U.S. COINS

Benefits and Considerations 

for Replacing the $1 Note 

with a $1 Coin

Statement of Lorelei St. James, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Team

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Domestic 

Monetary Policy and Technology, 

Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST

Thursday, November 29, 2012

GAO-13-164T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-164T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Domestic 

Monetary Policy and Technology, Committee 

on Financial Services, House of 

Representatives

November 29, 2012

U.S. COINS

Benefits and Considerations for Replacing the $1 

Note with a $1 Coin

Why GAO Did This Study

Since coins are more durable than 

notes and do not need replacement as 

often, many countries have replaced 

lower-denomination notes with coins to 

obtain a financial benefit, among other 

reasons. Six times over the past 22 

years, GAO has reported that replacing 

the $1 note with a $1 coin would 

provide a net benefit to the federal 

government of hundreds of millions of 

dollars annually.

This testimony provides information on

what GAO’s most recent work in 2011 

and 2012 found regarding (1) the net 

benefit to the government of replacing 

the $1 note with a $1 coin, (2) 

stakeholder views on considerations 

for the private sector and the public in 

making such a replacement, and (3) 

the experiences of other countries in 

replacing small-denomination notes 

with coins. This testimony is based on 

previous GAO reports. To perform that 

work, GAO constructed an economic 

model to assess the net benefit to the 

government. GAO also interviewed 

officials from the Federal Reserve and 

Treasury Department, currency 

experts, officials from Canada and the 

United Kingdom, and representatives 

of U.S. industries that could be 

affected by currency changes. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO has recommended in prior work 

that Congress replace the $1 note with 

a $1 coin. GAO continues to believe 

that replacing the $1 note with a coin is 

likely to provide a financial benefit to 

the federal government if the note is 

eliminated and negative public reaction 

is effectively managed through 

stakeholder outreach and public 

education.

What GAO Found

GAO reported in February 2012 that replacing $1 notes with $1 coins could 

potentially provide $4.4 billion in net benefits to the federal government over 30 

years. The overall net benefit was due solely to increased seigniorage and not to 

reduced production costs. Seigniorage is the difference between the cost of 

producing coins or notes and their face value; it reduces government borrowing 

and interest costs, resulting in a financial benefit to the government. GAO’s 

estimate takes into account processing and production changes that occurred in 

2011, including the Federal Reserve’s use of new equipment to determine the 

quality and authenticity of notes, which has increased the expected life of the 

note thereby reducing the costs of circulating a note over 30 years. (The $1 note 

is expected to last 4.7 years and the $1 coin 30 years.) Like all estimates, there 

are uncertainties surrounding GAO’s estimate, especially since the costs of the 

replacement occur in the first several years and can be estimated with more 

certainty than the benefits, which are less certain because they occur further in 

the future. Moreover, changes to the inputs and assumptions GAO used in the 

estimate could significantly increase or decrease the results. For example, if the 

public relies more heavily on electronic payments in the future, the demand for 

cash could be lower than GAO estimated and, as a result, the net benefit would 

be lower. 

In March 2011, GAO identified potential shorter- and longer-term costs to the

private sector that could result from the replacement of the $1 note with a $1 

coin. Industry stakeholders indicated that they would initially incur costs to modify 

equipment and add storage and that later their costs to process and transport 

coins would increase. However, others, such as some transit agencies, have 

already made the transition to accept $1 coins and would not incur such costs. In 

addition, for such a replacement to be successful, the $1 coin would have to be 

widely accepted and used by the public. Nationwide opinion polls over the last 

decade have indicated lack of public acceptance of the $1 coin. Efforts to 

increase the circulation and public acceptance of the $1 coins have not

succeeded, in part, because the $1 note has remained in circulation.

Over the last 48 years, many countries, including Canada and the United 

Kingdom, have replaced low denomination notes with coins because of expected 

cost savings, among other reasons. The Canadian government, for example, 

saved $450 million (Canadian) over 5 years by converting to the $1 coin. Canada 

and the United Kingdom found that stopping production of the note combined 

with stakeholder outreach and public education were important to overcome 

public resistance, which dissipated within a few years after transitioning to the 

low denomination coins. 

View GAO-13-164T. For more information, 

contact Lorelei St.James at (202) 512-2834 or 

stjamesl@gao.gov.
 

Page 1 GAO-13-164T 

Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Clay, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing that examines 

the potential savings from replacing the $1 note with the $1 coin. GAO 

has reported six times over the last 22 years that replacing the $1 note 

with the $1 coin would result in net financial benefits to the government of 

hundreds of millions of dollars annually.1

In our prior reports, we recommended that Congress proceed with 

replacing the $1 note with the $1 coin. We continue to believe that 

replacing the note with a coin is likely to provide a financial benefit to the 

government if the note is eliminated and negative public reaction is 

effectively managed through stakeholder outreach and public education. 

However, we realize that replacing the $1 note with the $1 coin is 

controversial. We have previously reported on public opposition to using 

the $1 coin and the challenges that private businesses such as vending 

machine owners would face if such a transition were undertaken. Several 

foreign countries have already transitioned from small note 

denominations to coins, for a number of reasons, including the greater 

durability of coins and inflationary pressures.

My statement today addresses (1) our most recent estimates of the net 

financial benefit from replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin, (2) the longstanding public and private sector considerations of such a replacement, 

and (3) the experiences of other countries with replacing currency. This 

statement is based primarily on our most recent reports issued in March 

2011 and February 2012. For our March 2011 report, to estimate the net 

financial benefit to the government, we constructed an economic model 

with data from the Federal Reserve, and the Department of the 

Treasury’s (Treasury Department) Bureau of Engraving and Printing and 

 

1

GAO, National Coinage Proposals: Limited Public Demand for New Dollar Coin or 

Elimination of Pennies, GAO/GGD-90-88 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 1990); GAO, 

1-Dollar Coin: Reintroduction Could Save Millions If Properly Managed, GAO/GGD-93-56 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 11, 1993); GAO, Dollar Coin Could Save Millions, 

GAO/T-GGD-95-203 (Washington, D.C.: July 13, 1995); GAO, Financial Impact of Issuing 

the New $1 Coin, GAO/GGD-00-111R (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2000); GAO, U.S. 

Coins: Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a Financial Benefit to the 

Government, GAO-11-281 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 4, 2011); and GAO, U.S. Coins: 

Alternate Scenarios Suggest Different Benefits and Losses from Replacing the $1 Note 

with a $1 Coin, GAO-12-307 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15, 2012).

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-164T 

the United States Mint (Mint). We interviewed government officials from 

Canada and the United Kingdom to obtain information about their 

experiences with replacing notes with coins and used the information to 

develop some of the assumptions used in our model. To determine the 

effects such a replacement would have on the public and on private 

business, we identified and interviewed officials from industries and 

organizations that could be affected by currency changes. For our 

February 2012 report, we updated our model to reflect actions taken by 

the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. In its most basic form, 

the model measures the difference between the status quo scenario––

where $1 coins are available, but $1 notes predominate––and an 

alternative replacement scenario in which the $1 note is replaced with the 

$1 coin, the $1 notes are phased out, and $1 coins are produced and 

issued into circulation at a rate to match the way the public uses coins. 

Although we recognize that such a replacement would have benefits and 

costs for the public and for private businesses, the model was designed 

to estimate the net benefit and costs solely to the federal government and 

did not quantify the effects on the public or on private business. More 

detailed information on our objectives, scope, and methodology for this 

work can be found in the issued reports.2 We conducted the work on 

which this statement is based in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In February 2012, we reported that the increased seigniorage resulting 

from replacing $1 notes with $1 coins could potentially offer $4.4 billion in 

net benefits to the government over 30 years. We determined that 

seigniorage was the sole source of the net benefits and not lower 

production costs due to switching to the coin, which lasts much longer 

than a note. Seigniorage is the financial gain the federal government 

realizes when it issues notes or coins because both forms of currency 

usually cost less to produce than their face value. This gain equals the 

difference between the face value of currency and its costs of production, 

which reflects a financial transfer to the federal government because it 

 

2

GAO-11-281 and GAO-12-307. 

Potential Benefits 

from Replacing the $1 

Note with the $1 Coin
 

Page 3 GAO-13-164T 

reduces the government’s need to raise revenues through borrowing.3

With less borrowing, the government pays less interest over time, 

resulting in a financial benefit.4

The replacement scenario of our 2012 estimate assumed the production 

of $1 notes would stop immediately followed by a 4-year transition period 

during which worn and unfit $1 notes would gradually be removed from 

circulation. Based on information provided by the Mint, we also assumed 

that the Mint would convert existing equipment to increase its production 

capability for $1 coins during the first year and that it would take 4 years 

for the Mint to produce enough coins to replace the currently outstanding 

$1 notes. Our assumptions covered a range of factors, but key among 

these was a replacement ratio of 1.5 coins to 1 note to take into 

consideration the fact that coins circulate with less frequency than notes 

and therefore a larger number are required in circulation. Other key 

assumptions included the expected rate of growth in the demand for 

currency over 30 years, the costs of producing and processing both coins 

and notes, and the differential life spans of coins and notes. We projected 

our analyses over 30 years to be consistent with previous GAO analyses 

and because that period roughly coincides with the life expectancy of the 

$1 coin.

As shown in figure 1, we found that the net benefit accruing each year 

varied considerably over the 30 years. More specifically, across the first 

10 years of our 30-year analysis, replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin 

would result in a $531 million net loss or approximately $53 million per 

year in net loss to the government. The early net loss would be due in 

part to the up-front costs to the Mint of increasing its coin production 

 

3

Traditionally, seigniorage is defined as the difference between the face value of coins 

and their cost of production. As long as there is public demand, the government creates 

this net value when it puts coins into circulation. Similarly, when the government issues 

notes, it creates an analogous net value, equal to the face value of the notes less their 

production costs. In this statement, we use the term seigniorage to refer to the value 

created from the issuance of both coins and notes.

4

Some observers have stated that seigniorage essentially represents a tax on the public. 

The gains to the federal government through increased seigniorage occur because as $1 

notes are replaced by $1 coins, the public will choose to hold more of their wealth in cash, 

thus providing a transfer to the federal government. Thus, the financial benefit to the 

federal government comes at a cost to the public, and there is not a net gain to society 

from increased seigniorage. However, this transfer occurs as a result of voluntary changes 

in how people are choosing to hold their wealth, which is different than in the case of a 

tax, which is a mandated transfer to the government. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-164T 

during the transition, together with the limited interest expense the 

government would avoid in the first few years after replacement began.5

Figure 1: Discounted Net Benefit to the Government of Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin

This estimate differs from our 2011 estimate, which found that 

replacement would result in a net benefit of about $5.5 billion over 30 

years (an average of about $184 million per year) because the 2012 

estimate takes into account two key actions that occurred since our 2011 

report, specifically:

• In April 2011, the Federal Reserve began using new equipment to 

process notes, which has increased the expected life of the $1 note to 

an average of 56 months (or 4.7 years), according to the Federal 

Reserve, compared with the 40 months we used in our 2011 

 

5

The large net benefit in 2016 would occur because we assume that the Mint’s production 

at maximum capacity during the 4-year transition period would lead to some 

overproduction and thus production would drop dramatically in 2016. Because of the far 

lower coin production costs, the net benefit to the government would temporarily spike in 

that year.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-164T 

analysis.6

• In December 2011, the Treasury Department announced that it would 

take steps to eliminate the overproduction of dollar coins by relying on 

the approximately 1.4 billion $1 coins stored with the Federal Reserve 

as of September 30, 2011, to meet the relatively small transactional 

demand for dollar coins. This new policy would reduce the cost 

associated with producing $1 coins that we estimated in the status 

quo scenario and, therefore, would reduce the net benefit, which is 

the difference in the estimated costs between the status quo scenario 

and the replacement scenario.

The longer note life reduces the costs of circulating a note 

over 30 years and thus reduces the expected net benefits of replacing 

the $1 note with a $1 coin.

However, like all estimates, there are uncertainties involved in developing 

these analyses. In particular, while the up-front costs to the Mint of 

increasing its coin production during the transition is reasonably certain––

in large part because it is closer in time––the longer-term benefits, 

particularly those occurring in the later years, involve greater uncertainty 

because of unforeseen circumstances that could occur farther into the 

future. Nonetheless, looking at a longer time period allows for trends to be 

seen.

Moreover, changes to the inputs and assumptions used in our analysis 

could significantly change the estimated net benefit. For example, in 

2011, we compared our status quo scenario to an alternative scenario in 

which the growing use of electronic payments—such as making 

payments with a cell phone—results in a lower demand for cash and 

lower net benefit. If Americans come to rely more heavily on electronic 

payments, the demand for cash could grow more slowly than we 

assumed or even decrease. By reducing the public’s demand for $1 

currency by 20 percent in this alternative scenario, we found that the net 

benefit to the government would decrease to about $3.4 billion over 30 

years.7

 

6

When notes are returned by commercial banks as deposits to the Federal Reserve, each 

note is processed to determine its quality and authenticity. During processing, worn and 

counterfeit notes are removed from circulation and the rest are wrapped for storage or recirculation.

7

We did not have any evidence to suggest how much demand might transfer to electronic 

use, but a 20 percent transfer to electronic use would appear to be a reasonably 

substantial change in the public's use of money. The actual number, however, could be 

higher or lower.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-164T 

In another scenario, we reported in 2012 that if interest savings because 

of seigniorage were not considered, a net loss of approximately $1.8 

billion would accrue during the first 10 years for an average cost of $179 

million per year—or $2.8 billion net loss over 30 years. While this 

scenario suggests that there would be no net benefits from switching to a 

$1 coin, we believe that the interest savings related to seigniorage, which 

is a result of issuing currency, cannot be set aside because the interest 

savings reflects a monetary benefit to the government.

Our estimates of the discounted net benefit to the government of 

replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin differ from the method that the 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) would use to calculate the impact on 

the budget of the same replacement. In the mid-1990s, CBO made such 

an estimate and noted that its findings for government savings were lower 

than our estimates at that time because of key differences in the two 

analyses. Most important, budget scorekeeping conventions do not factor 

in gains in seigniorage in calculating budget deficits.8 Thus, the interest 

expense avoided in future years by reducing borrowing needs, which 

accounts for our estimate of net benefit to the government, would not be 

part of a CBO budget-scoring analysis. Additionally, CBO’s time horizon 

for analyzing the budget impact is up to 10 years—a much shorter time 

horizon than we use in our recent analyses.

Two factors merit consideration moving forward. The first factor is the 

effect of a currency change on the private sector. Our 2011 and 2012 

reports considered only the fiscal effect on the government. Because we 

found no quantitative estimates that could be evaluated or modeled, our 

estimate did not consider factors such as the broader societal impact of 

replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin or attempt to quantify the costs to the 

private sector. Based on our interviews with stakeholders representing a 

variety of cash-intensive industries, we believe that the costs and benefits 

to the private sector should be carefully weighed since some costs could 

be substantial. In 2011 we reported that stakeholders identified potential 

shorter- and longer-term costs that would likely result from the 

replacement. Specifically, shorter-term costs would be those costs 

involved in adapting to the transition such as modifying vending 

 

8

Budget scorekeeping is the process of estimating the budgetary effects of pending and 

enacted legislation and comparing them with limits set in the budget resolution or 

legislation.

Considerations 

Moving Forward
 

Page 7 GAO-13-164T 

machines, cash-register drawers, and night-depository equipment to 

accept $1 coins. Such costs would also include the need to purchase or 

adapt the processing equipment that businesses may need, such as coincounting and coin-wrapping machines. Longer-term costs would be those 

costs that would permanently increase the cost of doing business, such 

as the increased transportation and storage costs for the heavier and 

more voluminous coins as compared to notes, and processing costs. 

These costs would likely be passed on to the customer and the public at 

large through, for example, higher prices or fees. Most stakeholders we 

interviewed said, however, that they could not easily quantify the 

magnitude of these costs, and the majority indicated that they would need 

1 to 2 years to make the transition from $1 notes to $1 coins.

In contrast to the stakeholders who said that a replacement would mean 

higher costs for their businesses, stakeholders from the vending machine 

industry and public transit said that the changeover might have only a 

minimal impact on them. For example, according to officials from the 

National Automatic Merchandising Association, an organization 

representing the food and refreshment vending industry, many of its 

members have already modified their vending machines to accept all 

forms of payment, including $1 coins. In addition, according to transit 

industry officials, the impact on the transit industry would be minimal 

since transit agencies that receive federal funds were required under the 

Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005 to accept and distribute $1 coins.

The second factor that merits consideration is public acceptance. Our 

2012 estimate assumes that the $1 coin would be widely accepted and 

used by the public. In 2002, we conducted a nationwide public opinion 

survey, and we found that the public was not using the $1 coin because 

people were familiar with the $1 note, the $1 coin was not widely 

available, and people did not want to carry more coins. However, when 

respondents were told that such a replacement would save the 

government about half a billion dollars a year (our 2000 estimate), the 

proportion who said they opposed elimination of the note dropped from 64 

percent to 37 percent. Yet, two more recent national-survey results 

suggest that opposition to eliminating the $1 note persists. For example, 

according to a Gallup poll conducted in 2006, 79 percent of respondents 

were opposed to replacing $1 notes with $1 coins, and their opposition 

decreased only slightly, to 64 percent, when they were asked to assume 

that a replacement would result in half a billion dollars in government 

savings each year. We have noted in past reports that efforts to increase 

the circulation and public acceptance of the $1 coins—such as changes 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-164T 

to the color of the $1 coin and new coin designs—have not succeeded, in 

part, because the $1 note has remained in circulation.9

Over the last 48 years, Australia, Canada, France, Japan, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Spain, and the United 

Kingdom, among others, have replaced lower-denomination notes with 

coins. The rationales for replacing notes with coins cited by foreign 

government officials and experts include the cost savings to governments 

derived from lower production costs and the decline over time of the 

purchasing power of currency because of inflation.10

Stopping production of the note and actions to overcome public 

resistance have been important in Canada and the United Kingdom as 

the governments transitioned from a note to a coin. While observing that 

the public was resistant at first, Canadian and United Kingdom officials 

said that with the combination of stakeholder outreach, public relations 

efforts, and ending production and issuance of the notes, public 

dissatisfaction dissipated within a few years. Canada undertook several 

efforts to prepare the public and businesses for the transition to the coin.

For example, the Royal Canadian Mint reached out to stakeholders in the 

retail business community to ensure that they were aware of the scope of 

the change and surveyed public opinion about using coins instead of 

notes and the perceived impact on consumer transactions. The Canadian 

Mint also proactively worked with large coin usage industries, such as 

vending and parking enterprises, to facilitate conversion of their 

equipment, and conducted a public relations campaign to advise the 

For example, 

Canada replaced its $1 and $2 notes with coins in 1987 and 1996, 

respectively. Canadian officials determined that the conversion to the $1 

coin saved the Canadian government $450 million (Canadian) between 

1987 and 1991 because it no longer had to regularly replace worn out $1 

notes. However, Canadian $1 notes did not last as long as $1 notes in the 

United States currently do.

 

9

GAO/GGD-90-88, GAO/GGD-93-56, and GAO/GGD-00-111R. 

10Lower-denominated currencies tend to be metal based rather than paper based 

because, among other reasons, these denominations tend to circulate more rapidly than 

higher denominations. Over time, inflation erodes the purchasing power of any particular 

denomination of currency. As the real value of a note declines with inflation, its more 

rapid circulation may wear paper notes more quickly and can make a switch to a coin cost 

effective. 

Experiences of Other 

Countries 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-164T 

public of the cost savings that would result from the switch. According to 

Canadian officials, the $1 and $2 coins were the most popular coins in 

circulation and were heavily used by businesses and the public. In our 

analysis of replacing the $1 note with a $1 coin, we assumed that the 

U.S. government would conduct a public awareness campaign to inform 

the public during the first year of the transition and assigned a value of 

approximately $7.8 million for that effort.

In addition, some countries have used a transition period to gradually 

introduce new coins or currency. For example, the United Kingdom 

issued the £1 coin in April 1983 and continued to simultaneously issue 

the £1 note until December 1984. Similarly, Canada issued the $1 coin in 

1987 and ceased issuing the $1 note in 1989.

In our prior reports, we recommended that Congress proceed with 

replacing the $1 note with the $1 coin. We continue to believe that the 

government would receive a financial benefit from making the 

replacement. However, this finding comes with several caveats. First, the 

costs are immediate and certain while the benefits are further in the future 

and more uncertain. The uncertainty comes, in part, from the uncertainty 

surrounding key assumptions like the future demand for cash. Second, 

the benefits derive from seigniorage, a transfer from the public, and not a 

cost-saving change in production. Third, these are benefits to the 

government and not necessarily to the public at large. In fact, public 

opinion has consistently been opposed to the $1 coin. Keeping those 

caveats in mind, many other countries have successfully replaced low 

denomination notes with coins, even when initially faced with public 

opposition.

Chairman Paul, Ranking Member Clay, and members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions at this time.

For further information on this testimony, please contact Lorelei St. 

James, at (202) 512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. In addition, contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Teresa Spisak (Assistant Director), 

Lindsay Bach, Amy Abramowitz, Patrick Dudley, and David Hooper.

Concluding 

Observations 

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(544187)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

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

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.