Federal Mandates: Identification Process Is Complex and Federal Agency Roles Vary
Published: 2005-03-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) was enacted to address concerns expressed by state and local governments about federal statutes and regulations that require nonfederal parties to expend resources to achieve legislative goals without being provided funding to cover the costs. Over the past 10 years, Congress has at various times considered legislation that would amend various aspects of UMRA. This testimony is based on GAO's report, Unfunded Mandates: Analysis of Reform Act Coverage ( GAO-04-637 , May 12, 2004). Specifically, this testimony addresses (1) the process used to identify federal mandates and what are federal agencies' roles, (2) statutes and rules that contained federal mandates under UMRA, and (3) statutes and rules that were not considered mandates under UMRA but may be perceived to be "unfunded mandates" by certain affected parties.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO found that the identification and analysis of intergovernmental and private sector mandates is a complex process under UMRA. Proposed legislation and regulations are subject to various definitions, exclusions and exceptions before being identified as containing mandates at or above UMRA's cost thresholds. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is required to prepare statements identifying and estimating, if feasible, the costs of mandates in legislation. While a point of order can be raised on the floor of the House or Senate against consideration of any UMRA-covered intergovernmental mandate that lacks a CBO estimate or exceeds the cost thresholds, it contains no similar enforcement for private sector mandates. Conversely, federal agencies are required to prepare mandate statements for regulations containing intergovernmental or private sector mandates that would result in expenditures at or above the UMRA threshold. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget, is responsible reviewing compliance with UMRA as part of the rule making process. In 2001 and 2002, 5 of 377 statutes enacted and 9 of 122 major or economically significant rules issued were identified as containing federal mandates at or above UMRA's thresholds. All 5 statutes and 9 rules contained private sector mandates as defined by UMRA. One final rule also contained an intergovernmental mandate. Despite the determinations under UMRA, at least 43 statutes and 65 rules issued in 2001 and 2002 resulted in new costs or negative financial consequences on nonfederal parties. These parties may perceive such statutes and rules as unfunded or underfunded mandates even though they did not meet UMRA's definition of a federal mandate at or above UMRA's thresholds. For 24 of the statutes and 26 of the rules, CBO or the agencies estimated that the direct costs or expenditures, as defined by UMRA, would not meet or exceed the applicable thresholds. The others were excluded for a variety of reasons stemming from exclusions or exceptions specified by UMRA.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on federal mandates  and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). As you know,  UMRA was enacted to address concerns expressed by state and local  governments about federal statutes and regulations that require nonfederal  parties to expend resources to achieve legislative goals without providing  funding to cover the costs.  Many federal statutes and the regulations that  implement them, impose requirements on state, local, and tribal  governments (intergovernmental mandates) and the private sector (private  sector mandates) in order to achieve certain legislative goals.  Such  statutes and their regulations can provide substantial benefits, as well as  impose costs.
Although UMRA was intended to “curb the practice of imposing unfunded  Federal mandates,” the act does not prevent Congress or federal agencies  from doing so.  Rather, UMRA generates information about the nature and  size of potential federal mandates on other levels of government and the  private sector to assist Congress and agency decision makers in their  consideration of proposed legislation and regulations.  Title I of UMRA  requires congressional committees and the Congressional Budget Office  (CBO) to identify and provide information on potential federal mandates in  certain legislation.  Similarly, Title II of UMRA requires federal agencies to  prepare a written statement identifying the costs and benefits of federal  mandates contained in certain regulations and consult with affected  parties.  It also requires action of the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), including establishing a program to identify and test new ways to  reduce reporting and compliance burdens for small governments and  annual reporting to Congress on agencies’ compliance with UMRA.
My statement focuses on titles I and II of the act and provides an overview  of the activities of the federal entities charged with carrying out this act.   For each title, I will (1) discuss the process used to identify federal  mandates in statutes and rules, including the role of the federal entities;   (2) provide examples of statutes and rules that contained federal mandates  under UMRA; and (3) provide examples of statutes and rules that were not  considered federal mandates under UMRA, but that affected parties may  perceive to be “unfunded mandates.”  As agreed with the Committee, our  statement is based primarily on our May 2004 report, which analyzes  UMRA’s coverage.
In summary, we reported that the identification and analysis of  intergovernmental and private sector mandates is a complex process under  UMRA.  Proposed legislation and regulations must pass through multiple  steps and meet multiple conditions before being identified as containing  mandates at or above UMRA’s thresholds.  Under title I of the act, CBO is  required to prepare statements identifying and estimating the costs of  mandates in legislation that meets certain criteria to identify whether or  not those estimated costs meet or exceed UMRA’s cost thresholds.  A point  of order can be raised on the floor of the House or Senate against  consideration of any unfunded intergovernmental mandate exceeding  UMRA’s cost threshold.  However, it contains no similar enforcement  mechanism for private sector mandates.  Under title II, federal agencies are  required to prepare mandate statements for regulations containing  intergovernmental or private sector mandates that would meet or exceed  the UMRA threshold.
For both legislation and regulations, there are two general ways that  provisions would not be identified as federal mandates at or above UMRA’s  thresholds.  First, some legislation and regulations may be enacted or  issued via procedures that do not trigger UMRA reviews by CBO or  agencies.  Second, even if the statute or rule is reviewed, UMRA limits the  identification of federal mandates through multiple definitions and  exclusions.  As we reported, in 2001 and 2002, 5 of 377 statutes enacted and  9 of 122 major or economically significant final rules issued were identified  as containing federal mandates at or above UMRA’s thresholds.  All 5  statutes and 9 rules contained private sector mandates as defined by  UMRA.  One final rule—an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  standard on arsenic in drinking water—also contained an  intergovernmental mandate.
Despite the determinations made under UMRA, some of the statutes and  rules that had not triggered UMRA’s requirements appeared to have  potential financial impacts on affected nonfederal parties similar to those  of actions that had been flagged as containing federal mandates at or above  UMRA’s thresholds.  For example, at least 43 statutes and 65 rules issued in  2001 and 2002 resulted in new costs or other negative financial impacts on  nonfederal parties that the affected parties might perceive as “unfunded  mandates” even though they did not meet UMRA’s definition of a mandate.   For 24 of the statutes and 26 of the rules, CBO or federal agencies had  determined that the estimated direct costs or expenditures, as defined by  UMRA, would not meet or exceed the applicable thresholds.   For the  remaining statutes, UMRA did not require a CBO review prior to final  passage most often because the mandates were in appropriations bills,  which are not subject to an automatic review by CBO.  The remaining rules  most often did not trigger UMRA because they were issued by independent  regulatory agencies, which are not covered by the act.
subsections: section_title: Identifying Federal Mandates in Statutes Is Complex
paragraphs: Legislation must go through several steps to be identified as containing a  federal mandate.  Once mandates are identified based on UMRA’s  definitions, exclusions, and exceptions, CBO determines whether the  mandate meets or exceeds UMRA’s cost thresholds.  As we reported last  year, in 2001 and 2002, CBO identified few statutes containing federal  mandates at or above UMRA’s cost thresholds.  In addition, CBO reports  and testimonial evidence indicate that UMRA may indirectly impact the  costs of and number of federal mandates enacted at or above UMRA’s cost  thresholds.  However, when asked, some nonfederal parties said they  continue to be subject to costs associated with laws containing mandates  that do not meet the statutory definition of a mandate at or above UMRA’s  cost thresholds.
subsections: section_title: Legislation Must Undergo a Multistep Process to Be Identified as Containing Federal Mandates at or above Applicable Cost Thresholds
paragraphs: UMRA does not require CBO to automatically review every legislative  provision; further, the process takes several steps to determine whether a  statutory provision would be identified as a federal mandate at or above  UMRA’s cost thresholds (see fig. 1).  Specifically, CBO does not  automatically review provisions that are (1) not contained in authorizing  bills or (2) not reported by an authorizing committee.  This means that  appropriations bills are not automatically subject to CBO review under  UMRA.  However, CBO told us that it will informally review provisions in  appropriations bills and communicate their findings to appropriations  committee clerks when CBO finds potential mandates in these bills.   Although provisions contained in an authorizing bill are subject to  automatic review by CBO, the bill also must be “reported” by that  committee.
UMRA also does not require an automatic CBO review of provisions added  after CBO’s initial review.  UMRA states, however, that “the committee of  conference shall insure to the greatest extent practicable” that CBO  prepare statements on amendments offered subsequent to its initial review  that contain federal mandates.  For example, CBO reported that for 2002,  three laws were enacted that contained federal mandates not reviewed by  CBO prior to enactment because they were added after CBO reviewed the  legislation.  For example, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002  includes a provision requiring insurers of commercial property to offer  terrorism insurance, which was added to after CBO’s UMRA review and  thus not identified as a private sector mandate under UMRA prior to  enactment.
Once a decision is made about CBO’s review, CBO analyzes the provision to  determine whether the provision is excluded under UMRA.  An exclusion  applies to any provision in legislation that   1. enforces Constitutional rights of individuals; 2. establishes or enforces any statutory rights that prohibit discrimination  on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap,  or disability; 3. requires compliance with accounting and auditing procedures with  respect to grants or other money or property provided by the federal  government; 4. provides for emergency assistance or relief at the request of any state,  local, or tribal government or any official of a state, local, or tribal  government; 5. is necessary for the national security or the ratification or  implementation of international treaty obligations; 6. the President designates as emergency legislation and that Congress so  designates in statute; or 7. relates to the old age, survivors, and disability insurance program under  title II of the Social Security Act (including taxes imposed by sections  3101(a) and 3111(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 relating to  old-age, survivors, and disability insurance).
Next CBO applies UMRA’s definition of a federal mandate—a provision that  would impose an enforceable duty upon state, local, or tribal governments  or upon the private sector. To be identified as a mandate, a provision must  meet this definition of a mandate and not be classified as an “exception.”   Generally, exceptions are defined as enforceable duties that are conditions  of federal financial assistance or arise from participation in a voluntary  federal program.
Once the provision is identified as a mandate under UMRA, CBO  determines whether the cost estimate, if feasible, exceeds the applicable  threshold ($50 million for intergovernmental and $100 million for private  sector mandates, in any of the first 5 fiscal years during which the mandate  would be effective).  If CBO determines that a cost estimate is not  feasible, CBO specifies the kind of mandate contained in the provision, but  reports that the agency cannot estimate the costs.  For example, CBO  reported that it could not estimate the costs of mandates in nine bills that  ultimately were enacted during 2001 and 2002.  Common reasons why a  cost estimate may not be feasible include (1) the costs depend on future  regulations, (2) essential information to determine the scope and impact of  the mandate is lacking, (3) it is unclear whom the bill’s provisions would  affect, and (4) language in UMRA is ambiguous about how to treat  extensions of existing mandates.
For intergovernmental mandates that exceed the cost threshold or cost  estimates that are not feasible, a point of order is available under UMRA.   However, UMRA does not provide for a point of order for private sector  mandates.  For intergovernmental or private sector mandates below the  applicable cost threshold, CBO states in its report that a mandate exists  with costs estimated to be below the applicable cost threshold.  Although  this highlights the provision as a mandate, it does not provide for a point of  order under UMRA.
UMRA also contains a mechanism designed to help curtail mandates with  insufficient appropriations, but it has never been utilized.  UMRA provides  language that could be included in legislation that would allow agencies  tasked with administering funded mandates to report back to Congress on  the sufficiency of those funds.  Congress would then have a certain time  period to decide whether to continue to enforce the mandate, adopt an  alternate plan, or let it expire—meaning the provision comprising the  mandate would no longer be enforceable.  Our January 2004 database  search has resulted in no legislation containing this language.
section_title: CBO Identified Few Laws in 2001 and 2002 as Containing Federal Mandates at or above UMRA’s Cost Threshold, but UMRA May Have an Indirect Effect
paragraphs: Few laws containing federal mandates at or above the cost thresholds were  enacted in 2001 and 2002.  Further, there is some evidence that the  existence of UMRA may have indirectly discouraged the enactment of  some federal mandates in proosed legislation and reduced the potential  costs of others.  Of 377 laws enacted in 2001 and 2002, CBO identified at  least 44 containing a federal mandate under UMRA.  Of these 44, CBO  identified 5 containing mandates at or above the cost thresholds, and all  were private sector mandates.
As we previously reported, from 1996 through 2002, only three bills with  intergovernmental mandates and 21 private sector mandates with costs  over the applicable threshold became law.  UMRA may have indirectly  discouraged the passage of legislation identified as containing mandates at  or above the cost thresholds.  Similarly, UMRA may have also aided in  lessening the costs of some mandates that were enacted.  From 1996  through 2000, CBO identified 59 proposed federal mandates with costs  above applicable thresholds.  Following CBO’s identification, 9 were  amended before enactment to reduce their costs below the applicable  thresholds and 32 were never enacted.  The remaining 18 mandates were  enacted with costs above the threshold.
Although CBO has not done an analysis to determine the role of UMRA in  reducing the costs of mandates ultimately enacted, it reported that “it was  clear that information provided by CBO played a role in the Congress’s  decision to lower costs.”  CBO also testified in July 2003 that “both the  amount of information about the cost of federal mandates and  Congressional interest in that information have increased considerably.  In  that respect, title I of UMRA has proved to be effective.”  Similarly, the  Chairman of the House Rules Committee was quoted in 1998 as saying that  UMRA “has changed the way that prospective legislation is drafted…   Anytime there is a markup , this always  comes up.”  Finally, although points of order are rarely used, they may be  perceived as an unattractive consequence of including a mandate above  UMRA cost thresholds in proposed legislation.
section_title: Nonfederal Parties Perceived Some Enacted Provisions to Be Unfunded Mandates
paragraphs: Although CBO’s annual reports for 2001 and 2002 showed that most  proposed legislation did not contain federal mandates as defined by  UMRA, we asked CBO to compile a list of examples from among those  laws enacted in 2001 and 2002 that had potential impacts on nonfederal  parties but were not identified as containing federal mandates meeting or  exceeding UMRA’s cost thresholds.  We then analyzed these 43 examples to  illustrate the application of UMRA’s procedures, definitions, and exclusions  on legislation that was not identified as containing mandates at or above  UMRA’s threshold, but might be perceived to be unfunded mandates.  We  then shared CBO’s list of 43 examples with national organizations  representing nonfederal levels of government, and they generally agreed  that those laws contained provisions their members perceived to be  mandates.
As figure 2 shows, for 12 of the 43 examples, an automatic UMRA review  was not required for one of the reasons I discussed earlier, such as that  they were in an appropriations bill or were not reported by the authorizing  committee.  Out of the remaining 31 laws that did undergo a cost estimate,  24 were found to contain mandates with costs below applicable thresholds,  3 contained provisions that were excluded from UMRA coverage, 2  contained provisions with direct costs that were not feasible to estimate, 1  contained a provision that did not meet UMRA’s definition of a mandate,  and 1 was reviewed by the Joint Committee on Taxation and found not to  contain any federal mandates.
Of the 12 examples of laws with provisions that CBO was not required to  review prior to enactment, CBO later determined that 5 contained  mandates with direct costs below UMRA’s thresholds, 4 contained  mandates with direct costs that could not be estimated, 1 was excluded  under UMRA because it involved national security, 1 did not meet the  definition of a mandate, and 1 had some provisions with costs below the  threshold and some provisions excluded because it involved national  security.  For example, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 contained both  intergovernmental and private sector mandates but CBO determined that a  cost estimate was not feasible for all mandates.  Specifically, CBO  estimated the costs of providing notification of blackout periods— specified periods of time when trading securities is prohibited—fell below  the UMRA thresholds but provided no quantified estimate, and CBO  estimated the cost of running the Public Company Accounting Oversight  Board and an associated standard-setting body to be approximately   $80 million per year, which would be funded from fees assessed on public  companies.  However, CBO stated it was uncertain if the rest of the  mandates contained in Sarbanes-Oxley exceeded UMRA’s cost threshold of  $115 million (inflation adjusted).
section_title: Identification of Federal Mandates in Rules Is Less Complex Than for Statutes
paragraphs: The process for identifying federal mandates in regulations is less complex  than for legislation, but additional restrictions apply to identifying federal  mandates.  In 2001 and 2002, agencies identified few of the major and  economically significant final rules as containing federal mandates as  defined by UMRA.  Most often, rules with financial effects on nonfederal  parties did not trigger UMRA’s requirements because they did not require  expenditures at or above UMRA’s threshold.  We also determined that at  least 29 rules that did not contain federal mandates defined under UMRA  appeared to have significant financial impacts.
subsections: section_title: UMRA Procedures for Rules Are Less Complex Than for Legislation, but More Restrictions Apply
paragraphs: The process for rules is less complex than for legislation.  However, in  addition to the definitions and seven general exclusions for legislation,  there are four additional restrictions that apply to federal mandates in  rules:  UMRA’s requirements do not apply to provisions in rules issued by  independent regulatory agencies.
Preparation of an UMRA statement, and related estimate or analysis of  the costs and benefits of the rule, is not required if the agency is  “otherwise prohibited by law” from considering such an estimate or  analysis in adopting the rule.
The requirement to prepare an UMRA statement generally does not  apply to any rule for which the agency does not publish a general notice  of proposed rule making in the Federal Register.
UMRA’s threshold for federal mandates in rules is limited to  expenditures, in contrast to title I which refers more broadly to direct  costs.  Thus, a rule’s estimated annual effect might be equal to or greater  than $100 million in any year—for example, by reducing revenues or  incomes in a particular industry—but not trigger UMRA if the rule does  not compel nonfederal parties to spend that amount.
UMRA generally directs agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory  actions on other levels of government and the private sector.  The agencies  only need to identify and prepare written statements on those rules that the  agencies have determined include a federal mandate that may result in  expenditures by nonfederal parties of $100 million or more (adjusted for  inflation) in any year.
Within the OMB, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is  responsible for reviewing compliance with UMRA as part of its centralized  review of significant regulatory actions published by federal agencies,  other than certain independent regulatory agencies.  Under Executive  Order 12866, which was issued in September 1993, agencies are generally  required to submit their significant draft rules to OIRA for review before  publishing them.  In the submission packages for their draft rules, federal  agencies are to designate whether they believe the rule may constitute an  unfunded mandate under UMRA.  According to OIRA representatives, for  such rules, consideration of UMRA is then incorporated as part of these  regulatory reviews, and draft rules are expected to contain appropriate  UMRA statements.   The same analysis conducted for Executive Order  12866 may permit agencies to comply with UMRA requirements.   UMRA  requires agency consultations with state and local governments on certain  rules, and this is something that OIRA will look for evidence of when it  does its regulatory reviews.  UMRA provides OIRA a statutory basis for  requiring agencies to do an analysis similar to that required by this. (Unlike  laws, however, executive orders can be rescinded or amended at the  discretion of the President).
section_title: Agencies Identified Few Final Rules Published in 2001 and 2002 as Containing Federal Mandates Because Most Rules Did Not Trigger UMRA’s Requirements
paragraphs: Federal agencies identified 9 of the 122 major and/or economically  significant final rules that federal agencies published in 2001 or 2002 as  containing federal mandates under UMRA (see fig. 3).  As we previously  reported, the limited number of rules identified as federal mandates during  2001 and 2002 is consistent with the previous findings in our 1998 report on  UMRA and in OMB’s annual reports on agencies’ compliance with title II.
Of the nine rules that agencies identified as containing federal mandates  under UMRA, only one included an intergovernmental mandate—EPA’s  enforceable standard for the level of arsenic in drinking water.  The  remaining rules imposed private sector mandates ranging from Department  of Energy rules that amended energy conservation standards for several  categories of consumer products, including clothes washers and heat  pumps, to a Department of Transportation rule that established a new  federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring tire pressure monitoring  systems, controls, and displays.
Of the 113 major and/or economically significant rules in 2001 and 2002 not  identified as including federal mandates under UMRA, we reported that 48  contained no new requirements that would impose costs or have a negative  financial effect on state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector.
Often, these were economically significant or major rules because they  involved substantial transfer payments from the federal government to  nonfederal parties.  For example, the Department of Health and Human  Services published a notice updating the Medicare payment system for  home health agencies that was estimated to increase federal expenditures  to those agencies by $350 million in fiscal year 2002.
In the remaining 65 of 113 rules, we determined that the new requirements  would impose costs or result in other negative effects on nonfederal  parties.  In 41 of the 65 published rules, the agencies cited a variety of  reasons that these rules did not trigger UMRA’s requirements (see fig. 4).   There were 26 rules for which the agencies stated that the rule would not  compel expenditures at or above the UMRA threshold and 10 rules for  which the agencies stated that rules imposed no enforceable duty.  For the  remaining 24 rules, the agency did not provide a reason.  However,  independent regulatory agencies, which are not covered by UMRA,  published 12 of these rules, and there is no UMRA requirement for covered  agencies to identify the reasons that their rules do not contain federal  mandates.
section_title: Some Rules That Did Not Trigger UMRA Had Potentially Significant Effects on Nonfederal Parties
paragraphs: At least 29 of the 65 rules with new requirements published in 2001 and  2002 could have imposed significant costs or other financial effects on  nonfederal parties.  In these 29 rules, we reported that the agencies either  explicitly stated that they expected the rule could impose significant costs  or published information indicating that the rule could result, directly or  indirectly, in financial effects on nonfederal parties at or above the UMRA  threshold.  For example, more than half of them imposed costs on  individuals exceeding $100 million per year, reduced the level of federal  payments to nonfederal parties by more than $100 million in a year, or had  substantial indirect costs or economic effects on nonfederal parties.
For the remaining 36 of the 65 rules that imposed costs or had other  financial effects on nonfederal parties in 2001 and 2002, either the agencies  provided no information on the potential costs and economic impacts on  nonfederal parties or the costs imposed on them were under the UMRA  threshold.  For example, a Federal Emergency Management Agency interim  final rule on a grant program to assist firefighters included some cost- sharing and other requirements on the part of grantees participating in this  voluntary program.  In return for cost sharing of $50 million to $55 million  per year, grantees could obtain, in aggregate, federal assistance of  approximately $345 million.  Similarly, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s  interim rule on the noninsured crop disaster assistance program imposed  new reporting requirements and service fees on producers estimated to  cost at least $15 million.  But producers were expected to receive about  $162 million in benefits.
Even when the requirements of UMRA did not apply, agencies generally  provided some quantitative information on the potential costs and benefits  of the rule to meet the requirements of Executive Order 12866.  Rules  published by independent regulatory agencies were the major exception  because they are not covered by the executive order.  In general, though,  the type of information that UMRA was intended to produce was developed  and published by the agencies even if they did not identify their rules as  federal mandates under UMRA.
In conclusion, UMRA was intended, in part, to provide more information to  Congress and agencies when placing federal mandates on nonfederal  parties by providing more information to help them determine the  appropriate balance between desired benefits and associated costs.  Based  on CBO’s experience, there is some evidence that UMRA is in some ways  achieving this desired goal.  However, UMRA’s many definitions,  exclusions, and exceptions result in many statutes and rules never  triggering UMRA’s thresholds, which means they are not identified as  federal mandates.
As we reported last year, in 2001 and 2002 many statutes and final rules  with potentially significant financial effects on nonfederal parties were  enacted or published without being identified as federal mandates at or  above UMRA’s thresholds.  Further, if judged solely by their financial  consequences for nonfederal parties, there was little difference between  some of these statutes and rules and the ones that had been identified as  federal mandates with costs or expenditures exceeding UMRA’s thresholds.   Although the examples cited in our report were limited to a 2-year period,  our findings on the effect and applicability of UMRA are similar to the data  reported in our previous reports and those of others on the implementation  of UMRA.  The findings raise the question of whether UMRA’s definitions,  exclusions, and exceptions adequately capture and subject to scrutiny  federal statutory and regulatory actions that might impose significant  financial burdens on affected nonfederal parties.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information, please contact Orice Williams at (202) 512-5837 or  williamso@gao.gov or Tim Bober at (202) 512-4432 or bobert@gao.gov.  Key  contributors to this testimony were Boris Kachura and Michael Rose.
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.