United States General Accounting Office 

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT 

Thursday, October 2, 2003 INDIAN ISSUES

Spokane Tribe’s Additional 

Compensation Claim for the 

Grand Coulee Dam 

Statement for the Record by Robert A. Robinson, 

Managing Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

GAO-04-125T 

Highlights of GAO-04-125T, a statement 

for the record for the Committee on Indian 

Affairs, United States Senate 

The Grand Coulee Dam was 

constructed on the Columbia River 

in northeastern Washington State 

from 1933 to 1942. The reservoir 

behind the dam covers land on the 

Colville Reservation along the 

Columbia River and land on the 

adjacent Spokane Reservation 

along both the Columbia and 

Spokane rivers. Under a 1940 act, 

the federal government paid 

$63,000 and $4,700 to the Colville 

and Spokane tribes, respectively, 

for the land used for the dam and 

reservoir. Subsequently, the 

Colville tribes pursued additional 

claims for their lost fisheries and 

for “water power values” and in 

1994 were awarded a lump sum 

payment of $53 million and, 

beginning in 1996, annual payments 

that have ranged between $14 

million to $21 million. The 

Spokane tribe is currently pursuing 

similar claims. 

S. 1438, introduced in July 2003, is 

a proposed legislative settlement 

for the Spokane tribe’s claims. 

While settlement proposals 

introduced in the 106th and 107th 

Congresses directed the settlement 

costs to be split between 

Bonneville and the Treasury, S. 

1438 provides that the settlement 

be paid entirely from the Treasury. 

This statement for the record 

addresses the (1) impact of a 

settlement on Bonneville if the 

costs were split between 

Bonneville and the Treasury and 

(2) possible allocation of these 

costs between Bonneville and the 

Treasury. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-125T. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Robert A. 

Robinson at (202) 512-9894 or 

robinsonr@gao.gov. 

October 2, 2003 

INDIAN ISSUES 

The Spokane Tribe's Additional 

Compensation Claim for the Grand 

Coulee Dam 

A settlement with the Spokane tribe along the lines provided to the Colville 

tribes would likely necessitate a small increase in Bonneville’s rates for 

power. While the rate increase would amount to less than 20 cents per 

month per household, it comes at a time when (1) Bonneville’s customers 

have already absorbed rate increases, including those announced on October 

1, 2003, of over 40 percent and (2) the economy of the northwestern region, 

Bonneville’s primary service area, is experiencing difficulties. However, the 

bulk of Bonneville’s obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville 

settlement will occur in the future, when the conditions causing Bonneville’s 

current financial difficulties—such as costly long-term contracts to purchase 

power from other suppliers—will probably have abated. Therefore, 

Bonneville’s current financial difficulties should not unduly influence 

current discussions about how to compensate the Spokane tribe. 

A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane tribe’s case along the 

lines of the Colville settlement—a one-time payment from the U.S. Treasury 

for past lost payments for water power values and annual payments 

primarily from Bonneville. Bonneville continues to earn revenues from the 

Spokane Reservation lands used to generate hydropower. However, unlike 

the Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe does not benefit from these revenues. 

Spokane does not benefit because it missed its filing opportunity before the 

Indian Claims Commission. At that time, it was pursuing other avenues to 

win payments for the value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would 

ultimately fail. Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a 

settlement for the Spokane tribe will occur. 
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the Spokane tribe’s 

additional compensation claim for the Grand Coulee Dam and the 

proposed legislative settlement, S. 1438. As you know, the Grand Coulee 

Dam was constructed on the Columbia River in northeastern Washington 

State from 1933 to 1942. When finished, the 550-foot high dam was the 

largest concrete dam in the world. It is still the largest hydroelectric 

facility in the United States. The Franklin D. Roosevelt Reservoir, which 

was created behind the dam, extends over 130 miles up the Columbia River 

and about 30 miles east along the Spokane River. The reservoir covers land 

on the Colville Reservation along the Columbia River and land on the 

adjacent Spokane Reservation along both the Columbia and Spokane 

rivers. Under a 1940 act, the federal government paid $63,000 and $4,700 to 

the Colville and Spokane tribes, respectively, for the land used for the dam 

and reservoir.

1 

Subsequently, the Colville tribes pursued additional claims for their lost 

fisheries and for “water power values” (i.e., a share of the hydropower 

revenues generated by the dam from the use of their lands) before the 

Indian Claims Commission. The Colville tribes’ fisheries claim was settled 

in 1978 for about $3.3 million. Under a 1994 act—the Confederated tribes 

of the Colville Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Settlement Act (P.L. 103-436, 

Nov. 2, 1994)—the Colville tribes were awarded a lump sum payment of $53 

million for lost hydropower revenues and, beginning in 1996, annual 

payments that have ranged between $14 million and $21 million for their 

water power values claim.

2 The lump sum payment was made from the 

U.S. Treasury, and the cost of the annual payments is shared between the 

Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), which markets the power 

generated at the dam, and Treasury. 

The Spokane tribe is currently pursuing similar claims. S. 1438, introduced 

in July 2003, is a proposed legislative settlement for the Spokane tribe’s 

claims. While settlement proposals introduced in the 106th and 107th 

1

Pub. L. No. 76-690, 54 Stat. 703 (1940), an act for the acquisition of Indian lands for the 

Grand Coulee Dam and Reservoir, and for other purposes, granted the United States title to 

Indian lands the Secretary of the Interior designated as necessary for the Grand Coulee Dam 

project and authorized the Secretary to determine the appropriate amount to be paid to the 

tribes for lands so designated. 

2

Pub. L. No. 103-436, 108 Stat. 4577 (1994). 

Page 1 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
Congresses directed the settlement costs to be split between Bonneville 

and the U.S. Treasury, S. 1438 provides that the settlement be paid entirely 

out of the U.S. Treasury.

3 In this context, you asked us to address the (1) 

impact of a settlement on Bonneville if the costs were split between 

Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury and (2) possible allocation of settlement 

costs between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. To meet these objectives, 

we relied on information developed for a preliminary GAO report to the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, House Committee on 

Appropriations;4 interviewed officials at Bonneville and representatives of 

the Spokane tribe; and reviewed numerous documents on the Colville and 

Spokane tribes’ claims for additional compensation. Our work for the 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Bonneville’s financial condition is 

continuing. We plan to issue our final report in June 2004. Also, as you 

know, we are continuing our review of Bonneville’s obligations for tribal 

fish and wildlife programs for this Committee. See appendix I for a more 

detailed description of how we estimated the impact of a settlement on 

Bonneville. We performed our work in September 2003, according to 

generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided a a draft 

of this statement to Bonneville for comment but did not receive a response 

in time to include in this statement. 

In summary, we found the following: 

•	 A settlement with the Spokane tribe along the lines provided to the 

Colville tribes would likely necessitate a small increase in Bonneville’s 

rates for power. While the rate increase would amount to less than 20 

cents per month per household, it comes at a time when Bonneville’s 

customers have already absorbed rate increases, including those 

announced on October 1, 2003, of over 40 percent and when the region’s 

economy is experiencing difficulties. However, the bulk of Bonneville’s 

obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville settlement will occur 

in the future, when the conditions causing Bonneville’s current financial 

difficulties will probably have abated. Therefore, Bonneville’s current 

3

The legislative settlement proposals introduced in the 106th Congress were S. 1525 and H.R. 

2664. In the 107th Congress, the proposals were S. 2567 and H.R. 4859. The proposals 

pending in the 108th Congress are S. 1438 and H.R. 1753. Under S. 1438 the settlement costs 

would all be paid out of the U.S. Treasury, while under H.R. 1753, the settlement costs would 

be split between Bonneville and the Treasury. 

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Bonneville Power Administration: Long-Term Fiscal 

Challenges, GAO-03-918R (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2003). 

Page 2 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
financial difficulties should not unduly influence current discussions 

about how to compensate the Spokane tribe. 

•	 A reasonable case can be made to settle the Spokane tribe’s case along 

the lines of the Colville settlement—a one-time payment from the U.S. 

Treasury for past lost payments for water power values and annual 

payments primarily from Bonneville. Bonneville continues to earn 

revenues from the Spokane Reservation lands used to generate 

hydropower. However, unlike the Colville tribes, the Spokane tribe does 

not benefit from these revenues. The Spokane tribe does not benefit 

because it missed its filing opportunity before the Indian Claims 

Commission. At that time it was pursuing other avenues to win 

payments for the value of its land for hydropower. These efforts would 

ultimately fail. Without congressional action, it seems unlikely that a 

settlement for the Spokane tribe will occur. 

Background	 The Colville and Spokane Indian reservations were established in 1872 and 

1877, respectively, on land that was later included in the state of 

Washington. The Colville Reservation, of approximately 1.4 million acres, 

was created on July 2, 1872, through an executive order issued by President 

Grant. The Spokane Reservation, of approximately 155,000 acres, was 

created by an agreement between agents of the federal government and 

certain Spokane chiefs on August 18, 1877. President Hayes’ executive 

order of January 18, 1881, confirmed the 1877 agreement. In 2001, the 

Colville and Spokane tribes had enrolled populations of 8,842 and 2,305, 

respectively. 

The Indian Claim Commission was created on August 13, 1946, to 

adjudicate Indian claims, including “claims based upon fair and honorable 

dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity.”5 

Under section 12 of the act that created the Commission, all claims had to 

be filed within 5 years. Ultimately 370 petitions, which were eventually 

separated into 617 dockets, were filed with the Commission. The great 

majority of the claims were land claims. Settlements awards were paid out 

of the U.S. Treasury. 

5

Pub. L. No. 79-726, § 2, 60 Stat. 1049, 1050 (1946). 

Page 3 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
The Colville tribes filed a number of claims with the Indian Claims 

Commission within the 5-year window—on July 31, August 1, and August 8, 

1951. Their fisheries claim and water power values claim became part of 

Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 181, which was originally filed on 

July 31, 1951. The original petition for Docket No. 181 included broad 

language seeking damages for unlawful trespass on reservation lands and 

for compensation or other benefits from the use of the tribes’ land and 

other property. The tribes’ original petition did not specifically mention the 

Grand Coulee Dam. In 1956, Docket No. 181 was divided into four separate 

claims. The tribes’ fisheries claim became part of Docket No. 181-C. In 

November 1976, over 25 years after the original filing of Docket No. 181, the 

Indian Claims Commission allowed the Colville tribes to file an amended 

petition seeking just and equitable compensation for the water power 

values of certain riverbed and upstream lands that had been taken by the 

United States as part of the Grand Coulee Dam development. This 

amended water power value claim was designated as Docket No. 181-D, 

and it was settled in 1994 by Public Law 103-436. 

The Spokane tribe filed one claim with the Indian Claims Commission, 

Docket No. 331, on August 10, 1951, just days before the August 13, 1951, 

deadline. The claim sought additional compensation for land ceded to the 

United States by an agreement of March 18, 1887. Furthermore, the 

Spokane tribe asserted a general accounting claim. These two claims were 

separated into Docket No. 331 for the land claim and Docket No. 331-A for 

the accounting claim. Both claims were jointly settled in 1967 for $6.7 

million. That is, the Spokane tribe settled all of its claims before the Indian 

Claims Commission almost 10 years before the Colville tribes were allowed 

to amend their claim to include a water power values claim. In doing so, 

the Spokane tribe missed its opportunity to make a legal claim with the 

Indian Claims Commission for its water power values as well as its 

fisheries. At that time, the Spokane tribe, as well as the Colville tribes, 

were pursuing other avenues for compensation of water power values. 

The Bonneville Power Administration was formed in 1937 to market 

electric power produced by the Bonneville Dam.6 Bonneville’s marketing 

responsibilities have expanded since then to include power from 31 

federally owned hydroelectric projects, including the Grand Coulee Dam. 

Under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation 

Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act), Bonneville is responsible for providing 

6

Pub. L. No. 75-329, § 2, 50 Stat. 731, 732 (1937). 

Page 4 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
the Pacific Northwest with an adequate, efficient, economical, and reliable 

power supply.

7 Bonneville currently provides about 45 percent of all 

electric power consumed in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington and 

owns about 75 percent of the region’s transmission lines. 

Bonneville Would Have 

to Recover Settlement 

Costs from Ratepayers, 

but Magnitude of Rate 

Increase Would Be 

Small 

A settlement requiring Bonneville to pay the Spokane tribe would add to its 

costs of operation, and it therefore would probably pass these costs to 

Bonneville’s customers in the form of higher rates for power. Bonneville is 

a self-financing agency, which means that it must cover its costs through 

the revenue generated by selling power and transmission services. 

Bonneville typically sets its rates for 5-year periods in order to generate 

enough revenue to cover the costs of operating the federal power system 

and to make its debt payments. 

Assuming that the settlement with the Spokane tribe is similar in nature to 

the settlement with the Colville tribe in 1994, the impact on Bonneville’s 

rates would be small. Under the settlement with the Colville tribe, 

Bonneville has made annual payments since 1996 that have ranged from 

about $14 million to $21 million. Currently, Bonneville estimates that it will 

pay about $17 million per year over the next 5 years.8 In its negotiations 

with Bonneville, the Spokane tribe has asked for about 40 percent of the 

Colville tribe’s settlement, which would amount to about $7 million 

annually from Bonneville. Bonneville uses a rule of thumb to determine 

rate increases: between $40 million and $50 million in additional annual 

costs will lead to a rate increase of 1/10th of a cent per kilowatt hour (kWh). 

Using this rule, we estimate that a settlement with Spokane that is 

equivalent to 40 percent of the Colville settlement would lead to an 

increase in rates of less than 20 cents per month per household for a typical 

household relying solely on power from Bonneville, or a 0.5 percent 

increase in rates over current levels.9 

7

Pub. L. No. 96-501, § 2, 94 Stat. 2697 (1980). 

8

The payments are to be made in perpetuity, but Bonneville gave us an annual estimate for 

the next five years that conforms to its 5-year rate case planning horizon. While Bonneville 

will make these payments to the Colville tribes, it will receive interest credits in the amount 

of $4.6 million per year from the U.S.Treasury—also in perpetuity—effectively reducing its 

payments by about 27 percent. 

9

This estimate also assumes that Bonneville pays the entire $7 million per year. If Bonneville 

receives interest credits from Treasury for part of the amount, the impact would be 

proportionally smaller. 

Page 5 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
Although the magnitude of the rate increase necessary to fund a settlement 

with the Spokane tribe would be small, it comes at a time when 

Bonneville’s customers have recently faced large rate increases. From 2000 

through early 2003, Bonneville experienced a substantial deterioration in 

its financial condition because of rising costs and lower-than-projected 

revenues. As a result, Bonneville’s cash reserves of $811 million at the end 

of fiscal year 2000 had fallen to $188 million by the end of fiscal year 2002. 

To cope with its financial difficulties, Bonneville raised its power rates for 

2002 by more than 40 percent over 2001 levels. On October 1, 2003, 

Bonneville raised its rates a further 2.2 percent. Despite Bonneville’s 

current financial difficulties, Bonneville predicts the conditions that led to 

the financial problems—namely, consecutive years of low water 

conditions, extreme market price volatility, and long-term contracts 

Bonneville signed to buy power from other suppliers at a high cost, which 

are due to expire in 2006—will abate. Therefore, because the bulk of 

Bonneville’s obligations in any settlement similar to the Colville settlement 

will occur in the future, Bonneville’s current financial difficulties should 

not unduly influence current discussions about how to compensate the 

Spokane tribe. 

A Reasonable Case Can 

Be Made for Adopting 

the Colville Model in 

Allocating Any Costs 

Associated with a 

Settlement for the 

Spokane Tribe 

A reasonable case can be made for having Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury 

allocate any costs for the Spokane tribe’s claims along the lines agreed to 

for the Colville tribes. Any settlement would attempt to re-institute a 

commitment the federal government made to the tribes in the 1930s. Under 

the Federal Water Power Act of 1920, licenses for the development of 

privately owned hydropower projects should include a “reasonable annual 

charge” for the use of Indian lands.10 Originally, the Grand Coulee site was 

licensed, and the Spokane tribe expected to receive annual payments for its 

lands used for the project. However, the license was cancelled when the 

federal government took over the project (federalized the project). Since 

the federal government is not subject to the Federal Water Power Act, it 

was not required to make annual payments to the tribes. Nevertheless, the 

federal government made a commitment in the 1930s to make annual 

payments to the Colville and Spokane tribes as if the project had remained 

a nonfederal project. However, the federal government did not follow 

through on this commitment after the project was completed and started 

generating revenues from electricity sales in the 1940s. In pursuing this 

10Pub. L. No. 66-280, §10(e), 41 Stat. 1063, 1069 (1920). 

Page 6 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
matter, the tribes weathered various administrations and changes in the 

federal government’s Indian policy. In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal 

government actively sought to terminate its relationship with a number of 

tribes, including the Spokane tribe. 

In the early 1970s, when it became clear that the federal government was 

not going to make these payments, the Colville tribes were able to amend 

their claim with the Indian Claims Commission to pursue this matter. After 

agreeing to the overall legitimacy of the Colville tribes’ claims, the 

Congress ultimately approved a settlement that primarily required 

Bonneville to provide annual payments for water power values. This 

settlement was a compromise to split the costs between Bonneville and the 

U.S. Treasury. Bonneville is primarily paying the recurring annual 

payments, and the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund provided the one-time 

lump sum payment in settlement of the past annual payments—$53 

million.11 The Spokane tribe, however, had already settled its claim years 

earlier and therefore could not file an amended claim with the commission. 

Nevertheless, since Bonneville collects the annual revenues for the 

electricity generated by the dam, it could be argued that Bonneville should 

make annual payments to the Spokane tribe out of those revenues, as it 

does for the Colville tribes; the U.S. Treasury would then pay a lump sum to 

settle any claims for past years. The current House settlement proposal, 

H.R. 1753, and previous House and Senate settlement proposals introduced 

in the 106th and 107th Congresses directed the settlement costs to be split 

between Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. 

It could also be argued that the U.S. Treasury should pay the Spokane 

tribe’s claim, as it does for most claim settlements against the federal 

government. S. 1438 provides for the settlement of the tribe’s claim from 

the U.S. Treasury. However, we do not believe a compelling case can be 

made to have the nation’s taxpayers fully absorb an additional cost of doing 

business associated with Bonneville’s production of power in one region of 

the country. 

In conclusion, since the Spokane tribe missed its opportunity to file claims 

with the Indian Claims Commission for its fisheries and water power 

values, it is unlikely that the tribe’s claims and any associated settlement or 

11The Judgment Fund is a permanent indefinite appropriation available to pay certain 

settlements and judgments against the federal government. 

Page 7 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
final resolution will move forward in any meaningful way without some 

form of congressional intervention. If the Congress is satisfied with the 

merits of the tribe’s claims, settlement legislation, such as the current 

House and Senate bills, could be used as a method to resolve the tribe’s 

claims. A reasonable case can be made for adopting the model established 

in the Colville settlement to allocate the settlement costs between 

Bonneville and the U.S. Treasury. Another option would be to enact 

legislation providing for some form of dispute resolution, such as 

mediation or binding arbitration. If the Congress has any doubts about the 

merits of the claim, it could enact legislation to allow the tribe to file its 

claim in the U.S. Federal Court of Claims.12 The merits of the claims could 

then be decided in court. Such an action was discussed in 1994 when the 

Colville settlement was reached. 

Contacts and For further information, please contact Robert A. Robinson on (202) 512-

3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Jill Acknowledgments Berman, Brad Dobbins, Samantha Gross, Jason Holliday, Jeffery Malcolm, 

Frank Rusco, Rebecca Sandulli, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman. 

12See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 95-280, § 2, 92 Stat. 244 (1978), Pub. L. No. 96-251, 94 Stat. 372 (1980), 

Pub .L. No. 96-404, 94 Stat. 1711 (1980), or Pub. L. No. 104-198, 110 Stat. 2418 (1996). 

Page 8 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
Appendix I 

Methodology for Estimating the Impact of a 

Settlement on the Bonneville Power 

Administration 

Because a settlement has not yet been negotiated, we used the terms of the 

Colville settlement to estimate the potential effect of the Spokane 

settlement on electricity rates in the Pacific Northwest. Assumptions used 

in this calculation are designed to provide a conservative (high-end) 

estimate of the impact of the settlement on Bonneville’s rate payers. For 

planning purposes, Bonneville estimates that payments to the Colville 

tribes total $17 million annually.1 The Spokane tribe is requesting as much 

as 40 percent of the Colville settlement, or approximately $7 million 

annually. To estimate the impact of increasing costs on power rates, 

Bonneville uses a rule of thumb that $40 million to $50 million in increased 

costs over a year necessitate a rate increase of approximately $0.001 per 

kilowatt-hour (kWh). Using this rule of thumb, a $7 million per year cost 

increase would raise Bonneville’s wholesale power rates by approximately 

$0.00016 per kWh. 

According to the Oregon Department of Energy, the average household in 

Oregon uses approximately 1,000 kWh of electricity per month. An average 

household in Washington uses 1,170 kWh of electricity per month, 

according to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. 

Using the approximate rate increase calculated above, the electricity bills 

for average households in Oregon and Washington would increase 

approximately 16 cents and 19 cents, respectively. These calculations 

assume that the household receives all its electricity from Bonneville and 

that its retail utility passes through the wholesale rate increase. The impact 

on the region as a whole would be smaller because Bonneville provides 

only about 45 percent of the region’s power. Our calculations also assume 

that Bonneville would not be permitted to deduct any portion of its 

payment to the Spokane tribe from its debt payment to the U.S. Treasury. 

Public Law 103-436 enables Bonneville to deduct a portion of its annual 

payment to the Colville tribes as an interest credit on its Treasury debt 

payments. If a similar provision were included for any payments for the 

Spokane tribe, the impact on ratepayers would be reduced. 

1

From fiscal year 2000 onward, Bonneville receives a $4.6 million interest credit on its 

Treasury debt payment to offset some of the cost of the Colville settlement. Therefore, 

Bonneville's share of the Colville payments total $12.4 million net of the credit. This 

calculation conservatively assumes that Bonneville will be responsible for the entire 

Spokane payment. 

(360410) Page 9 GAO-04-125T Spokane Tribe’s Compensation Claim 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The General Accounting 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 the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone 	 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. General Accounting 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: To Report Fraud, 

W Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm aste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs 	 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548