Intellectual Property: Risk and Enforcement Challenges
Published: 2007-10-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Intellectual property plays a significant role in the U.S. economy, and the United States is an acknowledged leader in its creation. Industries that relied on IP protection were estimated to account for over half of all U.S. exports and employed about 18 million Americans in 2006. However, legal protection of IP varies greatly around the world, and several countries are havens for the production of counterfeit and pirated goods. Counterfeit products raise serious public health and safety concerns, and the annual losses that companies face from IP violations are substantial. Eight federal agencies undertake a wide range of activities in support of protecting IP rights, and two mechanisms coordinate protection efforts: the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC) and the Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP). GAO was asked to address: (1) the nature of the risks that U.S. corporations face in protecting IP, particularly in countries such as China, and (2) U.S. methods for implementing and coordinating domestic IP enforcement activities. This testimony is based on issued GAO reports that focused on IP protection and related trade matters.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: U.S. intellectual property is increasingly at risk of theft as U.S. firms become more integrated into the world economy and the production of more sophisticated processes and investments move overseas. High profits and technological advances have also increased the risk of IP infringements by making counterfeiting and piracy more attractive and easy to conduct. At the same time, deterrents such as penalties and other measures have failed to keep pace. The seriousness of these risks has been exacerbated by weak enforcement in some countries, particularly China. While the U.S. faces significant obstacles when trying to ensure effective IP protection abroad, it also faces serious challenges in coordinating domestic efforts and ensuring that IP protection remains a priority. The large number of federal agencies involved, due to the cross-cutting nature of IP protection, makes coordination particularly important. However, GAO's recent report on coordinating mechanisms for federal IP protection, we found that the effectiveness and long-term viability of the coordinating structure is uncertain. In addition, each of the agencies involved in IP has multiple missions, and it is a challenge to ensure that IP enforcement is a sufficiently high priority. GAO's report on the efforts of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to interdict counterfeit goods at the border found that the bulk of CBP's enforcement outcomes in recent years have been generated by pockets of activity within certain modes of transport and product types as well as among a limited number of port locations. While the number of seizure actions has increased, this growth can be attributed to a growing number of small-value seizures made from air-based modes. CBP lacks an approach to further improve border enforcement outcomes; it has been focused on efforts that have produced limited results, while not taking the initiative to understand and address the variations among ports.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to report on our work on intellectual  property (IP) protection before the subcommittee of the U.S. Congress  that has identified this topic as one of its primary areas of focus. I  appreciate the opportunity to provide some insights from GAO’s wide  range of work on this issue. As you know, intellectual property is an  important component of the U.S. economy. Prior hearings of this  subcommittee have focused on the patent reform act, trying to create the  right formula for stimulating creative and inventive activity in the United  States. Ultimately, however, patents will only be meaningful if there is real  protection of IP in the United States as well as other countries. Today, I  will discuss the increasing risk and enforcement challenges to IP  protection as advances in technology and changes in global manufacturing  make counterfeiting and piracy a greater threat.
This hearing is particularly timely, as during the last year a number of  news stories have raised severe doubts among the American people about  the quality and safety of products imported from China and the ability of  the Chinese government to regulate its manufacturers. While some of the  goods that posed risks in recent months were legitimate goods associated  with U.S. firms (Mattel), it is well known that counterfeit goods from  China pose risks to U.S. consumers, and unlike the situation with  legitimate goods, there is little recourse to go back to the importer or  manufacturer and demand that the risks be eliminated.
I know that many of these issues are familiar to members of this  subcommittee, particularly as this panel held back-to-back hearings on  China and Russia IP theft in May 2005. As requested, today I will  summarize the work that GAO has performed in two areas: (1) the nature  of the risks that U.S. corporations face in protecting IP, particulary in  countries such as China, and (2) U.S. methods for implementing and  coordinating U.S. IP enforcement activities.
My remarks are based on a variety of assignments that GAO has conducted  on IP protection over the past 4 years. Some of this work was focused on  the challenges that U.S. firms face in securing IP protection abroad, and  some has focused on the extent to which U.S. firms rely on nations like  China and India as part of their production chain. We have also done  extensive work on the international and domestic efforts undertaken by  U.S. agencies to coordinate their efforts to address IP theft and piracy  issues. Finally, we have drawn from some of our ongoing work for the  Senate regarding federal efforts to enforce IP rights at the border. We  made several recommendations during the course of this work, with which  the recipient agencies generally agreed. Our work was conducted in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Intellectual property, for which the U.S. government provides broad  protection through means such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks,  plays a significant role in the U.S. economy, and the United States is an  acknowledged leader in its creation. According to the U.S. Intellectual  Property Rights Coordinator, industries that relied on IP protection were  estimated to account for over half of all U.S. exports, represented 40  percent of U.S. economic growth, and employed about 18 million  Americans in 2006. However, the economic benefits that copyrights,  trademarks, and patents bring are threatened by the fact that legal  protection of IP varies greatly around the world, and several countries are  havens for the production of counterfeit and pirated goods. The global  illicit market competes with genuine products and it is difficult to detect  and take actions against violations. Although the public is often not aware  of the issues and consequences surrounding IP theft, counterfeit products  raise serious public health and safety concerns, and the annual losses that  companies face from IP violations are substantial. The Organization for  Economic Cooperation and Development recently estimated that  international trade in counterfeit and pirated products in 2005 could have  been up to $200 billion.
Eight federal agencies as well as entities within them undertake a wide  range of activities in support of protecting IP rights, as shown in figure 1.  These are the Departments of Commerce, State, Justice, Health and  Human Services, and Homeland Security; the U.S. Trade Representative  (USTR); the Copyright Office; the U.S. International Trade Commission;  within Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); and within  Commerce, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In addition,  two entities coordinate IP protection efforts: the National Intellectual  Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC), created by  Congress in 1999, and the Strategy for Targeting Organized Piracy (STOP),  initiated by the White House in 2004. (These are discussed later in this  testimony.)
U.S. agencies use policy initiatives and enforcement activities to improve  IP protection in the United States and abroad. Policy initiatives include  reviewing IP protection undertaken by foreign governments and  negotiating agreements that address intellectual property. Trade policy  initiatives to increase IP protection and enforcement are primarily led by  USTR, in coordination with the Departments of State, Commerce, USPTO,  and the Copyright Office, among other agencies. Enforcement activity in  the United States includes detecting and seizing IP-infringing goods at the  U.S. border and investigating and prosecuting those who engage in IP- infringing activities. The Department of Justice, including the FBI, and the  Department of Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection (CBP)  and Immigration and Customs Enforcement take actions such as engaging  in multicountry investigations involving intellectual property violations  and seizing goods that violate IP rights at U.S. ports of entry. The Food and  Drug Administration (FDA) also investigates intellectual property  violations for FDA-regulated products as part of its mission to assure  consumer safety.
section_title: U.S. Intellectual Property Increasingly at Risk As Firms Operate Globally and Economic Incentives and Technology Facilitate IP Theft, Which is Exacerbated by Weak Enforcement
paragraphs: U.S. intellectual property is increasingly at risk of theft as U.S. firms  become more integrated into the world economy and the production of  more sophisticated processes and investments move overseas. High  profits and technological advances have also increased the risk of IP  infringements by making counterfeiting and piracy progressively attractive  and easy, while the deterrents, such as penalties and other measures, fail  to keep pace. The seriousness of these risks has been exacerbated by  weak enforcement in some countries, particularly China, whose  enforcement problems has persisted despite U.S. efforts.
subsections: section_title: Global Operations Increase the Risk of IP Theft
paragraphs: The risk of IP theft increases as U.S. companies operate more globally and  locate their production facilities in other countries. Our report on the U.S.  semiconductor industry illustrates this movement of production to other  countries and increasing concerns about IP theft. Initially, U.S. firms  invested in overseas manufacturing facilities such as India and China, to  perform the labor-intensive assembly of semiconductors for export to the  United States. However, as the technological and manufacturing capability  in Asia increased, more sophisticated parts of the process have been  sourced in India and China. This shift where more advanced technology is  being used abroad creates a greater risk for those firms involved by  making advanced technologies protected by IP laws more readily available  to those who might want to copy them illegally.
The shift of operations to overseas facilities is also evident in the U.S.  investment statistics. For example, we reported in December 2005 that  U.S. investment in China has been growing, and the value of U.S. affiliate  sales in China began to exceed the value of U.S. exports to China in 2002.
U.S. companies have generally concentrated their investments in China in  the manufacturing sector, in industries such as transportation equipment,  chemicals, and computers and electronic products. U.S. investment in  China funds the creation of U.S. affiliates, who then sell in China and to  other countries, including the United States. U.S. affiliate sales of goods  and services have become an important avenue for accessing the Chinese  market. Factors such as the growing Chinese market, lower labor costs,  and China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) have drawn  U.S. companies to increase their investment and sales in China.
section_title: Economic Incentives and Technological Advances Also Raise the Risk of IP Violations
paragraphs: Economic incentives to commit counterfeiting and piracy activities  contributed to the growth in IP rights violations in recent years. Economic  incentives include low barriers to entering the counterfeiting and piracy  business, potentially high profits, and limited or low legal sanctions,  including penalties, if caught. For example, one industry pointed out that it  is much more profitable to buy and resell software than to traffic in  cocaine. In addition, the low prices of fake products are attractive to  consumers. The economic incentives can be especially acute in countries  where people have limited income. Economic incentives have also  attracted organized crime in the production and distribution of pirated  products. Federal and foreign law enforcement officials have linked  intellectual property crime to national and transnational organized  criminal operations. The involvement of organized crime increases the  sophistication of counterfeiting operations, as well as the challenges and  threats to law enforcement officials confronting the violations.
Technological advances have lowered the barriers to counterfeiting and  piracy by allowing for high-quality, inexpensive, and accessible  reproduction and distribution in some industries. The mobility of the  equipment makes it easy to transport it from one location to another,  further complicating enforcement efforts. Industry and government  officials described this as the “whack-a-mole” problem — when progress is  made in one location, piracy operations often simply move. Likewise, the  Internet provides a means to transmit and sell illegal software or music on  a global scale and provides a sales venue for counterfeit goods. According  to an industry representative, the ability of Internet pirates to hide their  identities or operate from remote jurisdictions often makes it difficult for  IP rights holders to find them and hold them accountable.
How economic incentives and technological advances can contribute to IP  piracy can be seen in the optical media industry (CD’s, DVD’s). The cost of  reproduction technology and copying digital media is low, making piracy  an attractive employment opportunity, especially in a country where  formal employment is hard to obtain. According to the Business Software  Alliance, a CD recorder is relatively inexpensive. The sometimes large  price differentials between pirated and legitimate CDs also create  incentives for consumers to purchase pirated CDs – even those who might  have been willing to pay a limited amount extra to purchase the legitimate  product. Low-cost, high-quality reproduction and distribution in some  industries are creating increasingly strong incentives for piracy. Private  sector representatives have identified Russia as a prominent source of  pirated software and optical media, which include music, movies, and  games. For instance, USTR reports that the U.S. copyright industries  estimate that they lost in excess of $2.1 billion in 2006 due to copyright  piracy in Russia. The U.S. copyright industries also reported that in 2006  Russia’s optical disc production capacity continued to be far in excess of  domestic demand, with pirated products apparently intended for export as  well as domestic consumption.
While a number of factors increase the risk of IP theft, the deterrent effect  of IP enforcement efforts has not kept pace. A number of industry officials  believe that the chance of getting caught for counterfeiting and piracy,  along with the penalties, when caught, are too low. CBP only inspects a  small percentage of containers entering the country each day even for  counterfeit goods seized at the border. CBP officials said that the  enforcement penalties are not an effective deterrent. In reviewing CBP  penalty data for fiscal years 2001 through 2006, we found that less than 1  percent of the penalty amounts were collected. Federal officials we  interviewed remarked that the penalties or even the loss of goods through  seizures are viewed by counterfeiters as the cost of doing business. In  work we did several years ago on small business efforts to patent abroad,  we reported that patent attorney experts viewed the potential for  unauthorized production as well as the level of IP infringement and  enforcement in other countries as highly important factors that needed to  be considered in developing a foreign patent strategy. They also advised  that firms need to understand the practical—or enforcement—value of the  patent, and China and Russia were both mentioned as countries where the  patents were of limited value but the situation was improving.
section_title: Weak Enforcement Exacerbates the Risk of IP Theft, Particularly in China
paragraphs: China’s track record for enforcing IP laws has been historically weak. We  reported in October 2002 that when China joined the WTO in 2001, some  WTO members noted concerns about enforcement of IP regulations in  China, and the majority of China’s commitments in its WTO accession  agreement were intended to address these concerns. For example,  members raised concerns about filing civil judicial actions relating to IP  violations in China, and they noted that the way in which damages  resulting from IP violations were calculated often resulted in inadequate  compensation. We identified 32 IP rights related commitments made by  China in its WTO accession agreement, about half of which were related  specifically to IP enforcement.
Based on our 2002 survey, U.S. companies with a presence in China  considered China’s commitments in the area of IP rights to be the most  important of those made in its WTO accession agreement However, they  also recognized that they were going to be among the most difficult for  China to implement, particularly those related to rule of law and reforming  state owned enterprises. Indeed, in our 2003 follow-up interviews,  respondents reported that China had implemented its IP rights  commitments only to some extent or to a little extent. Our ongoing work  on federal IP law enforcement actions reiterates this concern about IP  infringement in China. Sixteen of the thirty companies and industry  associations we interviewed cited China as the primary country producing  and distributing IP-infringing goods. They went on to note that these are  often substandard products that are sold in grey markets or through the  Internet.
USTR put China on its Special 301 Priority Watch List in 2005 on the basis  of serious concerns about China’s compliance with its WTO Agreement on  Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) obligations  as well as with commitments it made in a subsequent bilateral forum in  2004. In addition, China remains subject to Section 306 monitoring. USTR  also identified IP rights protection in its February 2006 Top-to-Bottom  review of U.S.-China trade relations as one of China’s greatest  shortcomings and greatly enhancing China’s IP rights protection became a  priority goal for the United States. The review outlined a number of action  items for the United States to undertake to achieve this goal, which  included increasing U.S. enforcement staff levels, enhancing cooperation  with the private sector, and promoting technical exchanges between U.S.  and Chinese agency officials.
The United States has undertaken other actions with regard to IP  violations in China. The United States requested WTO dispute settlement  consultations with China on a number of IP rights protection and  enforcement issues and conducted a special provincial review over the  past year to examine the adequacy and effectiveness of IP rights  protection and enforcement at the provincial level. In October 2004, we  recommended that the USTR and Secretaries of Commerce, State, and  Agriculture (USDA) take steps to improve their performance management  of their agencies’ China-WTO compliance efforts. For example, we  recommended that USTR set annual measurable predetermined targets  related to its China compliance performance measures and assess the  results in its annual performance reports, and that the Secretary of  Commerce should take further steps to improve the accuracy of the data  used to measure results for the agency’s trade compliance related goals.  We made similar recommendations to the other agencies. Not all of the  recommendations have been implemented to date, but some agencies have  reported looking into modifying both their performance plans and unit  level plans. This month, we are sending a team to Beijing to follow up on  U.S. agency activities, including their response to these recommendations.
USTR reports that China has made progress in some areas, such as  completion of its accession to the World Intellectual Property  Organization (WIPO) Internet Treaties, and its ongoing implementation of  new rules that require computers to be pre-installed with licensed  operating system software. However, in other areas, the USTR reports that  little progress has been made. Despite anti-piracy campaigns in China and  an increasing number of IP rights cases in Chinese courts, overall piracy  and counterfeiting levels in China remained unacceptably high in 2006.  USTR reports further that the U.S. copyright industries estimate that 85  percent to 93 percent of all copyrighted material sold in China was pirated,  indicating little or no improvement over 2005. Trade in pirated optical  media continues to thrive, supplied by both licensed and unlicensed  factories and by smugglers. Small retail shops continue to be the major  commercial outlets for pirated movies and music and a wide variety of  counterfeit goods, and roaming vendors offering cheap pirated discs  continue to be visible in major cities across China. According to USTR,  piracy of books and journals and end user piracy of business software also  remain key concerns. In addition, Internet piracy is increasing, as is piracy  over closed networks such as those of universities.
Finally, the United States has dealt with China’s poor IP enforcement  through efforts at the U.S. border. China accounts for by far the largest  share of IP-infringing goods seized by CBP. For instance, China accounted  for 81 percent of the value of goods seized in fiscal 2006, increasing from  69 percent in fiscal 2005 and nearly half in fiscal 2002. Chinese counterfeits  include many products, such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, batteries,  industrial equipment, toys, and many other products, some of which pose  a direct threat to the health and safety of consumers.
section_title: U.S. Efforts to Coordinate IP Activities and Enforce Laws at the Border Need Improvement
paragraphs: While the U.S. faces significant obstacles when trying to ensure effective  IP protection abroad, it also faces some significant challenges in  coordinating domestic efforts and ensuring that this issue remains a  priority. The large number of agencies involved in IP protection issues  (see figure 1) demonstrates the cross-cutting nature of the issue and the  importance of coordination. However, in our recent report on the law  enforcement coordinating council, we found that the effectiveness and the  long-term viability of the coordinating structure is uncertain. Another  challenge is that each of these agencies have multiple missions, and within  the agencies it may be a challenge to ensure that IP enforcement gets  sufficient priority. Our report on the efforts of CBP to interdict counterfeit  goods at the border found that the bulk of CBP’s enforcement outcomes in  recent years have been generated by pockets of activity within certain  modes of transport and product types as well as among a limited number  of port locations. Despite recent increases in seizure outcomes, CBP lacks  an approach to further improve border enforcement outcomes, and has  been focused on efforts that have produced limited results, while not  taking the initiative to understand and address the variations among ports.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Leadership and Permanence Hampers Effectiveness and Long- Term Viability of IP Enforcement Coordinating Structure
paragraphs: We reported in November 2006 that the current coordinating structure for  U.S. protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights lacks clear  leadership and permanence, hampering its effectiveness and long-term  viability.  Created in 1999 to coordinate domestic and international IP law  enforcement among U.S, federal and foreign entities, the National  Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC)  has struggled to define its purpose, retains an image of inactivity within  the private sector, and continues to have leadership problems despite the  addition of a Coordinator for International Intellectual Property  Enforcement as the head of NIPPLEC, made by Congress in December  2004. In addition, in July 2006, Senate appropriators expressed concern  about the lack of information provided by NIPLECC on its progress.
In contrast, the presidential initiative called the Strategy for Targeting  Organized Piracy (STOP), which is led by the National Security Council,  has a positive image compared to NIPLECC, but lacks permanence since  its authority and influence could disappear after the current  administration leaves office. Many agency officials said that STOP has  increased attention to IP issues within their agencies and the private  sector, as well as abroad, and attribute that to the fact that STOP came out  of the White House, thereby lending it more authority and influence.  While NIPLECC adopted STOP as its strategy for protecting IP overseas,  its commitment to implementing STOP as a successful strategy remains  unclear, creating challenges for accountability and long-term viability. For  instance, although NIPLECC’s most recent annual report describes many  STOP activities, it does not explain how the NIPLECC principals plan to  carry out their oversight responsibilities mandated by Congress to help  ensure successful implementation of the strategy.
STOP is a first step toward an integrated national strategy to protect and  enforce U.S. intellectual property rights, and it has energized agency  efforts. However, we previously reported that STOP’s potential as a  national strategy is limited because it does not fully address important  characteristics of an effective national strategy. For example, its  performance measures lack baselines and targets to assess how well the  activities are being implemented. In addition, the strategy lacks a risk  management framework and a discussion of current or future costs –  important elements to effectively balance the threats from counterfeit  products with the resources available. Although STOP identifies  organizational roles and responsibilities with respect to individual  agencies’ STOP activities, it does not specify who will provide oversight  and accountability among the agencies carrying out the strategy. While  individual agency documents include some key elements of an effective  national strategy, they have not been incorporated into the STOP  documents. This lack of integration underscores the strategy’s limited  usefulness as a management tool for effective oversight and accountability  by Congress as well as the private sector and consumers who STOP aims  to protect.
In our November 2006 report, we made two recommendations to clarify  NIPLECC’s oversight role with regard to STOP and improve STOP’s  effectiveness as a planning tool and its usefulness to Congress: First, we  recommended that the head of NIPLECC, called the IP Coordinator, in  consultation with the National Security Council and the six STOP  agencies, clarify in the STOP strategy how NIPLECC will carry out its  oversight and accountability responsibilities in implementing STOP as its  strategy. Second, we recommended that the IP Coordinator, in  consultation with the National Security Council and the six STOP  agencies, take steps to ensure that STOP fully addresses the  characteristics of an effective national strategy. In our April 2007  testimony, we reported that the IP Coordinator said that NIPLECC had  taken some steps to address our recommendations, including working  with OMB to understand agencies’ priorities and resources related to IP  enforcement.
section_title: U.S. Border IP Efforts Demonstrate the Need for Improvements
paragraphs: In our April 2007 report, we foundthat the volume of goods entering the  United States every year is substantial, and creates a challenge for CBP in  terms of ensuring that these shipments do not carry weapons of mass  destruction or illegal drugs and that appropriate duties are collected on  imports. CBP also has the responsibility to ensure that counterfeit goods  do not enter through the 300 plus U.S. ports, but detecting and seizing IP- infringing products from among this large volume of traffic is difficult.  CBP efforts in this regard include (1) targeting suspicious shipments, (2)  examining goods to determine their authenticity, and (3) enforcing IP laws  through seizure and penalty actions.
CBP faces challenges in targeting shipments, in part, because its primary  computer-based targeting method is not equally effective in all modes of  transport (that is, sea, air, truck, and rail). For example, CBP officials  believe counterfeiters are increasingly using express consignment services  to move commercial quantities of goods into the United States, but their  computer- based targeting method is less effective in this environment.  Determining during an examination whether IP infringement has occurred  can be challenging because of high counterfeit quality and the complexity  of U.S. IP laws. Interaction among port staff, CBP’s legal and product  experts, and rights holders is required to make these determinations.  When violations are found, CBP is authorized to seize the goods and, if  warranted, assess penalties against the violator.
Although CBP has reported increases in the number and value of IP  seizures, our analysis found that the bulk of these seizures have been  generated by a limited number of ports and that recent increases in seizure  actions can be attributed to a growing number of small-value seizures  made from air-based modes. For example, 10 ports are responsible for  three fourths of the value of goods seized. In addition, nearly two-thirds of  seizure value since 2001 has been concentrated in certain product types - -  footwear, wearing apparel, handbags, and cigarettes. However, seizures of  goods related to public health and safety have been small. Although  penalties assessed for IP violations have grown steadily since 2001, CBP  has collected less than 1 percent of assessed amounts. For example, CPB  collected approximately 600,000 dollars of the 136.6 million dollars  assessed in 2006.
CBP has undertaken steps to improve its border enforcement efforts, but it  lacks data with which to analyze IP enforcement trends across transport  modes, and it has not analyzed ports’ IP enforcement outcomes to  determine whether certain ports have been relatively more successful in  capturing IP-infringing goods. In addition, a lack of integration between  the ports and CBP’s trade policy office hinders it from making further  improvements.
Given the challenging environment in which CBP must process the vast  influx of goods into the United States every day, it is particularly important  that the agency utilize data to effectively focus its limited enforcement  resources to those areas where they can be most effective. As a result, we  have made a number of recommendations to the Commissioner of CBP.  These include improvements in enforcement data as well as increased use  of enforcement data to understand enforcement activities and outcomes.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: This committee made a significant investment in the current legislative  session in moving IP legislation to try to find the right formula for  protecting and stimulating creative and inventive activity in the United  States in the area of patent reform, and encountered a number of differing  views on how to establish that formula. However, having the incentives for  creating intellectual property is of limited value unless there is sufficient  protection for the works that are created, and this hearing directly  addresses that issue. There is little disagreement — at least domestically  — with the need to strengthen protection, but the difficulty is in how to  best achieve that goal in the face of the strong economic incentives for  counterfeiting and the limited resources to prevent it. GAO has performed  a large body of work for the Congress of aspects of these issues, and has  put forward some specific recommendations regarding the importance of  coordination as well as methods to be effective in the context of  competing priorities. We appreciate the opportunity to support this  subcommittee and the Congress as it continues to address these issues.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may  have at this time.
section_title: Contacts and Acknowledgements
paragraphs: Should you have any questions about this testimony, please contact Loren  Yager at (202) 512-4347 or yagerl@gao.gov. Other major contributors to  this testimony were Christine Broderick, Nina Pfeiffer, Jason Bair, Diana  Blumenfeld, Shirley Brothwell, Adam Cowles, Karen Deans, and Addie  Spahr.
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.