United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings and Emergency 

Management, Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

FEDERAL COURTHOUSES

Rent Increases Due to New 

Space and Growing Energy 

and Security Costs Require 

Better Tracking and 

Management 

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, June 22, 2006

 

GAO-06-892T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2006

FEDERAL COURTHOUSES 

Rent Increases Due to New Space and 

Growing Energy and Security Costs 

Require Better Tracking and Management 

Highlights of GAO-06-892T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Economic 

Development, Public Buildings and 

Emergency Management, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House 

of Representatives 

The judiciary pays over $900

million in rent annually to GSA for 

court-related space, representing a 

growing proportion of the 

judiciary’s budget. The judiciary’s 

rent payments are deposited into

GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund 

(FBF), a revolving fund used to 

finance GSA’s real property 

services, including the construction 

and repair of federal facilities 

under GSA control. In December 

2004, the judiciary requested a $483

million dollar permanent, annual

rent exemption which GSA denied,

saying that it undermined the intent 

of FBF and that GSA was unlikely 

to obtain appropriations to replace 

lost FBF income. GAO reviewed (1)

recent trends in the judiciary’s rent

and space occupied and (2) 

challenges that the judiciary faces 

in managing its rent costs.

What GAO Recommends

In an associated report, GAO 

recommended that the judiciary (1)

track rent trends and (2) improve 

its management of space and 

associated costs by providing

incentives for efficient use and

updating its space allocation 

criteria. AOUSC strongly disagreed 

with our report and said that it 

does not believe tracking data 

recommended by GAO would be

useful. We believe otherwise.

AOUSC also said it is already

implementing incentives and 

updating its criteria, however, the

actions it identified do not fully 

address our recommendations. 

GSA generally agreed with the 

report. 

The federal judiciary’s rental obligations to GSA for courthouses have 

increased from $780 million to $990 million or 27 percent from fiscal years

2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation—primarily due to a 

simultaneous net increase in space from 33.6 million to 39.8 million rentable 

square feet, a 19 percent increase nationwide. Much of the net increase in 

space was the result of new courthouses that the judiciary has taken 

occupancy of since 2000. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts (AOUSC), the judiciary’s workload has grown substantially and the 

number of court staff has doubled since 1985. Shell rent (the building with 

basic infrastructure) increased proportionately with square footage growth, 

but operational (utilities and general maintenance) and security costs grew

disproportionately higher than square footage due to external factors, such 

as increasing energy costs and security requirements. Neither GSA nor the 

judiciary had routinely and comprehensively analyzed the factors causing 

rent increases, making it more difficult for the judiciary to manage increases.

The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to Growth in the Net Square

Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 

The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rental 

obligations, including costly new construction requirements, a lack of 

incentives for efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation criteria for 

appeals and senior judges. First, building enhancements, such as three 

separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public, and 

structural and architectural elements make courthouses among the most 

expensive federal facilities to construct in GSA’s inventory, often leading to 

higher rent payments. Second, the judiciary has begun a rent validation 

effort intended to monitor GSA rent charges, but it does not address the lack 

of incentives for efficient space management at the circuit and district levels. 

An example of the inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern District of 

Virginia, where the judiciary paid about $272,000 in 2005 to rent space for an 

appeals judge in McLean, Virginia, in addition to paying for space designated 

for that judge in a nearby federal courthouse that the judiciary later used for 

alternative purposes. Finally, the lack of criteria for assigning courtrooms 

for appeals and senior judges can contribute to inefficiencies in the amount 

of space provided, which can result in higher rent payments. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-892T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Democratic Member, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on our work 

related to federal courthouse rents. Since the early 1990s, the General 

Services Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary1

 have undertaken 

a multibillion dollar courthouse construction initiative to address what the 

judiciary has identified as growing needs. According to the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), the judiciary’s workload has grown 

substantially and the number of court staff has doubled since 1985. The 

judiciary pays over $900 million in rent annually to GSA to occupy courtrelated space, and this amount represents a growing proportion of the 

judiciary’s budget. The rent payments, which by law approximate 

commercial rates, are deposited into GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). 

With slightly over 20 percent of its budget allocated for rent payments, in 

December 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual

exemption from rent payments to GSA so that according to judiciary 

officials, the judiciary would not have to cut personnel to pay the rent. In 

denying the judiciary’s requested rent exemption, GSA noted that FBF was 

designed to encourage efficient space utilization by making agencies 

accountable for the space they occupy, and that it is unlikely GSA could 

obtain direct appropriations to replace lost FBF income. In June 2005, we

testified2

 that federal agencies’ rent payments provided a relatively stable, 

predictable source of revenue for FBF, but that this revenue has not been 

sufficient to finance both growing capital investment needs and the cost of 

leased space. In fact there have been several direct appropriations to FBF 

to cover this funding gap. We also found that previous rent exemptions, 

such as the one requested by the judiciary, hampered GSA’s ability to 

generate sufficient revenue for needed capital investment. You asked us to

review the judiciary’s courthouse rent costs. 

Today my testimony will discuss (1) recent trends in the judiciary’s rent 

payments and square footage occupied; and (2) challenges that the 

 1

 The federal judiciary is comprised of 94 judicial districts organized around state 

boundaries and grouped into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States Court 

of Appeals. There is also a 13th Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which

has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving 

patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal 

Claims. 

2

 GAO, Courthouse Construction: Overview of Previous and Ongoing Work, GAO-05-838T

(Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 

Page 1 GAO-06-892T 
judiciary faces in managing its rent costs. My statement is based on our 

report that will also be released today.3

 In summary, we found the 

following: 

• About two-thirds of the judiciary’s $210 million rent increase from fiscal 

years 2000 through 2005 is attributable to a 19 percent increase in net 

square footage. The remaining increase is attributable to 

disproportionately high increases in security and operating costs. We also 

found that neither the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and

comprehensively analyzed the factors influencing the rent increases. In the 

report released with this testimony, we recommended that the judiciary 

begin tracking and analyzing rent trends in order to improve its 

understanding and ability to manage its rent costs. The judiciary agreed 

that tracking trends is necessary, but said that the specific types of data 

we recommended would not be particularly useful for program planning, 

management, or budgeting purposes. 

• The judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rent costs including 

costly architectural and structural requirements for modern courthouses, a 

lack of incentives for efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation 

criteria for appeals and senior district judges. AOUSC also identified 

several challenges in addition to the ones we identified, including 

statutorily designated places of holding court, the benefits to GSA and the

Federal Buildings Fund of backfilling courthouses with other courts, and 

inconsistencies in the funding stream for courthouse construction 

projects. In our report released with this testimony, we recommended that 

the judiciary establish incentives to encourage local decision makers to 

use space efficiently and improve its space allocation criteria in a number 

of ways. The judiciary disagreed that additional space allocation criteria 

are needed for appeals courts and senior judges, and said that it has 

already started updating its space allocation criteria related to

technological advancements and plans to consider other changes in the 

future. 

Federal agencies, including the judiciary, that operate in facilities under 

the control and custody of GSA are required to pay rent for the space they

occupy. Rent payments, which by law must approximate commercial 

rates, are deposited into the FBF, which is a revolving fund that GSA uses 

Background 

 3

GAO, Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing Energy and 

Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management , GAO-06-613 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 22, 2006). 

Page 2 GAO-06-892T 
to provide a range of real property services, including maintenance, 

repairs, and alterations, to space occupied by federal agencies. GSA, 

through FBF, encourages federal agencies to be accountable for the space 

they use by requiring them to budget and pay for their own space 

requirements. A committee report accompanying the enactment of FBF 

noted that because each agency would have to budget for its space needs, 

doing so would promote more efficient and economical use of space by

government agencies.4

 The judiciary’s rent payments represent roughly 15

percent of all rent payments made into FBF, making it one of the two 

largest contributors.5

On the basis of a rent pricing policy introduced in the late 1990s, the rent

GSA charges is composed principally of shell rent, operating expenses, 

tenant improvements, and security costs. These components account for 

over 96 percent of the judiciary’s rent bill payments in fiscal year 2005. 

• The shell rent represents the cost of using the structure, base building 

systems, concrete floor, and basic wall and ceiling finishes and is the 

largest rent component, representing 60 percent of the judiciary’s annual

rent bill payments in fiscal year 2005.6

 For most government-owned 

properties, shell rent does not represent the actual costs, but is based 

instead on comparable private sector commercial rents in the local 

commercial market. 

• Tenant improvements reflect customizing space for that tenant and can 

include private offices, special type spaces, floor covering, doors, and 

wood finishes. The tenant is responsible for deciding how to finish the 

space beyond some basic minimum standards and thus has control over

much of the cost. GSA officials have said that the judiciary has the highest

costs for tenant improvements in its inventory because of the level of 

finishes needed in federal courthouses. Unlike the other rent components, 

tenant improvement costs are removed from the rent bill once the tenant 

has completely paid for them. 

• Operating costs—which cover cleaning; general maintenance; and heating, 

air conditioning, and other utilities—are set as part of the market appraisal 

 4

H.R. Rep. No. 92-989, at 3 & 4 (1972). 

5

The other is the Department of Justice. 

6

According to GSA, it uses shell rent proceeds to finance the cost of acquiring, repairing,

altering, and operating buildings under the custody and control of GSA. 

Page 3 GAO-06-892T 
for the shell rent in owned space. But unlike the shell rent, operating costs

are adjusted annually for inflation in between appraisals. 

• Until fiscal year 2005, the judiciary paid Federal Protective Service (FPS) 

security costs to GSA as part of its rent payment. Starting in fiscal year 

2005, however, the judiciary began paying these security costs directly to 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after FPS was transferred to 

that department. However, since FPS security costs still exist, and they 

were an important part of rent for all of the other years we analyzed, we 

included these costs as if they were still part of annual rent bill payments 

for fiscal year 2005. 

• Rent is also composed of several other components, including fees for 

parking, building joint use, antennas, and GSA’s Public Buildings Service.

These other components comprised about 4 percent of the judiciary’s 

entire rent bill in fiscal year 2005. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States (Judicial Conference) is the

judiciary’s principal policy making body. The Judicial Conference works in 

coordination with AOUSC, which is responsible for administering the 

federal judiciary’s budget as well as performing other programmatic and 

administrative functions, such as paying the judiciary’s rent bill from its 

annual appropriations from Congress. Each circuit has a judicial council,

which is composed of federal judges in that circuit, and the council has the 

authority to determine the need for all space accommodation within its 

circuit. As such, the district, bankruptcy, and appeals courts occupy space

in courthouses or lease space in other federal or private office buildings. 

The district courts are the trial courts of the federal court system, housing 

both district and magistrate judges. They occupy the most space within the 

federal judiciary. The district courts have jurisdiction to hear nearly all 

categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal matters. The 

federal judiciary has exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases, which 

are overseen by bankruptcy judges. The court of appeals from each circuit 

hears appeals from the district courts located within its boundaries, as 

well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. Figure 1 

illustrates the rentable square feet distribution within the federal judiciary. 

Page 4 GAO-06-892T 
Figure 1: Space Distribution within the Federal Judiciary in Fiscal Year 2005 

Note: The remaining space is composed of AOUSC, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and other 

specialized federal courts. 

The federal judiciary’s rental obligations for federally owned and leased

space have steadily risen from $780 million to $990 million, or 27 percent 

from fiscal years 2000 through 2005, after controlling for inflation using the 

Gross Domestic Product price index. During this period, the judiciary had

a net increase in the amount of space it occupies, from 33.6 million to 39.8 

million rentable square feet, which is a 19 percent increase nationwide. 

About two-thirds of the rent increase is attributable to this increase in 

square footage. Among the components of rent, shell (the building with 

basic infrastructure) grew proportionately with the amount of net space 

added—about 19 percent. However, increases in operating costs (driven 

by increases in energy costs) and security costs grew disproportionately

higher than the percentage of net space added, thus contributing to the 

overall increase in rent (see figure 2). The costs of tenant improvements 

(finishes such as carpeting) increased at a slower rate than the amount of

net space added. AOUSC disagreed with our methods for attributing costs 

to the judiciary’s net growth in square footage. We continue to believe that 

our methods are sound. 

68%

11%

17%

4%

Bankruptcy courts

(6.7 million square feet)

Remaining space

(1.6 million square feet)

District courts

(27.6 million square feet)

Courts of Appeals

(4.4 million square feet)

Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.

Increases in Square 

Footage and 

Operating and 

Security Costs have 

Driven Increases in 

the Judiciary’s Rent 

Bill from Fiscal Years 

2000 through 2005 

Page 5 GAO-06-892T 
Figure 2: The Approximate Share of Judiciary Rent Increases Attributable to the Net 

Growth in Square Footage and Other Factors (Fiscal Years 2000 through 2005) 

Square footage and total rent growth occurred in all years, circuits, and 

courts (see figure 3). The judiciary’s rent increases have outpaced those of

other agencies located in GSA space, largely because the federal 

judiciary’s square footage is growing faster than that of other agencies. 

However, the rate of operating cost growth was similar to that 

experienced by other agencies.7

 7

 Interagency comparisons regarding security costs are not possible since the methods used 

to secure federal courthouses differ from other agencies. 

Page 6 GAO-06-892T 
Figure 3: Percentage Net Change in Square Footage and Major Rent Bill Components, by Judicial Circuit, Fiscal Years 2000 

through 2005 

Note: The Federal and District of Columbia circuits were included in the aggregate statistics but are 

not listed in the map. 

Page 7 GAO-06-892T 
Much of the judiciary’s recent growth in net square footage was caused by

the construction of new courthouses. New courthouses represent about 

8.8 million rentable square feet of new space that the judiciary has taken

occupancy of since fiscal year 1998 (a larger timeframe than our rent trend 

data). According to judiciary officials, much of the judiciary’s growth and 

accompanying space-related needs have been the result of elevating 

workloads, such as increases experienced in civil case filings. The 

judiciary’s courthouse construction effort may continue. Before it imposed 

a moratorium in 2005, postponing new courthouse construction projects 

for two years, the judiciary indicated that it had 35 additional courthouse 

construction projects planned for fiscal years 2005 through 2009, 

estimated to cost billions of dollars. According to AOUSC, these projects 

will be subject to the judiciary’s new asset management planning process 

that will consider renovation and other ways to limit new construction. As 

of May 2006, no final decisions had been made. 

We found that neither the judiciary nor GSA had routinely and 

comprehensively analyzed the factors influencing the rent increases. This

information could help the judiciary better understand the reasons behind 

its rent increases, make more informed space allocation decisions in the 

future, and identify errors in GSA’s billing. Furthermore, the lack of a full 

understanding of the reasons for increases in the judiciary rent, in our 

view, contributed to growing hostility between the judiciary and GSA. 

Conversely, GSA’s lack of full understanding of the reasons for the rent 

increases left it unable to justify them to the judiciary and other 

stakeholders, such as Congress. 

The federal judiciary faces several challenges to managing its rent costs 

including costly new construction requirements, a lack of incentives for 

efficient space use, and a lack of space allocation criteria for appeals and

senior district judges. First, modern courthouses require structural and 

architectural elements that make them among the most costly types of 

federal space to construct. Chief among these elements are the three 

separate circulation patterns for judges, prisoners, and the public that the 

U.S. Marshals Service requires for security (see figure 4). These 

construction costs necessitate rental rates under GSA’s pricing policy that

are more expensive than the highest-quality office space in some markets, 

including Denver, Colorado; Phoenix, Arizona; and Seattle, Washington. 

This necessitates GSA using an approach for calculating rent charges that

is based on the costs to construct the building—known as return on 

investment pricing—instead of an appraisal. The judiciary’s policy of 

providing one courtroom per district judge sets the number of courtrooms 

Judiciary Faces a 

Number of Challenges 

but Could Take 

Actions to Better 

Manage Its Future 

Rent Payments

Page 8 GAO-06-892T 
needed in new federal courthouses and adds space requirements, 

consequently increasing rent payments. 

Page 9 GAO-06-892T 
Figure 4: Sample Courtroom and Associated Support Spaces That Were Based on Design Guide Criteria 

The judiciary has initiated a rent validation effort, but it does not address 

the lack of incentives for efficient space use at the circuit and district 

levels. Because rent is paid centrally by AOUSC, circuits and districts have 

Page 10 GAO-06-892T 
few incentives to efficiently manage their space. An example of the 

inefficiencies that may result is in the Eastern District of Virginia, where 

the judiciary paid about $272,000 in 2005 to rent 4,600 square feet of office 

space for an appeals judge in McLean, Virginia, in addition to paying for 

4,300 square feet of chamber space originally designated for that judge in

the Albert V. Bryan U.S. Courthouse in nearby Alexandria, Virginia. 

According to AOUSC, the judiciary has subsequently pursued alternative 

uses for this chamber space. 

During site visits, we observed multiple instances of unused or unassigned 

courtrooms, chambers, and support spaces. Although planning and 

building for future needs may limit alternative uses of space until it is 

occupied, some of this underutilization is the result of outdated criteria, 

which stipulated the existence of support areas, such as libraries, that in 

some cases are now rarely used. In most cases, this was because judicial 

officers are increasingly turning to electronic sources and research and

keeping the limited number of books they need in their chambers. 

However, since the Design Guide provides space for law libraries, the 

districts we visited all had them (see figure 5). 

Page 11 GAO-06-892T 
Figure 5: Law Library in the Evo A. Deconcini Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona

Source: GAO.

Assigning space to appeals courts and senior district judges poses 

challenges due to a lack of criteria, which can lead to variation and 

inefficiencies and, thus, higher rent. Although the appeals court is required 

by law to hold court in specific locations, the statute does not indicate 

how much space it should occupy. For example, the judiciary plans to 

increase the space the appeals courts occupy by taking over former 

district courthouses in Richmond, Virginia, and Seattle, Washington, for 

appeals court use, even though the appeals courts conduct court there 

Page 12 GAO-06-892T 
once a month or less. Circuit and district officials said that national 

criteria for managing the space allocated to the appeals courts and senior 

district judges could help limit the space assigned to them. In commenting 

on the report associated with this testimony, AOUSC also identified 

several challenges in addition to the ones we identified that we 

subsequently incorporated into the report but did not evaluate. These 

included statutorily designated places of holding court, the benefits to 

GSA and the Federal Buildings Fund in backfilling courthouses with other 

courts, and inconsistencies in the funding stream for courthouse 

construction projects. 

We made the following five recommendations to the judiciary in our report 

associated with this testimony8

 in order to help the federal judiciary better 

understand and manage rent costs: 

Recommendations 

1. Work with GSA to track rent and square footage trend data on an 

annual basis for the following factors: 

• rent component (shell rent, operations, tenant improvements, and 

other costs) and security (paid to the Department of Homeland 

Security); 

• judicial function (district, appeals, and bankruptcy); 

• rentable square footage; and 

• geographic location (circuit and district levels).

This data will allow the judiciary to create a better national understanding 

of the effect that local space management decisions have on rent and to 

identify any mistakes in GSA data. 

2. Work with the Judicial Conference of the United States to improve the 

way it manages its space and associated rent costs. 

A. Create incentives for districts/circuits to manage space more 

efficiently. These incentives could take several forms, such as a 

pilot project that that charges rent to circuits and/or districts to 

encourage more efficient space usage. 

 8

GAO-06-613. 

Page 13 GAO-06-892T 
B. Revise the Design Guide to establish criteria for the number of 

appeals courtrooms and chambers and the space allocated for 

senior district judges and make additional improvements to space 

allocation standards related to technological advancements (e.g., 

libraries, court reporter space, and staff efficiency due to 

technology) and decrease requirements where appropriate. 

We provided a draft of the report that is being released today9

 to GSA and 

AOUSC for official review and comment and received written comments 

from both. GSA agreed with the thrust of the report and concurred with 

our recommendations, but expressed one concern. GSA felt it was more 

aware of the reasons for rent increases than our draft portrayed. In 

commenting on the report associated with this testimony, AOUSC said 

that it does not believe tracking the data recommended by GAO would be 

useful—we disagree with this assessment. AOUSC also said it is already 

implementing incentives and updating its criteria, however the actions it 

identified do not fully address our recommendations. For a more thorough 

discussion of the agency comments, see the report associated with this 

testimony.10

We conducted our work from May 2005 to May 2006 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. During our work, we 

analyzed nationwide judiciary rent data generated from GSA’s billing data, 

reviewed laws and the regulation related to FBF and GSA’s rent pricing 

process and policies, and reviewed the U.S. Courts Design Guide and 

other judiciary rent planning documents. Additionally, we conducted site 

visits at federal courthouses in the following districts: Arizona, Eastern 

Virginia, Maryland, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington. We 

selected Arizona, Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Western Washington 

because they were in districts that experienced large overall rent increases

from fiscal years 2000 through 2005 and were geographically dispersed. 

We also visited Maryland and Eastern Virginia court facilities while we 

were designing this audit and included them in the review because they 

contained a new courthouse, a renovated courthouse, and a courthouse 

that was targeted for replacement. The findings from these courthouse 

visits can not be generalized to the population of federal courthouses 

Agency Comments 

Scope and 

Methodology 

 9

GAO-06-613. 

10GAO-06-613. 

Page 14 GAO-06-892T 
nationwide. We interviewed district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; 

officials from the AOUSC, which is the judiciary’s administrative agency; 

clerks, circuit executives, and other representatives from U.S. circuit and 

district courts with authority over space and facilities; GSA officials in 

headquarters and the regions; and other real property management 

experts. We determined that the rent data were sufficiently reliable for the 

purposes of our review. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my 

prepared statement, I would be pleased to respond to any questions that 

you or the other Members of the Subcommittee may have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Keith Cunningham, Randy DeLeon, Bess 

Eisenstadt, Brandon Haller, Grant Mallie, Susan Michal-Smith, Joshua 

Ormond, Elizabeth Repko, David Sausville, and Gary Stofko made key 

contributions to this statement. 

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

Page 15 GAO-06-892T (543176) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER