United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives 

GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

EPA and States Have Made 

Progress, but Much 

Remains to Be Done If 

Water Quality Goals Are to 

Be Achieved 

Statement of David Maurer 

Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST 

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 

 

GAO-08-312T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 23, 2008

GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE

EPA and States Have Made Progress, but Much 

Remains to Be Done If Water Quality Goals Are to Be 

Highlights of GAO-08-312T, a testimony Achieved 

before the Subcommittee on Water 

Resources and Environment, Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives

Millions of people in the United

States and Canada depend on the 

Great Lakes for drinking water,

recreation, and economic

livelihood. During the 1970s, it

became apparent that pollutants 

discharged into the Great Lakes 

Basin from point sources, such as

industrial and municipal facilities, 

or from nonpoint sources, such as

air emissions from power plants, 

were harming the Great Lakes.

Some of these pollutants, known as 

bioaccumulative chemicals of

concern (BCC), pose risks to fish 

and other species as well as to the

humans and wildlife that consume 

them. In 1995, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) issued

the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI). 

The GLI established water quality

criteria to be used by states to

establish pollutant discharge limits 

for some BCCs and other 

pollutants that are discharged by 

point sources. The GLI also allows 

states to include flexible permit 

implementation procedures 

(flexibilities) that allow facilities’ 

discharges to exceed GLI criteria.

This testimony is based on GAO’s 

July 2005 report, Great Lakes 

Initiative: EPA Needs to Better 

Ensure the Complete and 

Consistent Implementation of

Water Quality Standards (GAO-05-

829) and updated information from 

EPA and the Great Lakes states. 

This statement addresses (1) the 

status of EPA’s efforts to develop 

and approve methods to measure 

pollutants at the GLI water quality 

criteria levels, (2) the use of permit 

flexibilities, and (3) EPA’s actions 

to implement GAO’s 2005

recommendations. 

As GAO reported in 2005, developing the sensitive analytical methods needed 

to measure pollutants at the GLI water quality criteria level is a significant 

challenge to achieving GLI’s goals. Of the nine BCCs for which criteria have 

been established, only two—mercury and lindane—have EPA-approved 

methods that will measure below those criteria levels. Measurement methods 

for the other BCCs are either not yet approved or cannot reliably measure to 

GLI criteria. Without such measurement, it is difficult for states to determine 

whether a facility is exceeding the criteria and if discharge limits are required 

in the facility’s permit. As methods become available, states are able to 

include enforceable discharge limits in facilities’ permits. For example, since 

EPA approved a more sensitive method for mercury in 1999, the number of 

permits with mercury limits has increased from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in 

November 2007. EPA and state officials expect this trend to continue. Similar 

increases may occur as more sensitive analytical methods are developed and 

approved for other BCCs.

Flexibilities included in permits allow facilities’ discharges to exceed GLI 

water quality criteria. For example, one type of flexibility—variances—will 

allow facilities to exceed the GLI criteria for a pollutant specified in their 

permits. Moreover, the GLI allows the repeated use of some of these permit 

flexibilities, and does not set a time frame for facilities to meet the GLI water 

quality criteria. As a result, EPA and state officials do not know when the GLI 

criteria will be met. 

In the 2005 report, GAO made a number of recommendations to EPA to help 

ensure full and consistent implementation of the GLI and to improve 

measures for monitoring progress toward achieving GLI’s goals. EPA has 

taken some actions to implement the recommendations. For example, EPA 

has begun to review the efforts and progress made by one category of 

facilities—municipal wastewater treatment plants—to reduce their mercury

discharges into the basin. However, until EPA gathers more information on 

the implementation of GLI and the impact it has had on reducing pollutant 

discharges from point sources, as we recommended, it will not be able to fully 

assess progress toward GLI goals. 

Figure 1: Area Comprising the Great Lakes Basin 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on GAO-08-312T. 

For more information, contact David Maurer 

at (202) 512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov. 
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on the Great Lakes 

Initiative (GLI), and its impact on water quality in the Great Lakes Basin.1

As you know, millions of people in the United States and Canada depend 

on the Great Lakes—the largest system of freshwater in the world—as a 

source of drinking water, recreation, and economic livelihood. During the 

1970s, it became apparent that pollutants discharged into the basin from 

point sources, such as industrial and municipal facilities, or from nonpoint 

sources, such as air emissions from power plants and agricultural runoff, 

were harming the Great Lakes. Because less than 1 percent of the Great 

Lakes’ water recycles or turns over each year, on average, many of these 

pollutants stay in place, settling in sediments or bio-accumulating in fish 

and other aquatic species. As a result, some of these pollutants, such as 

mercury and dioxin, known as bioaccumulative chemicals of concern 

(BCC), pose risks to those species as well as to the humans and wildlife 

that consume them. 

In 1990, following a series of binational agreements aimed at improving 

environmental conditions in the Great Lakes Basin, the Congress passed 

the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act. This act, which amended the Clean

Water Act, required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to 

publish water quality guidance on minimum water quality standards and

antidegradation policies for protecting existing water quality. In response, 

in 1995, EPA published the Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great 

Lakes System, otherwise known as the GLI, to control over 100 toxic 

pollutants and protect aquatic life, wildlife, and human health. Through the 

GLI, EPA established stringent water quality criteria—numeric values to 

be used by states to set pollutant discharge limits for point sources—for 9 

BCCs and 20 other pollutants found in the basin. In addition, the GLI 

established methodologies that the states are to use in developing criteria 

for the remaining pollutants. Meeting the criteria established by GLI 

requires sensitive analytical methods that allow measurement of pollutant 

concentrations at or below the level established by GLI water quality 

criteria. These methods allow states to determine if a facility is exceeding 

the criteria and if a discharge limit is required in the facility’s permit as 

well as to assess the facility’s compliance. The Great Lakes Critical 

 1

The Great Lakes Basin includes the five Great Lakes—Superior, Michigan, Huron, Ontario,

and Erie—and a large land area that extends beyond the lakes, including their watersheds,

tributaries and connecting channels. 

Page 1 Great Lakes Initiative 
Programs Act required that the eight Great Lakes states—Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—

adopt provisions consistent with GLI into their environmental regulations

and point source permit programs within 2 years of issuance of GLI 

guidance. 

As you requested, my testimony today focuses on (1) the status of EPA’s 

efforts to develop and approve methods needed to measure pollutants at 

the GLI water quality criteria level, (2) the use of permit flexibilities, and 

(3) the actions EPA has taken to implement the recommendations we 

made in our 2005 report on the GLI to better ensure full and consistent 

implementation of GLI and monitor progress in meeting GLI goals.2

 My 

testimony is based on the 2005 report and additional information we have 

obtained from EPA and the Great Lakes states. Our testimony primarily 

focuses on the nine BCCs for which EPA has developed GLI water quality 

criteria. Most of these BCCs are responsible for fish consumption 

advisories in the Great Lakes. 

We conducted this performance audit from October 2007 through January

18, 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We determined that the 

data provided were sufficiently reliable for purposes of this testimony. 

In summary: 

• As we reported in 2005, developing the sensitive analytical methods 

needed to determine whether GLI water quality criteria are being met is 

a significant challenge to fully achieving GLI’s goals. At the time of our 

report, a method that allowed measurement of the pollutant at or 

below the GLI criteria had been developed and approved for only two 

of the nine BCCs—mercury and lindane. Mercury and lindane remain 

the only BCCs for which an approved method is available that 

measures pollutant concentrations below the GLI criterion. Once EPA 

approves an analytical method, Great Lakes states are able to issue 

 2

GAO, Great Lakes Initiative: EPA Needs to Better Ensure the Complete and Consistent 

Implementation of Water Quality Standards, GAO-05-829 (Washington, D.C.: July 27, 

2005). 

Page 2 Great Lakes Initiative 
point source permits that require facilities to use that method unless an 

alternative procedure has been approved by the EPA region. Methods 

have been developed for the remaining seven BCCs, but these methods 

either have not yet been approved or only allow for measurement 

above the GLI criteria. For example, because chlordane has a water 

quality criterion of 0.25 nanograms per liter but can only be measured 

down to a level of 14 nanograms per liter, it cannot always be 

determined if the pollutant is exceeding the criterion. When methods 

are developed that can measure pollutant concentrations at or below 

the level established by GLI water quality criteria, a more pervasive 

problem of high pollutant levels in the Great Lakes Basin waterbodies 

than previously recognized may be revealed and could result in 

additional permits with discharge limits. For example, the number of 

permits with mercury limits increased from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in 

November 2007. EPA officials attribute this increase to the 

development of a more sensitive method for mercury in 1999 and EPA 

and state officials expect this trend to continue. Similar increases may 

occur as more sensitive analytical methods are developed and 

approved for other BCCs. 

• Although permits may include BCC discharge limits, the GLI authorizes 

states to use flexibilities that allow facilities’ discharges to exceed GLI 

water quality criteria. For example, one type of flexibility—variances—

will allow facilities to exceed the GLI criteria for a particular pollutant 

specified in their permits. Furthermore, the GLI allows the repeated

use of some of these flexibilities and does not set a time frame for 

facilities to meet the GLI water quality criteria. As a result, EPA and 

state officials could not tell us when the use of these flexibilities will be 

discontinued or when the GLI criteria will be met. 

• EPA has taken some actions to implement the recommendations we 

made in our 2005 report to help ensure the full and consistent 

implementation of the GLI and to improve measures for monitoring 

progress toward achieving GLI’s goals. First, EPA implemented our 

recommendation to fully develop the GLI Clearinghouse and make it 

available to the Great Lakes states. Second, as we recommended, EPA 

is beginning to gather and track information to assess the progress of 

GLI implementation although the information collected is limited to 

municipal wastewater treatment plants. Third, to ensure the equitable

and timely implementation of GLI among all the Great Lakes states, 

EPA has increased its efforts to resolve disagreements with the state of 

Wisconsin on the adoption and implementation of GLI provisions. 

Finally, although EPA disagreed with our recommendation to issue a 

permitting strategy for mercury to ensure a more consistent approach 

Page 3 Great Lakes Initiative 
for controlling mercury by the states, it has continued to support state 

implementation efforts by assessing which approaches are most 

effective in reducing mercury discharges by point sources. 

The ability to accurately and reliably measure pollutant concentrations is 

vital to successfully implementing GLI water quality criteria. Without this 

ability, it is difficult for states to determine if a facility’s discharge is 

exceeding GLI water quality criteria and if a discharge limits are required. 

For example, because chlordane has a water quality criterion of 0.25

nanograms per liter but can only be measured down to a level of 14 

nanograms per liter, it cannot always be determined if the pollutant is 

exceeding the criterion. As we reported in 2005, developing the analytical

methods needed to measure pollutants at the GLI water quality criteria 

level is a significant challenge to fully achieving GLI goals. Although 

methods have been developed for the nine BCCs for which GLI water 

quality criteria have been established, EPA has only approved the methods 

to measure mercury and lindane below GLI’s stringent criteria levels. 

Analytical methods for the other BCCs either have not received EPA 

approval or cannot be used to reliably measure to GLI criteria levels. Once 

EPA approves an analytical method, Great Lakes states are able to issue 

point source permits that require facilities to use that method unless the 

EPA region has approved an alternative procedure. According to EPA 

officials, specific time frames for developing and approving methods that 

measure to GLI criteria have not yet been established. EPA officials 

explained that developing EPA-approved methods can be a timeconsuming and costly process. Table 1 shows the status of the methods for 

the nine BCCs. 

Progress Made in 

Developing Analytical 

Methods Will

Ultimately Result in 

More Permits with 

BCC Discharge Limits 

Table 1: Status of BCC Analytical Methods 

BCC Status of method to measure GLI water quality criteria 

Chlordane Measures above the GLI criterion 

Dieldrin Measures above the GLI criterion 

DDT Measures at the GLI criterion but not yet approved by EPAa

Hexachlorobenzene Measures above the GLI criterion 

Lindane Measures below the GLI criterion and approved by EPA 

Mercury Measures below the GLI criterion and approved by EPA 

PCBs Measures above the GLI criterion 

2,3,7,8-TCDD Measures above the GLI criterion 

Toxaphene Measures above the GLI criterion 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA information.

Page 4 Great Lakes Initiative 
a

An analytical method exists for DDT; however, this method does not measure this pollutant at the 

GLI criterion level. A more sensitive method has been developed but it is in draft and EPA has not yet 

approved it. 

As we reported in 2005, if pollutant concentrations can be measured at or

below the level established by GLI water quality criteria, enforceable 

permit limits can be established on the basis of these criteria. The Great 

Lakes states’ experience with mercury illustrates the impact of sufficiently 

sensitive measurement methods on identifying pollutant discharges from 

point sources. Methods for measuring mercury at low levels were 

generally not available until EPA issued a new analytical method in 1999 to 

measure mercury concentrations below the GLI water quality criterion of

1.3 nanograms per liter of water. This more sensitive method disclosed a 

more pervasive problem of high mercury levels in the Great Lakes Basin 

than previously recognized and showed, for the first time, that many 

facilities had mercury levels in their discharges that were exceeding water 

quality criteria. Since this method was approved, the number of permits 

with discharge limits for mercury rose from 185 in May 2005 to 292 in

November 2007. Moreover, EPA and state officials are expecting this trend

to continue. As EPA officials explained, it may take up to two permit 

cycles—permits are generally issued for 5-year periods—-to collect the 

monitoring data needed to support the inclusion of discharge limits in 

permits. EPA officials are expecting a similar rise in permits with 

discharge limits for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) when detection 

methods are approved. 

Permit flexibilities often allow facilities’ discharges to exceed GLI water 

quality criteria. These flexibilities can take several forms, including the 

following: 

• Variance. Allows dischargers to exceed the GLI discharge limit for a 

particular pollutant specified in their permit. 

• Compliance schedule. Allows dischargers a grace period of up to 5 

years in complying with a permitted discharge limit. 

• Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP). Sets forth a series of actions 

by the discharger to improve water quality when the pollutant

concentration cannot be measured down to the water quality criterion. 

A PMP is often used in conjunction with a variance. 

Permit Flexibilities 

Allowing Discharges 

in Excess of GLI 

Water Quality 

Standards Delay 

Achievement of GLI 

Goals 

• Mixing Zone. Allows dischargers to use the areas around a facility’s 

discharge pipe where pollutants are mixed with cleaner receiving 

waters to dilute pollutant concentrations. Within the mixing zone, 

concentrations of pollutants are generally allowed to exceed water 

quality criteria as long as standards are met at the boundary of the 

Page 5 Great Lakes Initiative 
mixing zone. This flexibility expires in November 2010 with some 

limited exceptions. 

These flexibilities are generally only available to permit holders that 

operated before March 23, 1997, and are in effect for 5 years or the length 

of the permit.3

 GLI allows states to grant such permit flexibilities under 

certain circumstances, such as when the imposition of water quality 

standards would result in substantial and widespread economic and social 

impacts. Table 2 shows the number and type of BCC permit flexibilities 

being used as of November 2007 in the Great Lakes Basin for mercury, 

PCBs, and dioxin, as well as BCC discharge limits contained in permits. 

Table 2: Number and Type of BCC Permit Flexibilities Used and BCC Discharge Limits in Great Lakes Basin Permits 

IL IN MI MN NY OH PA WI

Total as of

Nov. 2007 

Mercury 

Variance 0 2 136 0 0 15 0 2 155

PMP 0 2a136a3b c 25d0 31e197

Compliance Schedule 0 12 0 3 c 48 0 0 63

Mixing Zone 0 0 0 0 c 20 0 f 20

Mercury discharge limits contained in permits 0 16 136 4 49 83 0 4 292

PCBs 

Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PMP 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1

Compliance Schedule 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1

Mixing Zone 0 0 0 0 c 1 0 0 1

PCB discharge limits contained in permits 0 2 7 1 39 1 0 0 50

2,3,7,8-TCDD;Dioxin 

Variance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

PMP 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1

Compliance Schedule 0 0 0 1 c 0 0 0 1

Mixing Zone 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0

Dioxin discharge limits contained in permits 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 3

Total Flexibilities Useda0 16 272 10 c109 0 33 440

 3

Mixing zones are available for facilities that were discharging the pollutant or facilities 

that were under construction on the date that the GLI took effect in that state. 

Page 6 Great Lakes Initiative 
IL IN MI MN NY OH PA WI

Total as of

Nov. 2007 

BCC discharge limits for mercury, PCBs, and 

dioxin contained in permits 0 18 145 6 88 84 0 4 345

Source: GAO analysis of state permit data. 

a

These PMPs are used as a condition of a variance in a permit. 

b

These PMPs are associated with compliance schedules. 

c

Currently, no variances have been granted by the New York State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC). However, the department was unable to determine the number of permitted 

facilities that had other flexibilities, and the number of flexibilities used. According to NYSDEC, 51 

facilities could use these permit flexibilities.

d

These 25 PMPs are used as both a condition of a variance (15) and associated with compliance 

schedules (10). 

e

Two of these PMPs are used as a condition of a variance in a permit. In general, Wisconsin officials 

are using PMPs in lieu of discharge limits to address mercury. 

f

Wisconsin officials were unable to provide data on the number mixing zones used for mercury. 

According to EPA and state officials, in many cases, facilities cannot meet 

GLI water quality criteria for a number of reasons, such as technology 

limitations, and the flexibilities are intended to give the facility time to 

make progress toward meeting the GLI criteria. With the exception of 

compliance schedules, the GLI allows for the repeated use of these permit 

flexibilities.4

 As a result, EPA and state officials could not tell us when the 

GLI criteria will be met. 

In our 2005 report, we described several factors that were undermining 

EPA’s ability to ensure progress toward achieving consistent 

implementation of GLI water quality standards. To help ensure full and 

consistent implementation of the GLI and to improve measures for 

monitoring progress toward achieving GLI’s goals, we made a number of 

recommendations to the EPA Administrator. EPA has taken some actions 

to implement the recommendations contained in our 2005 report, as the 

following indicates: 

EPA Has Taken Some 

Actions to Ensure 

Consistent 

Implementation of the 

GLI as Recommended 

in Our 2005 Report • Ensure the GLI Clearinghouse is fully developed. We noted that EPA’s 

delayed development of the GLI Clearinghouse—a database intended 

 4

The GLI does not provide a sunset date for permit flexibilities other than mixing zones, 

which are set to expire in 2010 with limited exceptions. Individual compliance schedules 

cannot be used for more than the 5-year period they establish; however, after the schedules

expire, facilities may use other permit flexibilities such as variances.

Page 7 Great Lakes Initiative 
to assist the states in developing consistent water quality criteria for 

toxic pollutants—was preventing the states from using this resource. 

To assist Great Lakes states in developing water quality criteria for GLI 

pollutants, we recommended that EPA ensure that the GLI 

Clearinghouse was fully developed, maintained, and made available to

Great Lakes states. EPA launched the GLI Clearinghouse on its Web 

site in May 2006 and in February 2007, EPA Region 5 provided

clearinghouse training to states. The clearinghouse currently contains 

criteria or toxicity information for 395 chemicals. EPA officials told us 

that the clearinghouse is now available to the states so they can 

independently calculate water quality criteria for GLI pollutants. EPA 

officials told us that some states, including Ohio, Wisconsin, and 

Illinois, plan on updating their water quality standards in the near 

future and believe that the clearinghouse will benefit them as well as 

other states as they update their standards. 

• Gather and track information to assess the progress of GLI 

implementation. In 2005, we reported that EPA’s efforts to assess 

progress in implementing the GLI and its impact on reducing point 

source discharges have been hampered by lack of information on these 

discharges. To improve EPA’s ability to measure progress, we 

recommended that EPA gather and track information on dischargers’ 

efforts to reduce pollutant loadings in the basin. EPA has begun to 

review the efforts and progress made by one category of facilities—

municipal wastewater treatment facilities—to reduce their mercury 

discharges into the basin. However, until EPA develops additional 

sources of information, it will not have the information needed to 

adequately assess progress toward meeting GLI goals. 

• Increase efforts to resolve disagreements with Wisconsin. Although 

we found that the states had largely completed adoption of GLI 

standards, EPA had not resolved long-standing issues with Wisconsin 

regarding adoption and implementation of GLI provisions. To ensure 

the equitable and timely implementation of GLI by all the Great Lakes 

states, we recommended that that the EPA Administrator direct EPA 

Region 5, which is responsible for Wisconsin, to increase efforts to 

resolve disagreements with the state over inconsistencies between the 

state’s and the GLI’s provisions. Wisconsin officials believe the GLI 

provisions are not explicitly supported by Wisconsin law. 

Subsequently, EPA and Wisconsin officials have held discussions on 

this matter, and neither Wisconsin nor EPA officials believe that these 

disagreements are significantly affecting GLI implementation. 

However, they have been unable to completely resolve these issues. We 

found that similar issues have also surfaced with New York. 

Page 8 Great Lakes Initiative 
• Issue a permitting strategy for mercury. Because we found that Great 

Lakes’ states had developed inconsistent approaches for meeting the 

GLI mercury criterion, including differences in the use of variances, we 

recommended that EPA issue a permitting strategy to ensure a more 

consistent approach. EPA disagreed with this recommendation, 

asserting that a permitting strategy would not improve consistency. 

Instead, the agency continued to support state implementation efforts 

by developing guidance for PMPs, evaluating and determining 

compliance, and assessing what approaches are most effective in 

reducing mercury discharges by point sources. One such effort is EPA 

Region 5’s review of mercury PMP language in state-issued permits for 

wastewater treatment facilities. This review resulted in 

recommendations to the states in May 2007 to improve the 

enforceability and effectiveness of PMP provisions. However, 

additional efforts will be needed to ensure consistency at other types of 

facilities, such as industrial sites, across the Great Lakes states. 

In closing, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

although progress has been made with mercury detection and increased 

knowledge of wastewater treatment facilities’ pollutant discharges to the 

Great Lakes, information is still lacking on the full extent of the problem 

that BCCs pose in the Great Lakes. As methods are developed to 

determine whether facilities’ discharges for other BCCs meet GLI criteria 

and EPA approves them, and as more permits include discharge limits, 

more information will be available on pollutant discharges in the basin. 

Even with these advances, however, extensive use of permit flexibilities 

could continue to undercut reductions in pollution levels and the ultimate 

achievement of GLI’s goals. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to 

any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have at this 

time. 

Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 

Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further 

information about this testimony, please contact David Maurer at (202) 

512-3841 or maurerd@gao.gov. Key contributors to this testimony were 

Greg Carroll, Katheryn Summers Hubbell, Sherry L. McDonald, and Carol 

Herrnstadt Shulman. Other contributors included Jeanette Soares and 

Michele Fejfar. 

GAO Contacts 

(360895) Page 9 Great Lakes Initiative 
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. 

Page 10 Great Lakes Initiative
GAO’s Mission 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 “E-mail 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, DC 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, 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 

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