the past several decades, information systems have typically used two digits to represent the year,

such as “98” for 1998, in order to conserve electronic data storage and reduce operating costs. In this

format, however, 2000 is indistinguishable from 1900 because both are represented as “00.” As a result,

if not modified, computer systems or applications that use dates or perform date- or time-sensitive

calculations may generate incorrect results beyond 1999.

Page 6 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
daunting.6

 We have issued over 40 reports and testimony statements

detailing specific findings and recommendations related to the Year 2000

readiness of a wide range of federal agencies. Moreover, to reduce the risk

of widespread disruptions, we have made several governmentwide

recommendations to the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion and

OMB to expedite the efforts of federal agencies and build strong

partnerships with the private sector and state and local governments.

This will likely affect the pace of progress on modernizing financial

systems, as some agencies’ efforts to address the Year 2000 computing

crisis are taking precedence over longer-term financial management

systems development and improvement initiatives. Unless successfully

dealt with, this crisis presents the likelihood of new financial management

systems weaknesses occurring, existing problems worsening, and ongoing

reform efforts being derailed.

Congressional

Oversight Is Key

Congressional attention is essential to help sustain the current momentum

to implement financial management reform legislation. There are clear

indications that the results of financial audits are beginning to attract

increasing attention from various congressional committees.

One instance involves the audit of IRS’s financial statements. During our

first audits, beginning with fiscal year 1992, we identified serious problems

and were unable to give an opinion on IRS’s financial statements. The head

of IRS was called before congressional committees in both the House and

Senate on numerous occasions to explain the steps IRS was taking, and the

progress it was making, to overcome them. On April 15, 1998, we testified7

before this Subcommittee that after several years of concerted effort by IRS

and GAO, we were, for the first time, able to conclude that IRS’s custodial

financial statements were reliable.8

 These positive results show that

focused attention by the Congress and this Subcommittee on IRS’s financial

management has begun to improve information available to IRS

management and to the Congress to help make decisions.

6

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Actions Must Be Taken Now to Address Slow Pace of Federal Progress

(GAO/T-AIMD-98-205, June 10, 1998).

7

Internal Revenue Service: Remaining Challenges to Achieve Lasting Financial Management

Improvements (GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-98-139, April 15, 1998).

8

Financial Audit: Examination of IRS’ Fiscal Year 1997 Custodial Financial Statements

(GAO/AIMD-98-77, February 26, 1998).

Page 7 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
In addition, issues raised by financial audits are beginning to prompt

inquiries among various congressional committees, as exemplified by the

following.

• In its reports for the fiscal years 1997 and 1998 appropriations bills, the

Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and

Related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations (1) set the

expectation that the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,

and Education work vigorously toward obtaining clean audit opinions,

(2) questioned whether these agencies could properly exercise the

substantial transfer and reprogramming authority granted to them under

the appropriations act if substantial financial management reform progress

had not been made, and (3) stated that in subsequent years it would

consider the agencies’ progress in making such reforms and obtaining

clean financial statement audit opinions when scrutinizing requests for

appropriations and in deciding whether to continue, expand, or limit

transfer and reprogramming authority.

• The Chairman of the House Committee on the Budget asked us to monitor

the Forest Service’s progress in improving the reliability of its accounting

and financial data, which also contributed to a recent joint hearing before

the House Committee on Resources, Committee on the Budget, and

Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee on

Appropriations, focusing on inefficiency and waste resulting from the

Forest Service’s lack of financial and performance accountability.9

• After considering funding for DOD for fiscal year 1998, the Senate Armed

Services Committee legislatively required DOD to prepare biennial financial

management improvement plans that include a concept of operations for

the financial management of the department.10 The first such plan is to be

submitted to the Congress by September 30, 1998. In approving DOD’s 1997

and 1998 appropriations, the Congress also put in place a legislative

requirement to accelerate DOD’s planned timetable for addressing

long-standing problems in accurately and promptly accounting for billions

of dollars in disbursements.11 Additionally, as part of DOD’s 1999

authorization, the Senate Armed Services Committee has approved a

9

Financial Management: Forest Service’s Progress Toward Financial Accountability

(GAO/AIMD-97-151R, August 29, 1997), Forest Service: Status of Progress Toward Financial

Accountability (GAO/AIMD-98-84, February 27, 1998, and Forest Service: Lack of Financial and

Performance Accountability Has Resulted in Inefficiency and Waste (GAO/T-RCED/AIMD-98-135,

March 26, 1998).

10Financial Management: Comments on DFAS’ Draft Federal Accounting Standards and Requirements

(GAO/AIMD-97-108R, June 16, 1997).

11Financial Management: DOD Needs to Lower the Disbursement Prevalidation Threshold

(GAO/AIMD-96-82, June 11, 1996).

Page 8 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
requirement for DOD to provide a detailed annual report on the quantities

and locations of DOD’s multibillion dollar investment in inventories and

military equipment.

• The Chairman of the House Budget Committee asked us to analyze the

programmatic and budgetary implications of the financial data

deficiencies enumerated by the auditors’ examination of the Department

of the Navy’s fiscal year 1996 financial statements. In March 1998, we

advised the Chairman that the extent and nature of the Navy’s financial

deficiencies identified by the auditors, including those that relate to

supporting management systems, increases the risk of waste, fraud, and

misappropriation of Navy funds and can drain resources needed for

defense mission priorities.12

• On April 24, 1998, this Subcommittee and the House Committee on

Commerce’s Subcommittees on Oversight and Investigations, Health and

Environment held a joint hearing on the Department of Health and Human

Service Inspector General’s audit of the Health Care Financing

Administration’s fiscal year 1997 financial statements. This helped focus

attention on fixing the control weaknesses associated with the more than

$20 billion of improper payments in the Medicare fee-for-service program

disclosed by the financial audit.

• In February 1998, we assisted the Chairman of the House Committee on

the Budget in considering the possible program and budgetary

implications of the questions raised about financial statement data

deficiencies identified in the Department of Transportation Inspector

General’s audit report on the Federal Aviation Administration’s fiscal year

1996 Statement of Financial Position.13

In addition to initiatives by individual congressional committees, the

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act provides the Congress

another tool in monitoring the progress of all 24 CFO Act agencies in

improving financial systems. The act is intended to increase accountability

in federal financial management and develop systems with the capability

to support FASAB standards. FFMIA also provides for an independent

judgment by auditors of agencies’ efforts to foster compliance with

financial management improvement goals.

Under the act, agencies are required to comply with federal accounting

standards, federal financial systems requirements, and the U.S.

12CFO Act Financial Audits: Programmatic and Budgetary Implications of Navy Financial Data

Deficiencies (GAO/AIMD-98-56, March 16, 1998).

13Financial Management: Federal Aviation Administration Lacked Accountability for Major Assets

(GAO/AIMD-98-62, February 18, 1998).

Page 9 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
government’s standard general ledger at the transaction level. This

legislation also requires (1) auditors performing financial audits under the

CFO Act to report whether agencies comply with these requirements and

(2) if agencies do not comply, agency heads are to prepare remediation

plans to bring financial management systems into substantial compliance

within 3 years.

We reported in October 199714 that prior audit results and agency

self-reporting all point to significant challenges that agencies must meet to

fully implement these requirements. The majority of federal agencies’

financial management systems are not designed to meet current

accounting standards and systems requirements and cannot provide

reliable financial information for managing government operations and

holding managers accountable. Auditors’ reports for fiscal year 1997

agency financial audits are disclosing the continuing poor shape in which

agencies find their financial systems. To date, the financial systems of only

four agencies are reported to be in substantial compliance with the

requirements and standards FFMIA specifies.15

The Congress can build further upon this structure by conducting annual

hearings on each agency as part of the regular appropriation,

authorization, and oversight process. Each year, congressional committees

could review the results of agencies’ most recent financial statement

audits and FFMIA reports to gauge the progress agencies are making in

improving financial management. Agency heads could be required to

describe remedial actions being taken to address financial management

problems identified by independent auditors.

Through this process, the Congress can, therefore, be in an informed

position to assess progress in achieving legislative financial management

improvement reforms, addressing the Year 2000 computing crisis, and

meeting the President’s financial statement audit goals. This would allow

thorough consideration of the severity of an agency’s financial

management problems, the demonstrated commitment to improvement

efforts, and the independent perspectives of the auditors on an agency’s

progress in responding to financial statement audit recommendations.

14Financial Management: Implementation of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of

1996 (GAO/AIMD-98-1, October 1, 1997).

15The agencies reported to be in substantial compliance are the Department of Energy, the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the General Services

Administration.

Page 10 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
Using the results of this assessment, the Congress can clearly determine

accountability and tailor needed additional actions.

Based on the circumstances of individual agencies on a case-by-case basis,

the Congress could, for example, consider whether (1) in areas of special

concern, to require attainment of specified improvements within

established milestones before certain funds supporting administrative

operations or systems would be available for obligation, (2) to expand,

continue, or limit transfer or reprogramming authority depending on the

quality of an agency’s financial management, (3) to target, or set aside,

needed funding for financial management improvement efforts that are

deemed necessary to achieve progress and require periodic status reports

on the return for this investment, or (4) to scrutinize funding requests, and

perhaps consider limiting funds, in areas where agencies cannot provide

satisfactory answers to questions raised about the quality of the data

underpinning the request or their ability to properly account for the

expenditures.

These mechanisms—sustained congressional attention as part of the

normal oversight process and agency head accountability—are essential to

continue to effectively implement the financial management reform

legislative foundation the Congress has established. They are key elements

of ensuring that agencies make the investment of time, talent, and

resources necessary to achieve needed financial management

improvements.

With a concerted effort, the federal government, as a whole, can continue

to make progress toward ensuring full accountability and generating

reliable information on a regular basis. Annual financial statement audits

are essential to ensuring the effectiveness of the improvements now

underway and, ultimately, to producing the reliable and complete

information needed by decisionmakers and the public to evaluate the

government’s financial performance. They are also central to assuring

taxpayers that their money is being used as intended and helping the

government implement broad management reforms called for by the

Government Performance and Results Act.

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

respond to any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee

may have at this time.

Page 11 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
Attachment I 

Statements of Federal Financial Accounting

Concepts and Standards

Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts (SFFAC)

Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting (SFFAC 1)

Entity and Display (SFFAC 2)

Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS)

Accounting for Selected Assets and Liabilities (SFFAS 1)

Accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees (SFFAS 2)

Accounting for Inventory and Related Property (SFFAS 3)

Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards (SFFAS 4)

Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government (SFFAS 5)

Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment (SFFAS 6)

Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources (SFFAS 7)

Supplementary Stewardship Reporting (SFFAS 8)

Deferral of the Effective Date of Managerial Cost Accounting Standards for the Federal

Government in SFFAS 4 (SFFAS 9)

Interpretations

Accounting for Indian Trust Funds (Interpretation 1)

Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions (Interpretation 2)

Measurement Date for Pension and Retirement Health Care Liabilities (Interpretation 3)

Accounting for Pension Payments in Excess of Pension Expense (Interpretation 4)

(919285) Page 12 GAO/T-AIMD-98-215
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100