BUDGET ISSUES

Effects of Budget 

Uncertainty from 

Continuing Resolutions on 

Agency Operations

Statement for the Record by Michelle Sager, Director

Strategic Issues

Statement for the Record

To the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 pm EDT

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

GAO-13-464T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-464T, a statement for 

the record to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 

Senate

March 2013

BUDGET ISSUES

Effects of Budget Uncertainty From Continuing 

Resolutions on Agency Operations

Why GAO Did This Study

Congress annually faces difficult 

decisions on what to fund among 

competing priorities and interests with 

available resources. Continuing 

resolutions (CRs) can create budget 

uncertainty, complicating agency 

operations and causing inefficiencies. 

In all but 3 of the last 30 years, 

Congress has passed CRs to provide 

funding for agencies to continue 

operating until agreement is reached 

on final appropriations. 

GAO was asked to provide a statement

based on findings from its 2009 report 

on managing under CRs (GAO-09-

879). This statement focuses on (1) a 

history of CRs and the provisions that 

Congress includes within them and (2) 

the effects of CRs on agency 

operations and actions that federal 

agencies have taken to manage these 

effects. GAO’s 2009 report reviewed 

six federal agencies within three 

cabinet-level departments selected 

based on factors such as the length of 

time spent managing under CRs and 

the types of services they provided. 

These six case study agencies were 

the Administration for Children and 

Families and the Food and Drug 

Administration within the Department 

of Health and Human Services;

Veterans Health Administration and 

Veterans Benefits Administration within

the Department of Veterans Affairs; 

and Bureau of Prisons and Federal 

Bureau of Investigation within the 

Department of Justice. Under CRs that 

provide funding for the remainder of a 

fiscal year, agencies obtain certainty 

about funding. Therefore, CRs that

spanned the months remaining in a 

fiscal year were not the focus of GAO's 

report.

GAO did not make recommendations 

in the 2009 report.

What GAO Found

Because CRs only provide funding until agreement is reached on final 

appropriations, they create uncertainty for agencies about both when they will 

receive their final appropriation and what level of funding ultimately will be 

available. Effects of CRs on federal agencies differ based in part on the duration 

and number of CRs and may vary by agency and program. CRs include 

provisions that prohibit agencies from beginning new activities and projects and 

direct agencies to take only the most limited funding actions. Congress can 

provide flexibility for certain programs and initiatives through the use of legislative 

anomalies, which provide funding and authorities different from the standard CR 

provisions. 

Figure 1: Duration and Number of Continuing Resolutions (Fiscal Years 1999–2013)

a

The fifth CR, P.L. 108-185, amended the original CR with substantive provisions but did not extend the CR period. b

In February 2007, Congress enacted a 227-day CR that provided funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. This CR is not included 

in the figure. c

In April 2011, Congress enacted a 168-day CR that provided funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. This CR is not included in the 

figure.

d

The figure is as of March 11, 2013.

Officials from all six case study agencies reported that they delayed hiring or 

contracts during the CR period, potentially reducing the level of services 

agencies provided and increasing costs. After operating under CRs for a 

prolonged time, agencies faced additional challenges executing their final budget 

as they rushed to spend funds in a compressed timeframe. All case study 

agencies reported performing additional work to manage within CR constraints, 

such as issuing shorter term grants and contracts multiple times. Agency officials 

reported taking varied actions to manage inefficiencies resulting from CRs, 

including shifting contract and grant cycles to later in the fiscal year to avoid 

repetitive work, and providing guidance on spending rather than allotting specific 

dollar amounts during CRs to provide more flexibility and reduce the workload 

View GAO-13-464T. For more information, associated with changes in funding levels.

contact Michelle Sager at (202) 512-6806 or 

sagerm@gao.gov
Page 1 GAO-13-464T 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Coburn, and Members of the 

Committee:

I am pleased to submit this statement on our work on continuing 

resolutions and the costs of budget uncertainty. As you know, Congress 

annually faces difficult decisions on what to fund among competing 

priorities and interests with available resources. Frequently, final funding 

decisions are postponed to allow additional time for deliberations. In all 

but 3 of the last 30 years Congress has passed continuing resolutions 

(CRs) to provide funding for agencies to continue operating when their 

regular appropriation bills have not been enacted before the beginning of 

the new fiscal year. While CRs provide funding that allows agencies to 

continue operations until agreement is reached on their final 

appropriations, they also create uncertainty for agencies about both when 

they will receive their final appropriation and what level of funding will 

ultimately be available. This presents challenges for federal agencies 

continuing to execute their missions and plan for the future.

Uncertainty is further created in years when it is unclear whether 

disagreements can be resolved before a CR expires. For example, in 

2011, agencies prepared for a potential funding gap and an orderly 

shutdown of government operations. The shutdown was averted in the 

final hours through the April 9 passage of a continuing resolution.1 Such a 

funding gap last occurred in fiscal year 1996. Budget uncertainty is not 

new and not only the result of CRs. Most recently, agencies are 

managing and planning around the uncertainty associated with the 

automatic, across-the-board reductions (sequester) to their budget 

scheduled under the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011.2

This statement will focus on: (1) A history of CRs and provisions 

Congress includes within them and (2) the effects that CRs have had on 

agency operations and actions that federal agencies have taken to 

While there was 

extensive discussion earlier this year about if and to what extent such 

reductions would take place, a sequestration of discretionary and direct 

spending was ultimately ordered earlier this month—reducing federal 

agencies’ 2013 budgets five months into the fiscal year.

 

1 P.L. 112-8 

2 P.L. 112-25

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-464T 

manage effects of CRs. This statement is primarily based on a 2009 GAO 

report that reviewed six federal agencies within three cabinet-level 

departments selected based on factors such as the length of time spent 

managing under CRs and the types of services they provided.

3

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

The 

agencies were Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS); Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and 

Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) within the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA); and Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) within the Department of Justice (DOJ). Although it 

is difficult to isolate the effects of CRs and none of the agencies we spoke 

to said they tracked the time or resources explicitly devoted to CRs, we 

asked agencies to discuss, quantify where possible and provide 

examples of the effects of regular appropriations being enacted after the 

start of the fiscal year—October 1. Under CRs that provide funding for the 

remainder of a fiscal year, agencies obtain certainty about funding. 

Therefore, CRs that spanned the months remaining in a fiscal year were 

not the focus of our report.

4 Those standards require that we plan 

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

a reasonable basis for our findings based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings based on our audit objectives.

Federal departments and agencies receive funding through regular 

annual appropriations acts. If one or more of the regular appropriations 

acts are not enacted, a funding gap may result and agencies may lack 

sufficient funding to continue operations. To prevent funding gaps, 

Congress enacts CRs to maintain a level of service in government 

operations and programs until Congress and the President reach 

agreement on regular appropriations. Because CRs only provide funding 

 

3

See GAO, Continuing Resolutions: Uncertainty Limited Management Options and 

Increased Workload in Selected Agencies, GAO-09-879 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 24, 

2009). 

4

We conducted our work for GAO-09-879 from September 2008 to September 2009 and 

updated the analysis of the number and duration of continuing resolutions from February 

to March 2013.

CRs Provide Interim 

Funding for Agencies 

and Programs
 

Page 3 GAO-13-464T 

until agreement is reached on final appropriations, they create uncertainty 

for agencies about both when they will receive their final appropriation 

and what level of funding ultimately will be available.

The effects of CRs on federal agencies differ in part on the duration and 

number of CRs. As the examples in my statement will illustrate, shorter 

and more numerous CRs can lead to repetitive work. Longer-term CRs 

allowed for better planning in the near term, however, operating under the 

level of funding and other restrictions in the CR for a prolonged period 

also limited agencies’ decision-making options and made tradeoffs more 

difficult. As shown in figure 1, the duration and number of CRs has varied 

greatly between fiscal years 1999-2013, ranging from 1 to 197 days. The 

number of CRs enacted in each year also varied considerably ranging 

from 2 to 21, excluding the current fiscal year.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-464T 

Figure 1: Duration and Number of Continuing Resolutions (Fiscal Years 1999-2013)

a

The fifth CR, P.L. 108-185, amended the original CR with substantive provisions but did not extend 

the CR period.

b

In February 2007, Congress enacted a 227-day CR that provided funding for the remainder of the 

fiscal year; this CR is not included in the figure.

c

In April 2011, Congress enacted a 168-day CR that provided funding for the remainder of the fiscal 

year. This CR is not included in the figure.

d

The figure is as of March 11, 2013.

The effects of CRs also vary by agency and program. Not all federal 

agencies, for example, are under CRs for the same amount of time. In our 

2009 report we found that agencies covered by the Defense, Military 

Construction, and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittees 

operated under CRs for about 1 month on average during fiscal years 

1999-2009, whereas other agencies operated under CRs for at least 2 
 

Page 5 GAO-13-464T 

months on average. More recently, for fiscal year 2013, all federal 

agencies are operating under a CR scheduled to expire on March 27, 

2013.

Congress includes provisions applicable to the funding of most agencies 

and programs under a CR. These provisions provide direction regarding 

the availability of funding within a CR and demonstrate the temporary 

nature of the legislation. For example, one standard provision provides for 

an amount to be available to continue operations at a designated rate of 

operations. Since fiscal year 1999, different formulas have been enacted 

for determining the rate for operations during the CR period. The amount 

often is based on the prior fiscal year’s funding level or the “current rate” 

but may also be based on a bill that has passed either the House or 

Senate. Depending on the language of the CR, different agencies may 

operate under different rates. The amount is available until a specified 

date or until the agency’s regular appropriations act is enacted, whichever 

is sooner. In general, CRs prohibit new activities and projects for which 

appropriations, funds, or other authority were not available in the prior 

year. Also, so the agency action does not impinge upon final funding 

prerogatives, agencies are directed to take only the most limited funding 

actions and CRs limit the ability of an agency to obligate all, or a large 

share of its available appropriation during the CR. In 2007, Congress 

enacted the furlough provision in the CR for the first time. This provision 

permits OMB and other authorized government officials to apportion, or 

distribute amounts available for obligation, up to the full amount of the 

rate for operations to avoid a furlough of civilian employees. This authority 

may not be used until after an agency has taken all necessary action to 

defer or reduce nonpersonnel-related administrative expenses.

Recognizing the constraints inherent in a CR, Congress has at times 

provided flexibility for certain programs and initiatives through the use of 

legislative anomalies, which provide funding and authorities different from 

the standard CR provisions.5

 

5

In our previous work, we identified 11 standard provisions applicable to the funding of 

most agencies and programs under a CR. These include the provisions that provide the 

rate for operations during the CR period, the termination date of the CR, and the 

prohibition on new activities and projects for which appropriations, funds, or other authority 

were not available in the prior fiscal year. In contrast, anomalies are nonstandard 

provisions that provide specific directives to particular agencies. See 

While uncommon, the majority of the 

anomalies provided either (1) a different amount than that provided by the 

GAO-09-879 for 

more information.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-464T 

standard rate of operations or (2) an extension of expiring program 

authority. In some cases, CRs provide full-year appropriations for a 

program or activity, to help agencies manage funds. For example, in fiscal 

year 2009, the CR appropriated an amount to cover the entire year for 

Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) payments. 

LIHEAP provides assistance for low-income families in meeting their 

home energy needs and typically 90 percent of LIHEAP funding is 

obligated in the first quarter to cover winter heating costs.6 In addition to 

the anomalies, multiyear appropriations and advance appropriations can 

help agencies manage the effects of CRs. For example, agency officials 

stated that multiyear appropriations, which provide the authority to carry 

over funds into the next fiscal year, can be helpful in years with lengthy 

CRs because there is less pressure to obligate all of their funds before 

the end of the fiscal year, thus reducing the incentive to spend funds on 

lower priority items that can be procured more quickly.

Case study agency officials contacted for our 2009 report said that, 

absent a CR, they would have hired additional staff sooner for 

government services such as grant processing and oversight, food and 

drug inspections, intelligence analysis, prison security, claims processing 

for veterans’ benefits, or general administrative tasks, such as financial 

management and budget execution. While agency officials said that it 

was difficult to quantify the effect that hiring delays related to CRs had on 

specific agency activities given the number of variables involved, 

 

6 Since 2009, an anomaly in a CR has provided LIHEAP an amount to cover the entire 

year twice, in fiscal years 2011 and 2013. In both of these years, the CR period extended 

into the second quarter. 

Delays and Increased 

Workload Affected 

Agencies’ Ability to 

Carry Out their 

Missions Efficiently 

and Effectively

Continuing Resolutions 

Affected the Level, Cost, 

and Quality of Services
 

Page 7 GAO-13-464T 

agencies provided examples that illustrated the potential adverse effects 

including:

• An FDA official said that deferring the hiring and training of staff 

during a CR affected the agency’s ability to conduct the targeted 

number of inspections negotiated with FDA’s product centers in areas 

such as food and medical devices and that routine surveillance 

activities (e.g., inspections, sample collections, field examinations, 

etc.) were some of the first to be affected.

• BOP officials said that deferring hiring during CRs had made it difficult 

for BOP to maintain the ratio of corrections officers to inmates as the 

prison population increased.

• VBA officials cited missed opportunities in processing additional 

benefits claims and completing other tasks. Because newly hired 

claims processors require as much as 24 months of training to reach 

full performance, a VBA official said that the effects of hiring delays 

related to CRs were not immediate, but reduced service delivery in 

subsequent years.

Several case study agencies also reported delaying contracts during the 

CR period, which could reduce the level of services agencies provided 

and increased costs. For example, BOP reported delaying the activation 

of its Butner and Tucson Prison facilities and two other federal prisons in 

2007 during the CR period to make $65.6 million available for more 

immediate needs. According to BOP, these delays in the availability of 

additional prison capacity occurred at a time when prison facilities were 

already overcrowded. BOP officials also said that delaying contract 

awards for new BOP prisons and renovations to existing facilities 

prevented the agency from locking in prices and resulted in higher 

construction costs and increases in the cost of supplies. Based on 

numbers provided by BOP, a delay in awarding a contract for the 

McDowell Prison Facility resulted in about $5.4 million in additional costs. 

In some instances, delaying contracts resulted in additional costs in terms 

of time and resources. For example, officials from BOP, VHA, and VBA 

said that they sometimes had to solicit bids a second time or have 

environmental, architectural, or engineering analyses redone.

Some agency officials said that contracting delays resulting from longer 

CRs also affected their ability to fully compete and award contracts in the 

limited time remaining in the fiscal year after the agency had received its 

regular appropriation. VHA and ACF reported that the application time 

available for discretionary grants may also be compressed by a longer 

CR. Further, VA stated that this compressed application time adversely 

affected the quality of submitted applications. Similarly, BOP’s Field 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-464T 

Acquisition Office, which is responsible for acquisitions over $100,000, 

said that trying to complete all of its contracts by the end of the fiscal year 

when a CR lasts longer than 3 to 4 months negatively affects the quality 

of competition.

According to some representatives of nonprofit organizations and state 

and local governments, federal grant recipients could temporarily support

programs with funds from other sources until agencies’ regular 

appropriations are passed; however, it was more difficult to do so during 

periods of economic downturn such as the one they recently experienced. 

An ACF official told us that nonprofit organizations providing shelter to 

unaccompanied alien children have used lines of credit to bridge gaps in 

federal funding during a CR. However, in March 2009, a shelter in Texas 

informed ACF’s Office of Refugee Resettlement that its credit was at its 

limit and it was in immediate need of additional funds to sustain 

operations for the next 45 to 60 days. The Office of Refugee 

Resettlement made an emergency grant to this organization to maintain 

operations with the CR funding remaining.

Case study agencies reported that they continued to feel the effects of the 

delays caused by CRs even after the agencies had received their full year 

appropriations. In general, longer CRs can make it more difficult to 

implement unexpected changes in agencies’ regular appropriations, 

because agencies have a limited time to do so. In addition, longer CRs 

can contribute to distortions in agencies’ spending as agencies rush to 

obligate funds late in the fiscal year. For example, agency officials said 

that if hiring was delayed during the CR period, it was particularly difficult 

to fill positions by the end of the fiscal year after a longer CR period. 

Agency officials said that if the agency does not have enough time to 

spend its funding on high-priority needs (such as hiring new staff) 

because of a lengthy CR, the agency ultimately may spend funds on a 

lower priority item that can be procured quickly.

In addition to delays, all case study agencies reported having to perform 

additional work to manage within the constraints of the CR—potentially 

resulting in hundreds of hours of lost productivity. The most common type 

of additional work that agencies reported was having to enter into shorter 

term contracts or grants multiple times to reflect the duration of the CR. 

Agencies often made contract or grant awards monthly or in direct 

proportion to the amount and timing of funds provided by the CR. In other 

words, if a CR lasted 30 days, an agency would award a 30-day contract 

for goods or services. Then, each time legislation extended the CR, the 

Increased Workload 

Stemming from Continuing 

Resolutions Diverted 

Resources from 

Competing Priorities
 

Page 9 GAO-13-464T 

agency would enter into another short-term contract to make use of the 

newly available funding. In 2009, agencies reported that the time needed 

for these tasks may be minimal and vary depending on the complexity of 

a contract or grant, but the time spent is meaningful when multiplied 

across VHA’s 153 medical facilities and roughly 800 clinics, FBI’s 56 field 

offices, BOP’s 115 institutions, and the thousands of grants and contracts 

awarded by our case study agencies. For example, at the time of our 

study, VHA estimated that it awarded 20,000 to 30,000 contracts a year; 

ACF’s Head Start program awarded grants to over 1,600 different 

recipients each year; and FBI placed over 7,500 different purchase orders 

a year. While none of the agencies reported tracking these costs, VHA 

estimated that a 1-month CR resulted in over $1 million in lost productivity 

at VA medical facilities and over $140,000 in additional work for the 

agency’s central contracting office. These estimates were based on 

agency officials’ rough approximations of the hours spent on specific 

activities related to CRs multiplied by average cost of the salary of the 

federal employee performing the task.7

In addition to adjusting contract and grant awards, all agencies also 

reported having to perform a variety of administrative tasks multiple times, 

including issuing guidance to various programs and offices; creating, 

disseminating, and revising spending plans; responding to questions and 

requests for additional funding above what the agency allotted to different 

programs or offices within the agency; and providing information to 

Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These 

tasks, which agencies said that they would otherwise not have done or 

would have done only once had they received their regular appropriation 

on October 1, diverted resources from competing priorities. ACF 

estimated that for each CR its Division of Budget and program offices 

spent approximately 80 hours of additional staff time issuing guidance, 

allotting funds, creating and revising spending tables, and performing 

other administrative tasks.8

 

7

Agencies, including VHA, ACF, and FBI, provided estimates of the additional or lost 

production costs at our request. We did not independently verify these estimates or 

assess their reliability beyond a reasonableness check, which involved reviewing the 

related documentation for each estimate and corroborating with related interviews and 

other documents where possible. Moreover, agencies were not able to identify specific 

activities that were foregone because of the CR.

FBI estimated that the Accounting, Budget, 

and Procurement Sections spent more than 600 hours in 2009 on 

8

This time estimate does not include the additional work required to issue multiple grants. 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-464T 

activities related to managing during the CR such as weekly planning 

meetings and monitoring agency resources and requisitions.9

In general, numerous shorter CRs led to more repetitive work for 

agencies managing contracts than longer CRs. Numerous shorter CRs 

were particularly challenging for agencies, such as VHA and BOP, that 

have to maintain an inventory of food, medicine, and other essential 

supplies and could result in increased costs. For example, absent a CR, 

BOP officials said that prison facilities routinely contracted for a 60- to 90-

day supply of food. In addition to reducing work, this allowed the prison 

facilities to negotiate better terms in delivery order contracts by taking 

advantage of economies of scale. However, under shorter CRs, these 

facilities generally limited their purchases to correspond with the length 

and funding provided by the CR. Thus, the prison made smaller, more 

frequent purchases, which BOP officials said could result in increased 

costs. 

Agency officials told us they took various actions to manage inefficiencies 

resulting from CRs, including delays and increased workload. For 

example, to avoid the types of hiring delays often associated with a CR, 

during the CR period in 2009 FBI proceeded with its hiring activities 

based on a staffing plan supported by the President’s Budget. This 

helped FBI avoid a backlog in hiring later in the year and cumulatively 

over time, but the agency assumed some risk because it could have 

received a regular appropriation that did not support the hiring plan it had 

implemented. Had this happened, FBI officials stated that FBI likely would 

have had to suspend hiring for the remainder of the fiscal year and make 

difficult cuts to other nonpersonnel expenses.

To reduce the amount of additional work required to modify contracts and 

award grants in multiple installments, ACF and FDA reported shifting 

contract and grant cycles to later in the fiscal year. An agency’s ability to 

shift its contract cycle depends on a number of factors, including the type 

 

9

This time estimate does not include the additional work that personnel performed

modifying contracts.

Agencies’ Strategies to 

Manage Inefficiencies 

Resulting from CRs Varied
 

Page 11 GAO-13-464T 

of services being acquired.10

To reduce the administrative work required to subdivide funds from each 

CR to different offices, programs, or both, VBA and VHA reported that 

they did not allot specific dollar amounts during a CR but rather provided 

guidance that all offices operate at a certain percentage of the previous 

year’s appropriations. According to agency officials, this provides the 

agency with more flexibility during the CR period and reduces the 

workload associated with changes in funding levels. VHA officials said 

that this also allows each facility to manage its funds to meet priorities 

identified at the local level.

An agency can shift its contract cycle so that 

annual contracts for severable services, such as recurring janitorial 

services, are executed in the third and fourth quarters of the fiscal year 

when agencies are less likely to be operating under a CR. Further, FBI 

reported it generally entered into contracts based on the rate for 

operations for the period covered by the CR. Previously, each time 

Congress extended a CR, FBI renewed its contracts to make use of the 

additional funds that became available, and FBI’s Finance Division 

provided a requisition for the renewal. Under FBI’s new streamlined 

process, the Finance Division committed enough funds to cover a fullyear contract at the beginning of the fiscal year.

We have not reviewed agency operations under CRs since we issued our 

2009 report. However, studies issued after our report was released have 

highlighted similar themes.

This concludes my statement for the record.

 

10 The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 allows agencies to enter into 1-year 

contracts for severable services that cross fiscal years, so long as the contract period 

does not exceed 1 year and agencies have sufficient funds to enter into the annual 

contract. Severable service contracts are for services, such as janitorial services, that are 

recurring in nature.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

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

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.