GAO-06-29R Military Training 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

October 25, 2005 

Congressional Committees

Subject: Some Improvements Have Been Made in DOD’s Annual Training Range 

Reporting but It Still Fails to Fully Address Congressional Requirements

A fundamental military readiness principle is that the military must train as it intends 

to fight, and military training ranges provide the primary means to accomplish this 

principle. To successfully accomplish today’s missions, U.S. forces are conducting 

significantly more complex operations, requiring increased joint training and 

interoperability between and among the military services, combatant commands, and 

other Department of Defense (DOD) and non-DOD organizations. For some time, 

senior DOD and military service officials have reported that they face increasing 

difficulties in carrying out realistic training at military installations due to training 

constraints, such as those resulting from encroachment.1

 In recent years, we have 

reported on these training constraints and identified the need for an integrated, 

readily accessible inventory of training ranges, capacities, and capabilities so that 

commanders across the services can schedule the best available resources to provide 

the required training; a comprehensive plan that includes goals, timelines, projected 

costs, and a clear assignment of responsibilities to address encroachment on military 

training ranges; and a more comprehensive approach for addressing deficiencies to 

ensure that ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order to accomplish 

the department’s transformation goals and ensure their long-term viability. 

Title III, section 366 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003, required that the Secretary of Defense develop a comprehensive plan for 

the sustainment of military training ranges using existing authorities available to the 

Secretaries of Defense and the military departments to address training constraints 

caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace that are 

available in the United States and overseas for training.2 (See section 366 of the Bob 

 

1

 DOD defines "encroachment" as the cumulative result of any and all outside influences that impede 

normal training and testing. DOD initially identified the following eight encroachment factors: 

endangered species and critical habitat, unexploded ordinance and munitions constituents, 

competition for frequency spectrum, protected marine resources, competition for airspace, air 

pollution, noise pollution, and urban growth around installations. Some emerging issues involve 

overseas ranges, water use, resource extraction, and civilian access. 2

 P.L. 107-314, Title III, Section 366 (Dec. 2, 2002). 
Page 2 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 in encl. I.) Among 

other items, section 366 also required the Secretary to submit to Congress a report 

containing the comprehensive training range sustainment plan, the results of an 

assessment and evaluation of current and future training range requirements, and any 

recommendations that the Secretary may have for legislative or regulatory changes to 

address training constraints. Section 366 also directed the Secretary of Defense to 

develop and maintain an inventory of training ranges for each of the armed forces, 

which identifies all training capacities, capabilities, and constraints at each training 

range, and it required the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on his plans to 

improve the system for reporting the impact that training restraints have on 

readiness. DOD was to submit both the report and the training range inventory to 

Congress at the same time the President submitted the budget for fiscal year 2004 and 

to provide status reports annually for fiscal years 2005 through 2008. Instead of 

issuing a report along with the President's fiscal year 2004 budget submission in 2003, 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted to Congress its first report—

Implementation of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive 

Plan—and its training range inventory on February 27, 2004. OSD submitted its 

second annual report, along with an updated inventory, to Congress on July 14, 2005.3

Section 366 also required GAO to provide Congress with an evaluation of OSD’s 

annual reports. This is our second such report. In our first report, issued in June 

2004,4

 we found that OSD’s initial 2004 report and inventory did not fully address 

several of the reporting requirements mandated by section 366. For example, we 

reported that OSD’s 2004 report did not include a comprehensive training range plan 

with quantifiable goals or milestones to measure progress, and it did not identify 

funding requirements. In comments on a draft of our first report, DOD disagreed with 

our findings and with three of our four recommendations. In this second report we 

discuss the extent to which OSD’s (1) 2005 training range inventory contains 

sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing the comprehensive 

sustainment plan mandated by section 366; and (2) 2005 training range report meets 

other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help guide OSD and the 

services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges.5

To address our objectives, we relied on the work used to develop our June 2005 

report on the condition of military training ranges.6

 In addition, we reviewed OSD’s 

updated training range inventory for 2005 to assess whether the inventory identified 

training capabilities (e.g., types of training that can be conducted and available 

targets), capacities (e.g., number of personnel or weapon systems that can be 

accommodated), and constraints caused by limitations at each training range (e.g., 

 

3

 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Implementation 

of the Department of Defense Training Range Comprehensive Plan (Washington, D.C.: July 2005). 4

 GAO, Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address Congressional 

Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004). 5

 In this report, we use the term "training range" to collectively refer to air ranges, live-fire ranges, 

ground maneuver ranges, sea ranges, and operating areas. 

6

 GAO, Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve the Conditions 

of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534 (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005). 
Page 3 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

restrictions on live-fire training) as required by section 366. Also, we reviewed OSD’s 

2005 report to determine if it addressed the elements required by the act—a 

comprehensive training range sustainment plan; an assessment of current and future 

training range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources, 

including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range 

requirements; recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address 

training constraints; and plans to improve the readiness reporting system—and 

evaluated the quality of the information by comparing it to sound management 

principles for strategic planning, such as the identification of quantifiable goals, 

planned actions, funding requirements, milestones to measure progress, and 

organizations responsible for implementing the planned actions. Because OSD’s 2005 

report notes that it should be viewed as a supplement to the department’s 2004 

report, we evaluated this year’s report within the context of last year’s report, 

considering the degree to which they both met the requirements mandated by section 

366. We also met with knowledgeable OSD and service officials to discuss the 

contents and the adequacy of OSD’s 2005 inventory and training range report. 

We conducted our work from July through August 2005 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief 

Similar to the inventory OSD submitted to Congress last year, the 2005 training range 

inventory does not contain sufficient information to use as a baseline for developing a 

comprehensive plan to address training constraints and help ensure range 

sustainability because it does not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and 

training constraints for ranges of all the services as required by section 366. Instead, 

it is a consolidated list of ranges provided by the individual services that lacks critical 

data and is not integrated or easily accessible by potential users. Both this year’s and 

last year’s inventories list the services’ training ranges and provide general data on 

the size and type of range. Unlike last year’s inventory, OSD’s 2005 inventory also 

identifies specific routes pilots use to transit from a base to a training range and 

provides information on upper and lower altitudes for shared airspace near military 

installations for all the services. Still, neither inventory identifies specific capacities 

and capabilities for individual Army, Navy, or Marine Corps ranges or lists existing 

training constraints caused by encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of 

maintenance or modernization. In addition, OSD’s 2005 inventory is not integrated or 

readily accessible to potential users. Therefore, this year’s inventory is still not a tool 

that commanders across the services could use to identify range availability 

regardless of service ownership to schedule the best available resources to provide 

required training. In responding to similar findings in our 2004 report, OSD 

commented that it was a long-term goal to have an integrated management system to 

support joint use of training ranges. However, OSD does not identify this as one of its 

goals in this year’s report. Instead, OSD’s 2005 report identifies different service- and 

range-level information and inventory systems—some of which have been in place for 

years. We continue to believe as we did last year that, without a complete, integrated, 

and continuously updated training range inventory, it is difficult for potential users to 
Page 4 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

identify the best available ranges to meet their required training and for OSD to frame 

a meaningful plan to address training constraints and help ensure range 

sustainability. 

OSD’s 2005 training range report—similar to the one issued to Congress last year—

fails to meet other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help guide OSD 

and the services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges. 

Nevertheless, there is one noteworthy change: OSD’s 2005 report includes some 

elements of a plan intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges 

while last year’s report did not. The plan provides general goals, actions, and 

milestones but does not identify funding requirements for implementing planned 

actions, although specifically required to by section 366, and does not assign 

responsibility for implementation of specific actions or provide explicit performance 

metrics to measure progress—critical elements for a meaningful plan. Like last year’s 

report, OSD’s 2005 report does not include an assessment of current and future 

training range requirements; an evaluation of the adequacy of current resources, 

including virtual and constructive assets, to meet current and future training range 

requirements; or recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes to address 

training constraints—although specifically required to do so by section 366. In 

addition, OSD’s 2005 report does not include its plans to improve the department’s 

readiness reporting system, despite a specific mandate in section 366 that it do so no 

later than June 30, 2003. Although other OSD components have demonstrated that the 

department is capable of developing reports that contain information and 

comprehensive strategic plans similar to those specified by section 366, OSD’s 2005 

report is generally descriptive in nature. Namely, a large portion of the current report 

describes efforts underway within the department to use information technology and 

individual services’ efforts to address sustainable range issues, while providing 

background information on funding sources, encroachment issues, and overseas 

ranges—information that congressional decision makers most likely already 

understand or may not find very useful in carrying out their oversight responsibilities. 

Because our prior recommendations for improving OSD’s annual training range 

reporting remain open, valid, and not fully addressed, we are not making new 

recommendations in this report. (See encl. II for a list of our open recommendations 

from our June 2004 report7

 and other recent reports associated with the sustainment 

of military training ranges.) In comments on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it 

is fully committed to a comprehensive approach to range management and that its 

annual reports to Congress on this matter reflected the importance the department 

accords this subject. DOD also stated that successful comprehensive planning does 

not equate to centralized management and that it does not believe a single, 

continuously updated and widely accessible inventory database is currently practical, 

feasible, or needed. While we recognize that DOD is committed to improving its range 

management, we previously recommended and continue to believe that DOD needs 

to develop a training range inventory and a comprehensive report that better fulfill 

the reporting requirements mandated by section 366. We have not equated successful 

 

7

 GAO-04-608. 
Page 5 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

comprehensive planning to centralized management as suggested by DOD and 

believe that, without an integrated and continuously updated range inventory, it is 

difficult for potential users to identify the best available ranges and for OSD to frame 

a meaningful plan to address training constraints and help ensure sustainability. We 

address DOD’s comments in greater detail later in the report. The department also 

provided a technical clarification, which we incorporated. 

Background 

As recently demonstrated in Iraq and elsewhere, U.S. forces are conducting 

significantly more complex operations, requiring increased joint training and 

interoperability between and among the military services, combatant commands, and 

other DOD and non-DOD organizations. Training ranges represent important national 

assets for the development and sustainment of U.S. military forces and better enable 

joint force operations. DOD requires ranges for all levels of training to include 

airspace for air-to-air, air-to-ground, drop zone, and electronic combat training; livefire ranges for artillery, armor, small arms, and munitions training; ground maneuver 

ranges to conduct realistic force-on-force and live-fire training at various unit levels; 

and sea ranges to conduct surface and subsurface training maneuvers. However, the 

military services report they have increasingly lost training range capabilities due to 

encroachment and other factors, such as a lack of maintenance and modernization. 

According to DOD, encroachment has resulted in a slow but steady increase in 

problems affecting the use of their training ranges. They believe that the gradual 

accumulation of these limitations will increasingly threaten training readiness. 

Decentralized Range Management Framework

Historically, range management has been decentralized, from OSD to the services’ 

headquarters to major commands to installations and units. In practice, this means 

that OSD and DOD-wide organizations provide management oversight, develop 

overarching policies, and facilitate cross-service and joint activities. The military 

services develop training, testing, and range requirements; schedule and conduct 

training and testing; develop implementation policy and guidance; design and 

implement programs and information systems; and develop funding plans, programs, 

and budgets. According to DOD, this division of effort reflects the department and 

service responsibilities enumerated in Title 10 of the United States Code and DOD 

directive.8

 The directive assigns the most prominent responsibilities for range 

sustainment to the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; Director of 

Operational Test and Evaluation; the military services; and DOD agencies. In 

addition, DOD has created an Overarching Integrated Product Team to act as the 

DOD coordinating body for developing strategies to preserve the military’s ability to 

train. The Overarching Integrated Product Team reports to the Senior Readiness 

Oversight Council, which reviews range sustainment policies and issues. A Working 

 

8

 DOD Directive, Sustainment of Ranges and Operating Areas (OPAREAs), 3200.15 (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2003). 
Page 6 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

Integrated Product Team (cochaired by the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Readiness, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Installations and Environment, and the Office of the Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation) meets regularly and works collaboratively with other DOD organizations 

on issues related to sustainable ranges. 

Prior GAO Reports Addressing 

Constraints on Training Ranges

Several of our reports in recent years have addressed constraints on the use of 

military training ranges, particularly those related to encroachment.9 A common 

theme in these reports has been the need for more comprehensive results-oriented 

planning to include, for example, clearly establishing goals and milestones for 

tracking progress in addressing constraints on training ranges, identifying the funding 

needed to accomplish tasks, and assigning responsibility for managing and 

coordinating departmental efforts. Brief summaries of these reports follow: 

• In April 2002, we reported that troops stationed outside of the continental 

United States face a variety of training constraints that have increased over the 

past decade and are likely to increase further.10 We also reported that impacts 

on readiness due to these constraints were not well documented. 

• In June 2002, we reported on the impact of encroachment on military training 

ranges inside the United States with similar findings to those of the April 2002 

report and identified the need for a comprehensive plan to manage 

encroachment on military training ranges.11

• In June 2004, we reported that DOD’s 2004 training range report to Congress 

did not fully identify available training resources, specific training capacities 

and capabilities, and existing training constraints; fully assess current and 

future training requirements; fully evaluate the adequacy of current resources 

to meet current and future training range requirements in the United States 

and overseas; or include a comprehensive plan with quantifiable goals or 

milestones to measure progress, or projected funding requirements needed to 

implement the plan.12 Instead, OSD’s report described the services’ processes 

to develop, document, and execute current training and training range 

requirements and the types of ranges the services need to meet their training 

requirements in the United States. In addition, we reported that OSD’s training 

range inventory provided to Congress did not contain sufficient information to 

 

9

 GAO-05-534 contains a comprehensive list of GAO products associated with military training ranges. 10 GAO, Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in Readiness 

Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002). 11 GAO, Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment on Training 

Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002). 12 GAO-04-608. 
Page 7 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

use as a baseline for developing a comprehensive training range plan required 

by section 366. 

• In June 2005, we reported that our visits to eight training ranges along with 

DOD’s own assessments showed that ranges were in deteriorated conditions 

and lacked maintenance and modernization, which adversely affected training 

activities and jeopardized the safety of military personnel.13 For example, we 

observed ranges with malfunctioning communication systems, impassable 

tank trails, overgrown areas, and outdated training areas and targets. 

Whenever possible, the services work around these conditions by modifying 

the timing, tempo, or location of training, but officials have expressed concern 

that workarounds are becoming increasingly difficult and costly and that they 

compromise the realism essential to effective training. We also noted that 

DOD’s progress in improving training range conditions was limited and was 

partially attributable to a lack of a comprehensive approach to ensure that 

ranges provide the proper setting for effectively preparing its forces for 

warfare. Specifically, a comprehensive approach should include several key 

elements, such as the following: well-defined policies that address all factors 

impacting range sustainability; servicewide plans that guide the timely 

execution of range sustainability actions; range requirements that are geared 

to meet both service and joint needs; adequate management of range funding; 

and a commitment to the implementation of this approach. 

OSD’s 2005 Inventory Does Not Contain 

Sufficient Information for Developing 

a Comprehensive Sustainment Plan 

OSD’s 2005 training range inventory contains more information than the one 

submitted to Congress in 2004 but it still does not meet the requirements mandated 

by section 366 because it does not identify specific capacities, capabilities, and 

training constraints for ranges of all the services—information necessary for 

developing a comprehensive plan to address training constraints and help ensure 

range sustainability. Instead, similar to last year’s inventory, the 2005 inventory lists 

available operational training ranges and provides data on the size and type of ranges 

(e.g., air to ground, land maneuver, and urbanized terrain). Unlike the inventory from 

last year, the 2005 inventory also identifies specific routes pilots use to travel from an 

installation to a training range and back, and provides upper and lower altitudes for 

shared airspace near installations. However, neither inventory identifies specific 

training capacities and capabilities available at each range of all the services as 

required by section 366. For example, while both inventories identify capacities and 

capabilities at each Air Force range in terms of the number and type of aircraft that 

can be accommodated simultaneously or sequentially, and in terms of the types of 

ordnance permitted, targets, and feedback systems, they do not identify training 

capacities and capabilities available at individual Army, Navy, or Marine Corps 

ranges. Also, although specifically required to do so by section 366, neither inventory 

 

13 GAO-05-534. 
Page 8 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

lists existing training constraints caused by limitations on the use of each range due 

to encroachment or other factors, such as a lack of maintenance or modernization. 

Still, individually the services have developed some of the specified information 

mandated by section 366. For example, Army and Marine Corps officials told us that 

they had identified training capacities and capabilities of their ranges, and the Army 

was able to provide us with a list of identified training constraints subsequent to the 

issuance of OSD’s 2005 inventory. Also, Air Force officials said a list of identified 

training constraints for their ranges was provided to OSD last year but was not 

incorporated into either inventory and the Navy has initiated an effort to identify 

capabilities and constraints for 17 of its training ranges—four of these studies are 

completed but are still in final draft. 

A training range inventory that could be continuously updated and easily accessible 

to potential users would make these data more useful to address training constraints 

caused by encroachment and to identify the best available resources to fulfill training 

requirements. Instead, similar to last year’s inventory, OSD’s 2005 inventory is a list of 

the individual services’ inventories merged into one document that is not integrated 

or readily accessible by commanders across all the services. In response to a similar 

finding in a draft of our 2004 report, OSD stated that it is a long-term goal to have an 

integrated management system to support joint use of training ranges. However, the 

training range sustainment plan presented in OSD’s 2005 report does not identify this 

as one of the department’s goals. Instead, the report discusses various service- and 

range-level information and inventory systems. Collectively, these information and 

inventory systems are important to provide more complete data concerning training 

resources, but they are not integrated in a way that makes training ranges, their 

capacities and capabilities, and their limitations readily accessible to all commanders. 

For example, in 2001 DOD’s Business Initiative Council recognized that range users, 

managers, and schedulers need information about multiple ranges, facilities, and 

associated resources in terms of scheduling and availability. Consequently, DOD has 

developed a common range scheduling tool that interfaces with 12 Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Air Force ranges and simulation sites, providing near-real time 

display of scheduling and resource information. Also, as described in OSD’s 2005 

report, the Marine Corps has developed an active, centralized training range Web site 

that provides both general and detailed information about each of its ranges, allows 

commanders from any service to schedule their training events remotely, and 

provides photos and video footage of some ranges to assist potential users in 

scheduling and designing their training events. At the same time, the Army and 

Marine Corps have recognized the benefits of working together while jointly 

developing several information systems and decision tools that support cross-service 

utilization of both Marine Corps and Army training ranges. While the Navy and Air 

Force do not have similar Web-based inventories, they have worked together on the 

development and application of an aviation range safety software application, which 

is described in OSD’s 2005 report. Additionally, the Navy’s Southern California 

Offshore Range has developed an information management system that allows its 

users to complete a number of tasks, such as tracking the causes of modified or 

cancelled training and reporting range deficiencies. 
Page 9 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

OSD’s 2005 Report Still Does Not Meet 

Other Requirements that Could Help 

Guide the Sustainability of Ranges 

Similar to OSD’s training range report issued to Congress last year, the 2005 report 

does not meet other requirements mandated by section 366 that could help guide 

OSD and the services in ensuring the long-term sustainability of their training ranges. 

One noteworthy change since last year is that OSD’s current report provides some 

elements of a plan intended to address the long-term sustainability of training ranges 

while last year’s report did not. However, the plan presented does not identify 

funding requirements for implementing planned actions although specified by section 

366, and does not assign responsibility for implementation of actions or provide 

performance metrics to measure progress, although both are critical elements of a 

meaningful plan. Also, neither annual report includes OSD’s assessment of current 

and future training range requirements; its evaluation of the adequacy of current 

resources, including virtual and constructive assets, to meet these requirements; its 

recommendations for legislative or regulatory changes; or its plans to improve the 

reporting of the readiness impact that training constraints have on specific units of 

the services—although specifically required to do so by section 366. While other OSD 

components have demonstrated that the department is capable of developing reports 

that contain information and comprehensive strategic plans similar to those specified 

by section 366, OSD’s 2005 report is still generally descriptive and fails to fully 

address congressional requirements. 

OSD’s Plan Does Not Identify Funding 

Requirements, Assign Responsibilities, or 

Provide Explicit Performance Metrics

OSD’s current plan provides a general framework for goals, actions, and milestones, 

but it does not provide information on the amount and sources of funding required 

for implementing the planned actions, or when these types of funds are needed. 

However, OSD describes the efforts of the Sustainable Range Working Integrated 

Product Team to develop a more consistent and accurate system to capture and 

report funding associated with ranges and to develop investment strategies. It further 

describes different types of funding available for ranges (e.g., procurement, operation 

and maintenance, and military construction funds) and the current and proposed 

funding framework for ranges, without specifically identifying its funding 

requirements. In our June 2005 report, we found that the services lack the capability 

to accurately and easily capture overall training range funding information and were 

unable to easily and precisely identify their funding requirements, funding levels, and 

trends in expenditures for training ranges on an annual basis. In comments on a draft 

of that report, DOD responded that a standing subgroup, under the direction of the 

Sustainable Ranges Integrated Product Team, is developing a framework that 

provides increased visibility into year-to-year funding. During this review, responsible 

DOD officials noted that additional time is needed to complete this effort and could 

not provide any definitive estimate for completion. 
Page 10 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

OSD’s plan also lacks complete information on which organizations will be assigned 

responsibility for implementing which planned action. Instead, OSD discusses in 

general terms organizational roles and responsibilities for the sustainment of test and 

training ranges and operating areas. Individually, the military services have 

undertaken a number of planning actions to address the sustainability of their ranges. 

For example, the Navy and Marine Corps have started to develop local management 

plans for their training ranges that, among other things, provide a strategic vision for 

range operations and identify capability shortfalls. In addition, the Army recently 

started developing standardized local range plans; the Air Force is creating a 

management system, scheduled to be operational in 2007, to develop plans for its 

ranges; and several local range offices have started to develop plans to address the 

sustainability of their training ranges. In comments on our June 2005 report, OSD 

stated that more fully articulating the roles and responsibilities of primary OSD 

offices, the services, and the combatant commands will better address the full range 

of management functions required to sustain training ranges. OSD further noted that 

it intended to undertake a review of the department’s policies to ensure the roles and 

responsibilities for addressing such sustainable range issues are integrated and 

clearly articulated. More recently, DOD officials could not provide an estimated 

completion date for this endeavor. 

In addition, OSD’s plan does not provide explicit performance metrics to measure 

progress in addressing training constraints and ensuring the sustainability of ranges. 

Instead, DOD organizes its general goals, actions, and milestones under four main 

categories: modernization and investment, operations and maintenance, 

environmental, and encroachment. For each category, DOD identifies actions to be 

completed in fiscal year 2005 and actions to be completed during fiscal years 2006 

and beyond. However, the plan lacks explicit metrics to indicate what level of 

performance toward the achievement of these goals would be acceptable or 

unacceptable. For example, while the plan states that one of the actions that should 

be taken to achieve modernized ranges is to develop, complete, and periodically 

update training range complex plans, it does not provide the services any metrics to 

indicate how many or percentage of complex plans should be developed or within 

what time frame they should be completed (e.g., 10 percent in fiscal year 2005, 40 

percent in fiscal year 2006, or 70 percent in fiscal year 2007). Without established, 

sound metrics DOD will be unable to accurately measure the progress made in 

implementing the plan, as required in section 366. 

OSD’s Report Does Not Assess 

Current and Future Requirements

Similar to last year’s report, OSD’s 2005 report does not include an assessment of 

current and future training range requirements of the military services. Instead, the 

2005 report describes the services’ ranges in the United States and overseas and their 

processes to develop, document, and execute current training and training range 

requirements. On the other hand, the data to meet the mandated requirement to 

assess current training range requirements already exist in selected instances. For 

example, we recently reported that the Army had conducted a detailed capacity 
Page 11 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

analysis during the 2005 base closures and realignments process that identified the 

types of training lands and facilities required to support various units (e.g., light and 

heavy maneuver brigades).14 In addition, as we reported in our June 2005 report, the 

Navy and Marine Corps had identified specific requirements for their ranges in 2004 

and the Air Force had assessed its range requirements in 2003. However, none of 

these studies provided assessments of their future training range requirements. 

Without the specified assessments mandated by section 366, OSD continues to lack 

the basis for determining whether current and future resources are adequate. 

OSD’s Report Does Not Evaluate the 

Adequacy of Current Resources to 

Meet Current and Future Requirements

Similar to last year’s report, OSD’s 2005 report does not include an evaluation of the 

adequacy of current DOD resources, including virtual and constructive training assets 

as well as military lands, marine areas, and airspace available in the United States and 

overseas, to meet current and future training range requirements. Neither report 

compares current or future training range requirements to existing resources—a 

primary method to evaluate the adequacy of current resources. While the Army has 

not evaluated the adequacy of its resources, the other services have used the results 

of their range assessments discussed previously to evaluate the adequacy of their 

training ranges. However, the results of these evaluations were not included in OSD’s 

2005 report and none of the services have completed an evaluation of the adequacy of 

current resources to meet future training range requirements. In comments on a draft 

of our report last year, DOD stated that it was inappropriate and impractical to 

include this detail in an OSD-level report and that Congress is better served if the 

department describes, summarizes, and analyzes range requirements. However, these 

statements are contradictory to section 366, which specifically requires OSD to report 

its evaluation of the adequacy of current DOD resources to meet current and future 

training range requirements, and do not adequately consider concerns that training 

ranges already face environmental and encroachment issues that constrained their 

ability to meet unit training requirements. 

We recently reported that concerns over the ability of existing Army training ranges 

to meet training requirements were exacerbated by uncertainties over the final 

number and composition of additional modular brigades15 that will require training as 

well as the potential impact of additional forces returning from bases overseas to U.S. 

bases.16 As part of DOD’s Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy,17 the Army 

 

14 GAO, Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Section Process and Recommendations for Base 

Closures and Realignments, GAO-05-785 (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005). 15 The Army’s current modular force restructuring plan calls for the creation of 10 modular brigades 

within the United States by 2006, with the possibility of an additional 5 modular brigades beyond then. 16 GAO-05-785. 

17 On September 17, 2004, DOD issued a report entitled Strengthening U.S. Global Defense Posture, 

also referred to as the integrated global presence and basing strategy. This strategy—the culmination 

of various DOD studies including the overseas basing and requirements study, the overseas presence 
Page 12 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

plans to restation up to 47,000 soldiers from U.S. bases in Germany, South Korea, and 

other overseas locations to the United States over the next 10 years. We have also 

reported on the challenges DOD faces in implementing its Training Transformation 

Program aimed at enhancing joint training among the services.18 Consequently, we 

continue to believe that information regarding the adequacy of current resources to 

meet current and future requirements is vital to establishing a baseline for measuring 

losses or shortfalls in training capabilities, and it is likely to grow in importance for 

congressional decision makers in carrying out their oversight responsibilities when 

DOD seeks their approval for acquiring additional lands to meet current and future 

training requirements—as OSD suggested several times in its 2005 training range 

report. 

OSD’s Report Does Not Identify 

Recommendations for 

Legislative or Regulatory Changes

Similar to last year’s report, OSD’s 2005 report makes no recommendations for 

legislative or regulatory changes to address encroachment or other training 

constraints even though such changes existed. While OSD’s current report ends with 

a section on observations, it does not provide any recommendations for legislative or 

regulatory action for Congress to consider. Instead, DOD submitted proposed 

legislation in a separate document to Congress on April 6, 2004, which was intended 

to clarify the intent of the Clean Air Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980; and the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act. According to a senior OSD official, it is difficult to synchronize the 

process of obtaining the approval required from both DOD and the Office of 

Management and Budget for any legislative or regulatory proposal, while also issuing 

an OSD-level report, such as the mandated training range sustainment report. Still, 

without including its recommendations in this year’s report, we believe that OSD 

missed an opportunity provided by section 366 to present Congress with additional 

information that may be useful to carry out its oversight responsibilities and further 

address training constraints. 

OSD Has Not Reported Its Plans for 

Improving the Readiness Reporting System

OSD has not reported to Congress its plans to improve the department’s readiness 

reporting system, regardless of a specific mandate in section 366 that it do so no later 

than June 30, 2003. Instead, OSD concluded last year that it is inappropriate to modify 

the Global Status of Resources and Training System (GSORTS) identified by the 

mandate to address long-term encroachment impacts and reported that it planned to 

incorporate encroachment impacts on readiness into its Defense Readiness Reporting 

 study, and the U.S. global posture study—calls for restationing of U.S. military forces overseas to 

bases located in the United States and is intended to enhance flexibility and achieve efficiencies. 

18 GAO, Military Training: Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Program to Transform Joint 

Training, GAO-05-548 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 
Page 13 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

System, which is currently under development. However, OSD has not explained how 

or when it intends to do this or provided any additional details on how it plans to 

improve its readiness reporting in either this or last year’s report. More significantly, 

as we reported in June 2005, none of the services regularly assesses either the 

conditions of their ranges or whether the ranges are able to meet the specific training 

requirements of the service and combatant commanders. While the Army and Marine 

Corps annually assess the physical condition of their training ranges, the services do 

not assess the capabilities of the ranges or any impacts to training. The Navy and Air 

Force do not routinely conduct annual assessments of their training ranges. While we 

appreciate that OSD does not believe GSORTS is the system to capture encroachment 

impacts, its failure to explain this and include in the 2005 report its plans to improve 

its readiness reporting does not address the concerns raised by Congress, GAO, and 

others that its readiness reporting system does not accurately reflect the impacts due 

to limitations on the use of training ranges. 

Other DOD Components Have Developed 

Comprehensive Strategic Plans and Reports

Other OSD components have demonstrated that the department is capable of 

developing comprehensive strategic plans and reports with data similar to those 

mandated by section 366. Still, unlike these strategic planning efforts and in 

contradiction to the reporting requirements specified in section 366, OSD’s 2005 

training range report continues to be generally descriptive in nature, with large 

sections dedicated to providing background information on funding sources, 

encroachment issues, and overseas ranges and describing current efforts to use 

information technology and individual services’ efforts to address sustainable range 

issues. In contrast to OSD’s annual training range report, the Office of Special 

Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict released a DOD-wide strategic plan on 

antiterrorism in June 2004 with five goals, 35 specific performance objectives, and 

annual milestones and metrics through 2011 to measure progress.19 The strategic 

goals and performance objectives describe how DOD components are to achieve the 

desired end state and the annual milestones and metrics detail the level of 

performance expected by fiscal year. Within the first year, the services and several 

combatant commands had developed plans to implement the DOD-wide strategic 

plan. The OSD office plans to annually review these organizations’ progress to ensure 

that the actions outlined in the plans are being achieved in the stated time frames. 

Other examples are OSD’s training transformation strategic plan and its annual 

implementation plans that include specific goals, planned actions, performance 

metrics, and milestones for transforming DOD’s training.20 As part of its approach to 

managing training transformation, OSD has taken action to establish accountability 

and authority early in the program, and performance metrics are being continuously 

 

19 Department of Defense, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity 

Conflict, Department of Defense Antiterrorism Strategic Plan, O-2000.12-P (Washington, D.C.: June 

15, 2004). 

20 Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, Strategic Plan 

for Transforming DOD Training (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2002); and Department of Defense 

Training Transformation Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2003, and June 9, 2004). 
Page 14 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

developed and revised in an attempt to better measure training transformation’s 

impact on joint force readiness and guide investments in training transformation. 

Concluding Observations 

Although we agree with DOD that assuring the sustainment of its training ranges 

requires a long-term commitment that will take several years to execute, we also 

believe the development of a comprehensive strategic plan and report can be 

accomplished in a more timely manner. Noting that section 366 allots 5 years to 

produce, update, and improve the mandated report, we believe that sufficient time 

has elapsed for the department to have developed both a training range inventory and 

a comprehensive report that fulfill requirements mandated by section 366. By now, 

nearly 3 years after the mandate was established, OSD should be reporting on its 

progress implementing the training range sustainment plan. Without the information 

mandated by section 366, congressional and DOD decision makers will continue to 

rely on incomplete data to address training constraints and to support funding 

requests. Further, these types of information will likely grow in importance as 

Congress realizes the need to evaluate and approve the department’s proposals to 

purchase additional training lands and areas in the future as predicted in OSD’s 

current report. Since OSD and the services have individually or jointly initiated a 

number of range inventory and sustainment activities, any further delay in developing 

a comprehensive training range sustainment plan that identifies funding requirements 

as mandated by section 366, assigns lead responsibility for implementation of specific 

actions, and provides explicit performance metrics to measure progress puts the 

department at risk of lacking a strategy that fully addresses training limitations and 

ensures the long-term sustainability of military training ranges. This is especially 

important in light of the need to address emerging training requirements due to the 

relocation of forces from bases overseas to the United States, implementation of new 

joint training initiatives, and creation of modular brigades in the Army. Because our 

prior recommendations for improving OSD’s annual training range reporting remain 

open, valid, and not fully addressed, we are not making new recommendations in this 

report. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

In comments on a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 

Readiness stated that DOD is fully committed to a comprehensive approach to range 

management and that its annual reports to Congress on this matter reflected the 

importance DOD accords this subject. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense also 

stated that successful comprehensive planning does not equate to centralized 

management and that DOD does not believe a single, continuously updated and 

widely accessible inventory database that doubles as a Web-based scheduling tool is 

currently practical or feasible. 

While we recognize that DOD is committed to improving the management of its 

ranges, we previously recommended and continue to believe that DOD needs to 
Page 15 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

develop a training range inventory and a comprehensive report that better fulfill the 

reporting requirements mandated by section 366. Implementation of our prior 

recommendations on this matter would provide DOD with a framework to better 

address training range sustainability issues and provide for a more comprehensive 

approach for ensuring that ranges are adequately sustained and modernized in order 

to ensure their long-term viability. As in this report and our prior reports on 

sustainability of ranges, we have not equated successful comprehensive planning to 

centralized management as suggested by DOD, but instead we have recognized fully 

the importance of the military services’ role and the steps they have taken in 

addressing the sustainability of their ranges. We also disagree with DOD’s contention 

that a single, continuously updated and widely accessible inventory database is not 

currently practical or feasible, and would not meet the needs of the services or OSD. 

As illustrated in this and our prior reports, all of the services and several individual 

commands have recognized the need for information and inventory systems that 

could be continuously updated and easily accessible to potential users for addressing 

sustainment issues and for identifying the best available resources to fulfill training 

requirements. Both the Army and Marine Corps have implemented inventory systems 

to meet the requirements of their commanders. The Air Force and several individual 

commands are in the process of developing systems that could meet their needs, and 

the Navy’s Southern California Offshore range has its own management system that is 

used for scheduling training and tracking sustainment issues and resolutions. Clearly, 

these individual information and inventory systems demonstrate that the 

development of a departmentwide inventory is practical and feasible. Also, we 

continue to believe that without such an inventory it will be difficult for OSD and the 

services to develop a meaningful comprehensive plan and to track their progress in 

addressing training constraints and ensuring range sustainability. 

The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense’s comments are included in enclosure III. 

DOD also provided a technical clarification, which we incorporated. 

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and 

members; the Secretary of Defense; and the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force. The report is also available at no charge on GAO’s Web Site at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions on the matters discussed in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-5581 or holmanb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
Page 16 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

report. Tommy Baril, Steve Boyles, Susan Ditto, and Mark Little were major 

contributors to this report. 

Barry W. Holman, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 
Page 17 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

List of Congressional Committees 

The Honorable John Warner 

Chairman 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ted Stevens 

Chairman 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter 

Chairman 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young 

Chairman 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Defense 

House of Representatives 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

Page 18 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

Section 366 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

SEC. 366. Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of Resources and 

Training System, and Training Range Inventory 

 (a) PLAN REQUIRED--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop a 

comprehensive plan for using existing authorities available to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments to 

address training constraints caused by limitations on the use of military 

lands, marine areas, and airspace that are available in the United States 

and overseas for training of the Armed Forces. 

 (2) As part of the preparation of the plan, the Secretary of Defense 

shall conduct the following: 

 (A) An assessment of current and future training range 

requirements of the Armed Forces. 

 (B) An evaluation of the adequacy of current Department of 

Defense resources (including virtual and constructive training 

assets as well as military lands, marine areas, and airspace 

available in the United States and overseas) to meet those current 

and future training range requirements. 

 (3) The plan shall include the following: 

(A) Proposals to enhance training range capabilities and 

address any shortfalls in current Department of Defense 

resources identified pursuant to the assessment and evaluation 

conducted under paragraph (2). 

(B) Goals and milestones for tracking planned actions and 

measuring progress. 

(C) Projected funding requirements for implementing planned 

actions. 

(D) Designation of an office in the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense and in each of the military departments that will have 

lead responsibility for overseeing implementation of the plan. 

 (4) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget 

for fiscal year 2004, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a 

report describing the progress made in implementing this subsection, 

including— 

(A) the plan developed under paragraph (1); 

(B) the results of the assessment and evaluation conducted 

under paragraph (2); and 
Enclosure I Enclosure I 

Page 19 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

(C) any recommendations that the Secretary may have for 

legislative or regulatory changes to address training 

constraints identified pursuant to this section. 

 (5) At the same time as the President submits to Congress the budget 

for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the Secretary shall submit to 

Congress a report describing the progress made in implementing the plan 

and any additional actions taken, or to be taken, to address training 

constraints caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine 

areas, and airspace. 

 (b) READINESS REPORTING IMPROVEMENT--Not later than June 30, 2003, 

the Secretary of Defense, using existing measures within the authority of 

the Secretary, shall submit to Congress a report on the plans of the 

Department of Defense to improve the Global Status of Resources and 

Training System to reflect the readiness impact that training constraints 

caused by limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and 

airspace have on specific units of the Armed Forces. 

 (c) TRAINING RANGE INVENTORY--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall 

develop and maintain a training range inventory for each of the Armed 

Forces— 

 (A) to identify all available operational training ranges; 

 (B) to identify all training capacities and capabilities 

available at each training range; and 

 (C) to identify training constraints caused by limitations on 

the use of military lands, marine areas, and airspace at each 

training range. 

 (2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit an initial inventory to 

Congress at the same time as the President submits the budget for fiscal 

year 2004 and shall submit an updated inventory to Congress at the same 

time as the President submits the budget for fiscal years 2005 through 

2008. 

 (d) GAO EVALUATION--The Secretary of Defense shall transmit copies 

of each report required by subsections (a) and (b) to the Comptroller 

General. Within 60 days after receiving a report, the Comptroller General 

shall submit to Congress an evaluation of the report. 

 (e) ARMED FORCES DEFINED--In this section, the term 'Armed Forces' 

means the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 20 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

GAO Prior Recommendations 

Figure 1 lists our prior recommendations designed to help ensure the long-term 

viability of military training ranges and enhance the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

responsiveness to the legislative requirements specified in section 366 of the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. Individually, they 

have not been fully implemented and we continue to consider them open and 

continuing recommendations from our prior reports. 

Figure 1: Prior Recommendations Associated with the Sustainment of Military 

Training Ranges 

Report Recommendation Status 

Military Training: Limitations Exist Overseas but Are Not Reflected in 

Readiness Reporting, GAO-02-525 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2002)

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the chiefs of the 

military services in conjunction with the Under Secretary of Defense, 

Personnel and Readiness, to develop a report that will accurately capture 

training shortfalls for senior DOD leadership. This document should 

objectively report a unit’s ability to achieve its training requirements and 

include 

• all instances in which training cannot occur as scheduled due to 

constraints imposed by entities outside DOD as well as all instances 

when training substitutes are not sufficient to meet training 

requirements, 

• a discussion of how training constraints affect the ability of units to 

meet training requirements and how the inability to meet those 

requirements is affecting readiness, and 

• a description of efforts to capture training shortfalls in existing as well 

as developmental readiness reporting systems. 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct that the war fighting 

commands, in concert with their service component commands, develop 

an overarching strategy that will detail the initiatives the command and 

each service plan to pursue to improve training, such as access to 

additional host government facilities, participation in bilateral and 

multilateral exercises, and acquisition of new technology. 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage Encroachment 

on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614 (Washington, D.C.: June 11, 2002) 

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense 

• require the services to develop and maintain inventories of their 

training ranges, capacities, and capabilities, and fully quantify their 

training requirements considering complementary approaches to 

training; 

• create a DOD data base that identifies all ranges available to the 

department and what they offer, regardless of service ownership, so 

that commanders can schedule the best available resources to provide 

required training; 

• finalize a comprehensive plan for administrative actions that includes 

goals, timelines, projected costs, and a clear assignment of 

responsibilities for managing and coordinating the department’s efforts 

to address encroachment issues on military training ranges; and 

DOD agreed—some 

limited action taken 

by the services 

DOD agreed—some 

limited action taken 

by the services 

DOD agreed—some 

limited action taken 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 21 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

• develop a reporting system for range sustainability issues that will 

allow for the elevation of critical training problems and progress in 

addressing them to the Senior Readiness Oversight Council for 

inclusion in Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress as appropriate. 

DOD partially 

agreed—no action 

taken 

Military Training: DOD Report on Training Ranges Does Not Fully Address 

Congressional Reporting Requirements, GAO-04-608 (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2004) 

 We recommended that OSD provide a more complete report to Congress 

to fully address the requirements specified in the section 366 mandate by 

• developing a comprehensive plan that includes quantifiable goals and 

milestones for tracking planned actions and measuring progress, and 

projected funding requirements to more fully address identified training 

constraints; 

• assessing current and future training range requirements and 

evaluating the adequacy of current resources to meet these 

requirements; and 

• developing a readiness reporting system to reflect the impact on 

readiness caused by training constraints due to limitations on the use 

of training ranges. 

DOD agreed—some 

limited action taken 

DOD disagreed—no 

action taken 

DOD disagreed—no 

action taken 

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and the secretaries of 

the military services to jointly develop an integrated training range 

database that identifies available training resources, specific capacities and 

capabilities, and training constraints caused by limitations on the use of 

training ranges, which could be continuously updated and shared among 

the services at all command levels, regardless of service ownership. 

DOD disagreed—

some limited action 

taken by the services 

Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to Improve 

the Conditions of Military Training Ranges, GAO-05-534 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 10, 2005)a 

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to 

• update DOD Directive 3200.15 to broaden the focus of the policy to 

clearly address all issues that affect the long-term viability of military 

training ranges; and clearly define the maintenance and modernization 

roles and responsibilities of all relevant DOD components, including 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 

Environment, Joint Forces Command, and Special Operations 

Command; 

• broaden the charter of the DOD-wide working group, the Sustainable 

Range Integrated Product Team, to address all issues that could affect 

the long-term viability of military training ranges, and include all DOD 

components that are impacted by range limitations; and 

• update DOD's training transformation plan to address all factors that 

could impact the sustainability of military training ranges and not just 

external encroachment issues. 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense direct the secretaries of 

the military services to implement a comprehensive approach to managing 

their training ranges, to include 

• a servicewide sustainable range policy that implements the updated 

DOD Directive 3200.15 and clearly defines the maintenance and 

modernization roles and responsibilities of relevant service officials at 

all levels; 

• a servicewide sustainable range implementation plan that includes 

goals, specific actions to be taken, milestones, funding sources, and 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 
Enclosure II Enclosure II 

Page 22 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

an investment strategy for managing their ranges; 

• defined training range requirements and a systematic process to 

annually assess the conditions of training ranges and their consequent 

impact on training, including whether the ranges are able to meet the 

specific training requirements of the service and combatant 

commanders; 

• a Web-based range information management system that allows 

training range officials at all levels to share information, such as range 

conditions and their impact on training, funding sources, requirements 

and expenditures, and local range initiatives; and 

• regularly developed strategies to address the factors contributing to 

funding shortages for ranges, including the reassessment of funding 

priorities for maintaining and modernizing ranges relative to other 

needs. 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

DOD agreed—no 

action taken 

Source: DOD and GAO. 

a

 While DOD agreed with the recommendations in this report, more time is needed for the department and military services to 

implement them. 
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

Page 23 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

Comments from the Department of Defense 
Enclosure III Enclosure III 

Page 24 GAO-06-29R Military Training 

(350644) 
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 

GAO’s Mission 

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
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.