United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Science

House of Representatives

Not to Be Released

Before 12:00 noon EDT

Wednesday

July 10, 1996

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Key Steps and Challenges In

Implementing GPRA In

Science Agencies

Statement for the Record by

L. Nye Stevens, Director, Federal Management

and Workforce Issues, General Government Division; and

Victor S. Rezendes, Director, Energy, Resources,

and Science Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214

Summary 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

The commitment to reduce the deficit is forcing Congress and the

executive branch to undertake a basic reexamination of the value of

programs across the federal government and is placing pressure as never

before on all federal agencies, including the civilian science agencies, to

clearly demonstrate that they are making effective use of taxpayers’

dollars.

The landmark Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) provides a

legislative vehicle for Congress and agencies to use to improve program

effectiveness and make the difficult trade-offs that the current budget

environment demands. GAO’s recently released Executive Guide:

Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

discusses three key steps for federal agencies to successfully implement

GPRA. These three steps are (1) define mission and desired outcomes,

(2) measure performance, and (3) use performance information. The

experiences of civilian science agencies suggest that each one of these

steps offers important opportunities for improving agency management

and congressional decisionmaking.

GAO work has shown that the effectiveness of the Department of Energy,

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and a host of other

agencies has been hampered by unfocused missions and unclear goals.

GPRA is intended to provide this focus, in part by requiring that agencies

develop strategic plans based on consultation with Congress and other

stakeholders. These consultations are an important opportunity for

Congress and the executive branch to jointly reassess and clarify the

agencies’ missions and desired outcomes.

Measuring the performance of science-related projects can be extremely

difficult because a wide range of factors determine if and how a particular

research and development (R&D) project will result in a commercial

application or have other benefits. It can also take many years between

when a research project is undertaken and when the outcome occurs. Due

to the difficulties in measuring performance, R&D agencies typically have

chosen to measure a variety of proxies for outcomes, such as the number

of patents resulting from the federally funded research and expert review

and judgments of the quality and importance of research findings.

As to be expected during the initial efforts of such a challenging

management reform effort as GPRA, most agencies, including science

agencies, are still struggling to integrate the mission-based goal-setting and

performance measurement requirements of GPRA into their daily program

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Summary 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

operations. This integration is important because GPRA performance

information is to be used to guide an array of congressional and executive

branch decisions. Consistent congressional interest—in hearings such as

today’s, for example—on the status of an agency’s GPRA efforts, the

performance measures it is using, and how performance information is

being used to make decisions will send an unmistakable message to

agencies that Congress expects GPRA to be conscientiously implemented.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the key steps and

challenges in using the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

to improve federal civilian science agencies’ management and

congressional decisionmaking.

Each year, American taxpayers invest about $70 billion of federal funds in

military and civilian research and development (R&D) efforts. Over the

years, this investment has yielded substantial benefits to the health,

welfare, and security of the American people. Yet the powerful pressures

to reduce the deficit are forcing Congress and the executive branch to

undertake a basic reexamination of the value of programs across the

federal government and to update the nation’s spending priorities. The

effort to reduce the deficit is therefore placing pressure as never before on

all federal agencies, including the civilian science agencies, to clearly

demonstrate that they are making sound and effective use of taxpayers’

dollars.

Fortunately, the landmark GPRA provides a legislative vehicle for agencies

to use as they seek to demonstrate and improve their effectiveness.

Equally important, if successfully implemented, GPRA should help Congress

make the difficult funding, policy, and program decisions that the current

budget environment demands. Under GPRA, agencies are to set strategic

and annual goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to

which goals are met. Congress intended for GPRA to fundamentally shift the

focus of federal management and accountability from a preoccupation

with staffing and activity levels to a focus on “outcomes” of federal

programs. Outcomes are results expressed in terms of the difference

federal programs make in people’s lives.

In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that the types of management

changes that successful implementation will require will not come quickly

or easily for many agencies. As a result, GPRA is being phased in initially

through almost 70 pilot projects during fiscal years 1994 through 1996 to

provide agencies with experience in meeting its requirements before

governmentwide implementation in the fall of 1997. Several agencies with

a major civilian science focus, such as the Department of Energy (DOE),

the Environment Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, and the National Science Foundation (NSF),

have programs that are included in the pilot phase of GPRA.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Our recently released Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the

Government Performance and Results Act, which, at the request of the

Committee, we are providing for the record, is intended to help federal

managers implement GPRA and make the difficult transition to a form of

management and accountability that stresses outcomes.1

 In the guide, we

discuss three key steps for federal agencies to successfully implement

results-oriented management. These three steps are (1) define mission and

desired outcomes, (2) measure performance, and (3) use performance

information. The guide shows the relationship of these steps to GPRA and

highlights important practices associated with each step. The guide also

discusses the role of top leadership in implementing GPRA and the

practices leaders can follow to make GPRA a driving force in federal

decisionmaking. Accompanying the discussion of each practice is a case

illustration describing a federal agency that has made progress

incorporating the practice into its operations. The practices discussed in

the guide emerged from the experiences of leading public organizations

here and abroad and have been shown to be effective in the federal

management environment. These practices provide a useful framework for

agencies working to implement GPRA and for assessing their progress.

Our comments today use that framework to underscore the opportunities

and challenges to using GPRA as a vehicle that agencies and Congress can

employ as they seek to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of civilian

science programs. Our comments are based on completed and ongoing

reviews of efforts to implement GPRA in pilot and nonpilot agencies across

the federal government and of the management of civilian science

agencies.

Step 1: Define Mission

and Desired

Outcomes

Our work has shown that all too frequently individual agencies have

lacked clear missions and goals, and related agencies’ efforts have not

been complementary. Moreover, legislative mandates may be unclear and

Congress, the executive branch, and other stakeholders may not agree on

the goals an agency and its programs should be trying to achieve, the

strategies for achieving those goals, and the ways to measure their

success. Thus, many agencies cannot confidently answer the basic

questions in defining a mission—what is our purpose, whom do we serve,

and how do we meet our mission? GPRA seeks to address these problems

by requiring executive branch agencies to develop strategic plans that are

to define missions and articulate strategic goals.

1

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

(GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Although statutory requirements are to be the starting point for agency

mission statements, agencies are to consult with Congress and other

stakeholders in defining their missions. In the case of Congress, this may

entail identifying legislative changes that are needed either to clarify

Congress’ intent and expectations or to address differing conditions and

citizens’ needs that have arisen since initial statutory requirements were

established. Congressional consultation may also involve obtaining

guidance on Congress’ priorities in those frequent cases where agencies

have more than one statutory mission.

Clarifying Agencies’

Missions

These consultations are an important opportunity for Congress and the

executive branch to work together in reassessing and clarifying the

missions of federal agencies and the desired outcomes of agencies’

programs. For example, our work has shown that DOE sorely needs a

reevaluation of its basic mission, including its significant science

responsibilities.2 DOE’s mission and priorities have changed dramatically

over time so that DOE is now very different from what it was in 1977 when

it was created in response to the nation’s energy crisis. While energy

research, conservation, and policymaking dominated early DOE priorities,

national defense and environmental clean-up now overshadow those

efforts. Meanwhile, new mission areas in science and industrial

competitiveness, such as applied R&D programs supporting technology to

secure future energy supplies, have emerged and are pressing for priority

attention.3

 Each new phase in DOE’s evolution has been accompanied by

new leadership with vastly different agendas concerning DOE’s basic

mission and how it should be managed.

The DOE national laboratories, in which DOE estimates it has invested over

$100 billion in the last 2 decades, are a specific area where our work and

the work of others have shown a longstanding need for clarified missions.4

 We have reported that DOE had not coordinated the laboratories’ efforts to

solve national problems but had managed each laboratory on a

program-by-program basis. The laboratories’ missions were set forth as

broad goals and activity statements rather than as a coordinated set of

objectives with specific implementation strategies for bringing together

2

Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions (GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995).

3

For an assessment of DOE’s efforts in this research area see DOE’s Success Stories Report

(GAO/RCED-96-120R, Apr. 15, 1996), and Energy R&D: Observations on DOE’s Success Stories Report

(GAO/T-RCED-96-133, Apr. 17, 1996).

4

See, for example, Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Mission and Better

Management (GAO/RCED-95-10, Jan. 27, 1995).

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

the collective strengths of the laboratories to meet pressing national

needs. As a result, DOE was unable to address issues that required

cooperation and coordination across its many mission areas. For example,

we reported that although solutions to the proliferation of nuclear

weapons require expertise in identifying the effects of weapons, the

research on nonproliferation and effects of weapons was carried out in

different laboratories and was managed by different assistant secretaries.

Overall, laboratory managers said that they feared that the lack of proper

departmental direction was compromising both their effectiveness and

their ability to respond to new national priorities.

Planning-related problems were not unique to DOE. As another example,

our past work at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) showed the need for NASA to develop a strategic plan that

realistically matched its program plans to its likely budgets.5 NASA strategic

planning efforts in the early 1990s were incomplete and unrealistic

because they did not indicate the relative priority of NASA’s key missions

and large programs and provided no balance between planning and

budgeting. For example, NASA’s failure to ground its goals in realistic

budget expectations forced it to make significant program adjustments to

make up for the lower-than-planned funding levels. Over the past several

years we have reported that space shuttle operations, the space station,

the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility, the Earth Observing System,

and other NASA programs and projects had been or were being restructured

primarily because they were not deemed affordable.

Both DOE and NASA are undertaking strategic planning efforts intended in

part to address these longstanding problems. Sustained congressional

involvement in these efforts and similar planning efforts undertaken by

other agencies are vital to ensuring that missions are focused, goals are

clearly established, and strategies and funding expectations are

appropriate and reasonable. The experiences of leading organizations

suggest that planning efforts that have such characteristics can become

driving forces in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of program

efforts. The GPRA strategic planning process thus provides Congress with a

potentially powerful vehicle for clarifying its expectations for agencies and

the program results expected from funding decisions.

Identifying and Addressing

Crosscutting Issues

Thus far our comments have been directed toward how congressional

involvement in agencies’ strategic planning processes can improve

5

See, for example, NASA: Major Challenges to Management, (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-18, Oct. 6, 1993).

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

programs and aid congressional decisionmaking as it relates to the

individual agencies. Equally important, we believe, is congressional

involvement in strategic planning for program efforts that cut across

several agencies. This is particularly true for science programs where, in

many cases, the greatest return for the federal dollar can come through the

coordinated efforts of a number of agencies. Not surprisingly, given the

planning problems that individual agencies have confronted, program

efforts that involve several agencies also have suffered from a lack of

focus and unclear goals.

For example, we also have reported that the multiagency High

Performance Computing and Communication (HPCC) initiative could

benefit from a strengthened program direction.6

 Our work showed that a

more focused management approach and an identification of priority areas

were needed to help ensure that the program’s goals were met. The HPCC

program was originally established, by design, as a loosely coordinated,

scientifically oriented research effort rather than a rigorously managed

development program. Once the administration expanded the role of HPCC

to support the national information infrastructure, a more rigorous and

coordinated management approach was required that better targeted the

specific technology areas that most needed to be developed to support the

information superhighway. The HPCC effort at NSF, an agency with a major

role in the program, is one of NSF’s four GPRA pilot projects. NSF is using

GPRA as a vehicle for clarifying the long-term goals for its HPCC program

and developing performance measures to gauge progress.

As Congress works with agencies on the development of the agencies’

strategic plans, it can identify other instances of potential overlap or

uncoordinated programs by insisting that agencies show how their

programs are aligned with appropriate efforts from other agencies. One

area where such an approach could prove helpful is in looking at the

federal government’s vast array of R&D laboratories. In response to our

survey, 17 federal departments and independent agencies identified 515

federal R&D laboratories that spent a total of $26.6 billion in fiscal year

1995.7

 Federal agencies also supported, primarily through contracts and

6

The HPCC program was first included in the President’s budget in fiscal year 1992 as a coordinated

effort among nine federal agencies to accelerate the availability and use of the next generation of high

performance computers and networks. In 1993, the administration expanded the scope of the HPCC

program to include a broader range of applications that would have a more direct, near-term impact on

the national information infrastructure, also known as the “information superhighway.” See High

Performance Computing and Communications: New Program Direction Would Benefit From a More

Focused Effort (GAO/AIMD-95-6, Nov. 4, 1994).

7

Federal R&D Laboratories (GAO/RCED/NSIAD-96-78R, Feb. 29, 1996).

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

grants, a wide range of R&D performed by businesses, universities, and

other organizations.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recognizes the key role that

the development of strategic plans under GPRA can have in helping to

ensure federal efforts across agencies are properly coordinated. OMB is

now undertaking a “Summer Review” during which it is examining the

progress that agencies are making in meeting the GPRA strategic planning

requirements. As part of that review, OMB is seeking to identify any steps

that should be taken on a multiagency basis to coordinate and harmonize

goals and objectives for cross-agency programs and functions. OMB’s

efforts under GPRA should assist Congress as it looks for opportunities to

streamline and improve the effectiveness of the federal government.

Step 2: Measure

Performance

GPRA requires executive agencies to develop annual plans with suitable

performance measures to reinforce the connection between the long-term

strategic goals outlined in their strategic plans and the day-to-day activities

of their managers and staff. Measuring performance allows an organization

to track its progress toward its goals and gives managers important

information on which to base their organizational and management

decisions. At a broader level, measuring R&D agencies’ performance helps

Congress to know the results of R&D investments and to effectively allocate

budgets among competing programs.

Science agencies, like other agencies, must guard against the

understandable tendency to overly rely on goals and measures that are

easily quantifiable, such as numbers of research grants provided and

completed, at the expense of what is truly important but more difficult to

measure, such as the difference a research grant made. Organizations that

measure and manage on the basis of easily quantifiable goals rather than

results run the risk of striving to achieve goals that may be only marginally

related to the reasons the program was created. For example, we recently

reviewed the short-term performance results and long-term evaluation

strategy of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP).8 ATP is administered

by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) within the

Department of Commerce and has had its funding grow from $68 million

in fiscal year 1993 to $431 million in fiscal year 1995, more than doubling

each year.

8

See Performance Measurement: Efforts to Evaluate the Advanced Technology Program

(GAO/RCED-95-68, May 15, 1995).

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

NIST identified several evaluation measures that it expects will indicate the

long-term economic success of ATP projects. One NIST measure is

“straightforward tracking of technical milestones.” However, we found

that achieving technical milestones may not be a valid indicator of the

economic success of ATP projects because achieving technical milestones

does not always lead to economic success. For example, earlier versions

of the ATP evaluation plan pointed to one ATP project that was achieving all

of its technical milestones as evidence of the project’s likely success in

stimulating economic growth. However, the lead company involved in this

joint venture went bankrupt before the project was completed. Although

the other company in the joint venture has stated its intention to continue

the joint venture commercialization plan, the lead company’s bankruptcy

reduces the likelihood of future economic benefits being realized from this

ATP project.

The Challenge to

Measuring Science

Programs’ Outcomes

The tendency to focus on what is relatively easy to measure may be

particularly strong for science agencies because the selection and use of

performance measures have presented a longstanding challenge for such

agencies, especially for those that support fundamental scientific

research.9

 In particular, assessing the outcomes of science-related projects

can be extremely difficult because a wide range of factors determine if and

how a particular R&D project will result in commercial or other benefits. It

can also take many years between when a research project is undertaken

and when the outcome occurs. For example, the National Institutes of

Health and other federal institutions support research at universities by

investing in (1) the development of principal investigators, who work at

the forefront of scientific and engineering research and (2) the training of

new PhDs and other professionals. Hence, these people are “products” of

the research projects the agencies support. However, the outcomes—in

terms of scientific contributions—produced by these individuals as a

result of the federal agencies’ investments in their development and

training frequently extend well beyond a specific federally funded research

project and can be exceedingly difficult to measure.

Determining the specific outcomes resulting from federal R&D has been a

challenge that will not be easily resolved. Due to the difficulties in

identifying outcomes, R&D agencies typically have chosen to measure a

variety of proxies for outcomes, such as the number of patents resulting

from the federally funded research, expert review and judgments of the

quality and importance of research findings, the number of project-related

9

Assessing the Output of Federal Commercially Directed R&D (GAO/PAD-79-69 Aug. 27, 1979).

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

publications or citations, and contributions to expanding the number of

research scientists.

To help address the challenges of measuring the results of R&D programs,

the Research Roundtable, a consortium of federal agency representatives,

has been meeting periodically to share ideas and approaches for

implementing GPRA. The Roundtable has been considering the extent to

which R&D agencies can and should adopt a common approach to

measuring performance. It is still too early to tell whether this group will

define and recommend a common model to meet the performance

requirements under GPRA. Nonetheless, the Roundtable’s efforts are

promising in that they show that officials in science agencies recognize the

performance measurement challenges they confront and are working

collectively to address those challenges. Congress can support the

Roundtable’s efforts by working with it to ensure that congressional data

needs are met by any common performance measurement model that the

Roundtable may recommend.

GPRA recognizes how difficult it is to state the goals and measure the

results of some programs. While the law encourages the use of objective

measures of performance, it authorizes agencies—with the approval of

OMB—to use alternative, subjective measures of performance. Congress

expects that one form of alternative measurement will be to define the

characteristics of a marginally effective program and a fully successful

program and to assess progress against those definitions. NSF is seeking

OMB approval to use an alternative format for articulating its performance

goals under GPRA. This request, and any additional ones, to employ an

alternative form of measurement may become an important indicator of

the difficulty of fully achieving GPRA’s design in science programs.

Step 3: Use

Performance

Information

As to be expected during the initial efforts of such a challenging

management reform effort as GPRA, most agencies, including science

agencies, are still struggling to integrate the mission-based goal-setting and

performance measurement requirements of GPRA into their daily program

operations. This integration is important because GPRA performance

information is to be used to guide an array of congressional and executive

branch decisions.

Consistent congressional interest at authorization, appropriation, budget,

and oversight hearings on the status of an agency’s GPRA efforts; the

performance measures it is using; and how performance information is

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

being used to make decisions will send an unmistakable message to

agencies that Congress expects GPRA to be implemented as conscientiously

as possible. Congressional hearings, such as the one the Committee is

holding today, are one key to showing agencies that Congress is looking to

use GPRA performance goals and information to help inform its decisions

and that it expects agencies to do the same. Moreover, congressional

engagement in the strategic planning efforts now under way in executive

agencies provides an excellent opportunity to clarify agencies’ missions

and goals and ensure that the resulting performance information will meet

congressional and other decisionmakers’ needs.

In summary, if successfully implemented in the science agencies, GPRA

should help the Committee make the difficult science policy and program

decisions confronting the nation. It also will help science agencies manage

their programs and provide Congress and the American people with better

assurance that tax dollars are being wisely spent. But the changes in

management and accountability envisioned by Congress in passing GPRA

are not coming quickly or easily, particularly in science agencies. The

continued support and interest of this Committee may well determine the

degree to which GPRA is successfully implemented in those agencies.

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Statement 

Managing for Results: Key Steps and

Challenges in Implementing GPRA in

Science Agencies

Page 14 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Related GAO Products

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong

Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

Federal R&D Laboratories (GAO/RCED/NSIAD-96-78R, Feb. 29, 1996).

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

Office of Management and Budget: Changes Resulting From the OMB 2000

Reorganization (GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50, Dec. 29, 1995).

Department of Energy: A Framework For Restructuring DOE and Its

Missions (GAO/RCED-95-197, Aug. 21, 1995).

Managing for Results: Status of the Government Performance and Results

Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995).

Department of Energy: Framework Is Needed to Reevaluate Its Role and

Missions (GAO/T-RCED-95-232, June 21, 1995).

Managing for Results: Critical Actions for Measuring Performance

(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-187, June 20, 1995).

Government Reorganization: Issues and Principles (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166,

May 17, 1995).

Performance Measurement: Efforts to Evaluate the Advanced Technology

Program (GAO/RCED-95-68, May 5, 1996).

Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal

Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995).

Department of Energy: Alternatives for Clearer Missions and Better

Management at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-95-128, Mar. 9, 1995).

Department of Energy: Research and Agency Missions Need Reevaluation

(GAO/T-RCED-95-105, Feb. 13, 1995).

Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Mission Focus and

More Effective Departmental Management (GAO/RCED-95-10, Jan. 27, 1995).

Page 15 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
Related GAO Products

Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions

(GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995).

DOE’s National Laboratories: Adopting New Missions and Managing

Effectively Pose Significant Challenges (GAO/T-RCED-94-113, Feb. 3, 1994).

(410059) Page 16 GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214
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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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