Airport Funding: Aviation Industry Changes Affect Airport Development Costs and Financing
Published: 2014-06-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: U.S. airports are important contributors to the U.S. economy, providing mobility for people and goods both domestically and internationally and often contributing to the economic success of the communities served. Since 2007 when GAO last reported on airport funding and its sufficiency to meet planned development of airport infrastructure, there have been significant changes in the aviation industry. During this time, federal support for airport development has declined. As deliberations begin in advance of FAA's reauthorization in 2015, Congress will consider the most appropriate type, level, and distribution of federal support for development of the national airport system.
This testimony discusses trends in (1) aviation activity at airports since 2007, (2) costs of airports' planned development, and (3) federal funding and airport revenues that may be available to finance development costs. This testimony is based on previous GAO reports on aviation from June 2007 through June 2014, updated through June 2014 with interviews with key FAA and trade association officials and FAA airport funding data from 2005-2013. GAO shared the information it used to prepare this statement with FAA and incorporated its comments as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since 2007, economic pressures—including high fuel prices, the financial crisis, and the ensuing recession of 2007–2009—contributed to airline restructuring which has resulted in reductions in the number of commercial flights at airports, especially at medium- and smaller-sized airports. General aviation activity, which includes all forms of aviation except commercial and military, has also declined over the last decade. Because many sources of airport funding, including federal support and locally generated revenue, are tied to aviation activity, for many airports these trends mean less funding available for infrastructure development.
According to Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) estimates, airports' total costs of planned infrastructure development eligible for federal support from FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants are about $42.5 billion for the 2013 through 2017 period, or about $8.5 billion per year on average which was down 18 percent from $52.2 billion for the 2011 through 2015 period. FAA attributed the decline to airports' choosing to defer projects due to reductions in aviation activity or having identified other funding sources, among other factors. Airports in the national airport system receive AIP entitlement grants for eligible projects, generally those that enhance capacity, safety, or environmental conditions. The U.S. airport association, Airports Council International—North America, estimated costs of other planned development not eligible for federal support, such as parking structures, totaled $4.6 billion per year for the 2013 through 2017 period. Therefore, the total costs of planned development for the most current period are estimated to be approximately $13.1 billion per year.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss airport funding as you begin  considering reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).  U.S. airports are important contributors to our economy, providing mobility  for people and goods both domestically and internationally, and often  contributing to the economic success of the communities served.
Since 2007, when we last reported on airports’ funding and its sufficiency  to meet airports’ planned development costs, aviation activity has slowed  or even declined at many airports, while activity has become more  concentrated at larger airports. This has affected the demands on  infrastructure at these airports, as well as their finances. Also, federal  support for airport development has declined during this period. In  response, airports have leveraged their expected future revenues and  have sought to increase their non-aviation revenues to finance past or  current development. To meet future planned development costs, airports  have sought an increase in the cap on Passenger Facility Charges (PFC),  which are added to ticket prices along with federal taxes. However,  airlines strongly oppose an increase because higher ticket prices could  reduce passenger demand and therefore airline revenues.
My statement today focuses on funding for airport development.  Specifically, this statement discusses trends in (1) aviation activity at  airports since 2007, (2) costs of airports’ planned development, and (3)  federal funding and airports’ revenues that may be available to finance  development costs.
This statement draws from our body of work, completed from June 2007  through June 2014 examining airport and aviation-industry trends.  Specific products from this work are cited throughout the statement. The  products cited contain explanations of the methods we used to conduct  this work. We have updated this work through June 2014 with interviews  with key FAA and trade association officials and updated FAA airport  funding data from 2005 through 2013. We also reviewed the President’s  2015 budget proposal for FAA and obtained updated information about  FAA program activities based on public sources. In addition, we have  ongoing work examining airports’ funding and planned development,  alternative PFC collection methods, and FAA’s airport privatization pilot  program, on which we plan to issue reports later this year.
The work on which this statement is based was conducted 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 objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides  a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit  objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The United States has the largest, most extensive aviation system in the  world with over 19,000 airports ranging from large commercial  transportation centers transporting millions of passengers annually to  small grass airstrips serving only a few aircraft each year. Of these,  nearly 3,400 airports are designated as part of the national airport system  and thus are eligible for federal assistance. The national airport system  consists of two primary types of airports—commercial service airports,  which have scheduled service and board 2,500 or more passengers per  year, and general aviation airports, which have no scheduled service and  board fewer than 2,500 passengers. FAA divides commercial service  airports into primary airports (boarding more than 10,000 passengers  annually) and commercial service nonprimary airports. The 389 primary  airports are arranged into various types of hub airports—large, medium,  and small hub, and nonhub—based on passenger traffic (see fig. 1).  Passenger traffic is highly concentrated: 88 percent of all passengers in  the United States boarded at the 62 large or medium hub airports in  2012.
More than 2,500 airports in the national airport system are designated as  “general aviation” (GA) airports. These airports range from large business  aviation and cargo-shipment centers that handle thousands of operations  a year to small rural airports with fewer operations per year but which  provide vital access to the national transportation system for their  communities.
Since 1946, the federal government has sponsored a grant program to  fund airport development. Today, those monies come from Airport  Improvement Program (AIP) grants. AIP is supported by the Airport and  Airway Trust Fund (trust fund), which is funded in part by airline ticket  taxes and fees. General aviation flights also contribute to the trust fund  through a tax on noncommercial jet fuel. Airports in the national airport  system may receive AIP entitlement grants based on the number of  passengers and amount of cargo carried and may also compete for AIP  discretionary grants. FAA selects grantees for discretionary grants  according to national priorities and objectives. AIP grants can only be  used for eligible projects, generally those that enhance capacity, safety,  or environmental concerns, such as runway construction and  rehabilitation, airfield lighting, and airplane noise mitigation. AIP  appropriations totaled $3.35 billion in fiscal year 2013. The grants require  a local match ranging from 5 to 25 percent, depending on the size of the  airport and type of project.
49 U.S.C. § 47102 (3). types of projects as AIP grants, but are also allowed to pay interest costs  on debt issued for those projects. The $4.50 maximum PFC was last  increased in 2000. Collections totaled $2.8 billion in calendar year 2013.  According to FAA, 388 commercial service airports were approved to  collect PFCs as of April 2014.
Airports also fund development projects from revenues generated directly  by the airport. Airports generate revenues from aviation activities such as  aircraft landing fees and terminal rentals, and non-aviation activities such  as concessions, parking, and land leases. Aviation revenues are a  traditional method for funding airport development; however, because  Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations generally limit aviation  charges to the recovery of historical airport costs—rather than  replacement costs—they may not fully fund new investment.
Generally, the level of aviation activity—whether commercial passenger  and cargo or general aviation business and private aircraft—drives airport  development and the monies that finance it. While only three new major  airports have been built in the United States over the last three decades,  billions of dollars have been invested in building new capacity and  maintaining and upgrading existing airport infrastructure during that time.  In addition, according to the most recent FAA forecast, air traffic demand  is projected to increase 2.7 percent per year from 2014 through 2034.  Funding for both AIP and PFCs is linked to passenger activity. In this  way, Congress aims to direct funds to where they are needed most.  Similarly, airport-generated revenues are also tied to aviation activity and  the number of passengers who use airport-related services. These  revenues are typically used to finance the issuance of local debt such as  tax-exempt bonds, which for larger commercial airports constitutes more  than half of their funding. Because of the size and duration of airport  development—for example, planning, funding and building a new runway  can take more than a decade and several hundred million dollars to  complete—long-term debt is used to help finance these types of projects.
While almost all airport sponsors in the United States are states,  municipalities, or public authorities, there is a significant reliance on the  private sector for finance, expertise, and control of airport assets. For  example, the majority of airport employees are employed by private  sector entities, such as vendors and baggage handlers, and private  companies also own and operate some airports. Under congressional  authorization, since 1996, FAA has piloted an airport privatization  program that relaxes certain restrictions on the sale or lease of airports to  private entities.
section_title: Aviation Activity at Airports Has Slowed or Declined Since 2007
paragraphs: Since 2007, economic pressures—including record-high fuel prices and  the recession of 2007 through 2009—helped spark a wave of  consolidation across the airline industry. For instance, Delta acquired  Northwest in 2008, United and Continental merged in 2010, Southwest  acquired AirTran in 2011, and US Airways and American Airlines received  U.S. District Court approval for their proposed merger in April 2014.
As part of this restructuring and a more general focus on capacity  decisions, U.S. airlines have reduced the number of flights they offer  passengers in certain markets. We found in June 2014, based on our  analysis of DOT data, that there were 1.2 million fewer scheduled  domestic flights at large, medium, and small hub, and nonhub airports in  2013 than during 2007. The greatest reduction in scheduled flights  occurred at medium hub airports, which decreased nearly 24 percent  from 2007 through 2013, compared to a decrease of about 9 percent at  large hub airports and about 20 percent at small hub airports over the  same time period. Medium hub airports also experienced the greatest  percentage reduction in air service as measured by available seats (see  fig. 2).
However, because airlines are now better able to match capacity to  demand, planes are fuller than they have ever been. As a result,  passenger boardings did not fall as much as either the number of flights  or available seats. According to our analysis of DOT’s data from 2007  through 2012, passenger boardings decreased approximately 17  percent at medium hub airports and about 2 percent at large hub airports,  but increased more than 4 percent and about 3 percent at small hub and  nonhub airports, respectively.
In addition, this April, we testified before this Committee that air service to  small communities has declined since 2007 due, in part, to higher fuel  costs, airline consolidation, and reduced demand both from declining  populations in those communities and as a result of some passengers’  opting to drive to larger markets with more attractive service (i.e., larger  airports in larger cities). A 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study of domestic air service trends reported similar results and  found that the prolonged economic downturn, high fuel prices, and  capacity restraint contributed to a reduction in service. The study also  concluded that airlines have been cutting back on capacity to medium  hub and small hub airports far more than at the nation’s large hub  airports.
Kamala I. Shetty and R. John Hansman, Current and Historical Trends in General  Aviation in the United States, Massachusetts Institute of Technology International Center  for Air Transportation (Aug. 2012).
section_title: Airports’ Planned Development Costs Have Declined
paragraphs: FAA estimates that the annual costs of planned airport development  projects that are eligible for AIP grants will average about $8.5 billion  (2011 dollars) from fiscal years 2013 to 2017. In 2012, FAA estimated  $42.5 billion (2011 dollars) in total 5-year costs of eligible development for  fiscal years 2013–2017. This figure was down 18 percent from the  estimated $52.3 billion (2009 dollars) costs for fiscal years 2011—2015 or  $10.5 billion annually. FAA attributed the decline to several factors,  including airport sponsors choosing to defer projects due to reductions in  aviation activity, having identified other funding sources for projects, and  projects’ having been completed. In developing the estimate, FAA  reviewed approximately 23,000 existing projects at the five categories of  commercial airports, GA airports, reliever airports, and new airports and  adjusted, deferred, or removed from consideration approximately 3,700  projects (16 percent). FAA estimated that eligible development costs for  all airport categories decreased between the two time periods, with the  largest nominal decreases for large hubs ($2.7 billion, a 15 percent  decrease) and medium hubs ($2.3 billion, a 31 percent decrease) (see  fig. 3).
Based on FAA’s estimates, the largest category of eligible planned  development is to bring existing airports up to current design standards  (28 percent), followed by reconstruction (replacement or rehabilitation of  airport facilities, mostly pavement and lighting systems) (25 percent), and  increasing airfield capacity (23 percent). Compared to fiscal years 2011– 2015, FAA’s estimates of planned development for fiscal years 2013– 2017 decreased across every development category except capacity,  which saw a slight increase of 2.5 percent (see fig. 4). While large hubs  were the only airport category that experienced an increase in the cost of  planned capacity projects (from about $6.8 billion to about $8.1 billion, a  19 percent increase), this increase was greater than the corresponding  decrease for all other airport categories (from about $2.7 billion to about  $1.7 billion, a 37 percent decrease). FAA is currently compiling the  estimated planned development costs for the fiscal years 2015–2019  period, due to be published in fall 2014.
ACI-NA also estimated airports’ costs of planned development for the  fiscal years 2013–2017 period for projects eligible for federal funding as  well as those not eligible. The total estimated costs of planned  development for fiscal years 2013–2017 are $68.2 billion (2012 dollars) or  approximately $13.6 billion per year on average. This is about a 10  percent decline from ACI-NA’s prior estimate of $75.6 billion (2010  dollars) for the prior fiscal years 2011–2015 estimating period. ACI-NA  attributed the decline to several factors, including the recent recession  and challenging economic conditions, airline consolidation and capacity  reductions, and projects’ having been completed or postponed beyond  2017. ACI-NA’s estimates of eligible development decreased between the  two time periods for all airport categories except medium hubs, which saw  a 5 percent increase. The largest decreases were for large hubs ($2.3  billion, a 6 percent decrease) and small hubs ($2.1 billion, a 27 percent  decrease).
In addition, there are other differences in the way FAA and ACI-NA estimate airport  planned development costs. First, while FAA’s estimates cover projects for every airport in  the national system, ACI-NA surveyed its member airports in the U.S. (117 of which  responded, consisting mostly of large, medium, and small hub airports) and then  extrapolates a total based on cost-per-boarding calculations for large, medium, and small  hub airports that did not respond. Second, FAA data are based on planned project  information taken from airport master plans and state system plans, minus projects that  already have an identified funding source, while ACI-NA includes all projects, whether  funding has been identified or not. Third, FAA data includes only the portion of a project  that is eligible for AIP, while ACI-NA estimates the total value project cost. Fourth, ACI-NA  and FAA estimated planned development costs for the same 5-year time period, but the  estimates were made at different times—the ACI-NA survey was completed in 2012, while  FAA’s estimate is based on information available through 2011. Lastly, FAA’s estimates  use 2011 dollars, whereas ACI-NA’s estimates use 2012 dollars.
ACI-NA’s estimates for these categories of airports are drawn directly from FAA’s estimate.
section_title: Federal Support for Airport Development Declined, While Alternative Revenue Sources at Airports Have Grown
subsections: section_title: Federal Support for Airport Development Has Declined
paragraphs: Regarding AIP grants, annual appropriations decreased from about $3.5  billion for fiscal years 2007 through 2011 to about $3.4 billion for fiscal  years 2012 through 2014. In addition, the actual amount of AIP grants  awarded annually has decreased 9.6 percent since 2007 from $3.3 billion  in fiscal year 2007 to $3 billion in fiscal year 2013. Excluding grants to GA  airports, AIP grants on a per-passenger basis have also decreased, from  $3.80 per passenger in 2007 to $3.40 per passenger in 2012. Since then  Congress transferred $253 million in unobligated funds from AIP to FAA  operations to reduce furloughs for air traffic controllers in legislation  passed in March 2014. Airport association representatives told us that  these funds had been reserved for airport development.
The President’s 2015 Budget calls for a reduction in AIP appropriations to  $2.9 billion. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for  the 21st Century of 2000 legislates that if AIP appropriations fall below  $3.2 billion and that provision is not changed, AIP entitlement grants will  be reduced by half; the funds from the entitlement grant reductions would  instead flow to AIP discretionary grants giving FAA greater decision-making over which airport projects receive funding.
With regard to PFCs, the federal PFC cap of $4.50 has not increased  since 2000 and thus has not kept pace with inflation. According to FAA  data, PFCs collections peaked in 2006 at $2.93 billion and then fell during  the recession before rebounding to $2.81 billion in 2013. According to  FAA, as of (April 2014, 388 commercial service airports (including of the  largest 100 airports by passenger boardings) imposed a PFC. According  to FAA, more than 90 percent of PFC collections go to large and medium  hub airports, but large and medium hub airports collecting PFCs must  return a portion of their AIP entitlement grants, which are then  redistributed to smaller airports. In addition, we have found that many  airports’ future PFC collections are already committed to pay off debt for  past projects, leaving them little future PFC collections for new  development. For example, at least 50 airports have leveraged their  PFCs through 2030 or later, according to FAA data.
The President’s 2015 Budget and airports have requested an increase in  the PFC cap to $8—which they say takes into account inflation that has  occurred since 2000 and eliminating AIP entitlements for large hub  airports. fees, including PFCs, arguing that if an increase in taxes or fees is  passed onto the consumers through an increase in ticket prices, it could  reduce demand for air travel. For example, in December 2013, Congress  approved allowing the Transportation Security Administration to raise the  security fee currently applied to each ticket from $2.50 to $5.60 and to  eliminate the cap on the number of fees that can be collected on a flight  itinerary. Airlines opposed that increase based on concerns that it would  hurt travel demand. We concluded in 2012 that a $3.00 increase in the  security fee to $5.50 would reduce passenger boardings by about 1  percent based on a review of passenger demand literature. We are  currently assessing the impact of increases in the amount of the PFC on  passenger demand, airport investment, and aviation users and plan to  report our findings later this year.
Airport trade associations ACI-NA and the American Association of Airport Executives  have made prior proposals to raise the PFC cap to $8.50 with periodic adjustments for  inflation. smartphones that could be used to collect PFCs separately from the  ticket. We found that none of these alternatives was better than the  current method. Specifically, we determined that each of the alternatives  negatively affected the passenger experience and the transparency of  fees relative to the current method.
Although support for airport development from AIP and PFCs has  declined in recent years, so have planned development costs. In addition,  we have not yet determined how much funding has recently been  generated by the other major source of revenues for airport  development—municipal bond proceeds, backed primarily by airport  revenues. Therefore, the extent to which the gap between airport funding  and planned airport development costs has changed since we last  reported on this in 2007 is unknown. As discussed above, for the 2013  through 2017 period, the total estimated annual costs for airports’ planned  development projects is about $13.1 billion, $8.5 billion of which is eligible  for AIP grants and PFCs. However, annually only about $6 billion in  support has been available from AIP grants and PFC collections. The  remaining $7 billion in annual planned development will need to be  funded by locally generated revenues or deferred. In 1998, 2003, and  2007, we found a funding gap between the 5-year airport planned  development costs and historical funding. In 2007, the total gap was $1  billion annually. This gap has been most acute for smaller airports that   We are currently assessing  may have less access to capital markets. whether this gap has grown or declined in light of declining federal  funding and planned development and will report our findings to this  Committee later this year.
GAO, Airport Finance: Observations on Planned Airport Development Costs and  Funding Levels and the Administration’s Proposed Changes in the AIP, GAO-07-885  (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007); Airport Finance: Past Funding Levels May Not Be  Sufficient to Cover Airports’ Planned Capital Development, GAO-03-497T (Washington,  D.C.: Feb. 25, 2003); and Airport Financing: Funding Sources for Airport Development,  GAO/RCED-98-71 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 1998).
section_title: Alternative Revenue Sources at Airports Have Grown
paragraphs: To help fund airport development, some commercial service airports have  increasingly relied on non-aviation revenues. According to ACI-NA, non-  aviation revenue has grown, on average, over 4 percent each year since  2004, compared to a 1.5 percent increase in passenger boardings over  the same period. In 2012, according to FAA data, non-aviation revenue  accounted for approximately 45 percent of airports’ total operating  revenues. Parking and ground transportation accounted for the greatest  portion (41 percent) of passenger-related non-aviation revenue, followed  by terminal concessions (20 percent) and revenue from rental car  facilities (20 percent) (see fig. 5).
In addition to traditional commercial activities to generate non-aviation  revenue, some airports have developed unique commercial activities with  stakeholders from local jurisdictions and the private sector to help  develop airport properties into retail, business, and leisure destinations.An increasing range of unique developments on airport property have  contributed to non-aviation revenues, including high-end commercial retail  and leisure activities, hotels and business centers, medical facilities, and  specialized cargo handling and refrigerated storage facilities, among  other developments (see fig. 6). For example, Miami International Airport  was named one of the world’s top-10 airports for retail shopping, and the  $1.7 billion international terminal at Los Angeles International Airport,  which is currently under construction, will contain 140,000 square feet of  premier dining, retail, and club lounges. By acting more like businesses  than public utilities, airports have increasingly become more competitive  with one another, providing services, including hotels and conference  space, to attract and retain business travelers who might otherwise stay  in a downtown hotel off airport property. For example, Dallas/Fort Worth  International Airport owns a Grand Hyatt hotel inside Terminal D, Denver  International Airport is building an attached Westin Hotel, and Hartsfield- Jackson Atlanta International Airport is considering an airport hotel inside  or connected to its domestic terminal. Also, in an effort to generate  revenue by leasing cold storage space to freight forwarders and  businesses that transport low-volume, high-valued goods, including  pharmaceuticals, produce, and other time-sensitive or perishable items,  airports in Denver, Miami, and Indianapolis have built—or plan to build— cold storage facilities on airport property.
In addition, airports can fund airport improvements with private sector  participation. Public-private partnerships, involving airports and  developers, have been used to finance airport development projects  without increasing the amount of debt already incurred by airports. FAA’s  noise land disposal program, for example, allows airports to sell or lease  land that had been used in the past for noise abatement purposes and is  no longer needed for noise abatement. FAA also allows airports with  excess available land to use the land for certain types of commercial   Airport operators must  development, pending approval by the FAA.obtain FAA’s concurrence prior to leasing airport land or facilities to  private developers to help ensure, among other things, that the  developer’s plans will be compatible with airport operations and that the  airport receives fair market value for the use of its property. The ability to  lease airport land has allowed some airport operators to generate  revenue through temporary leases of airport property for manufacturing,  warehousing, and freight-forwarding operations while also reserving the  land for future aviation needs. For example, solar farms have been built  on airport land in Indianapolis and Denver; officials at Dallas/Fort Worth  International Airport have leased a portion of the airport property for oil  extraction; and land at Alliance Airport near Ft. Worth, Texas, has been  leased for agricultural uses, such as cattle grazing and a golf course (see  fig. 7). In addition, Miami International Airport entered a $512 million  public-private partnership to develop 33 acres of airport property. The  developer will finance construction and pay rent and a percentage of the  revenues to the airport in return for a 50-year lease.
Privatization of airports is another option that some public sector airport  owners have considered to obtain private capital for airport improvement  and development, among other things. However, FAA’s Airport  Privatization Pilot Program (APPP), which was established in 1996 to  reduce barriers to airport privatization has not led to many privatizations.  Only one airport—San Juan Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport in  Puerto Rico –has been privatized, and currently there is only one active  applicant in the program. Nonetheless, airports are using the private  sector to finance airport development or manage airports outside of the  APPP. For example, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has  recently received responses for its request for proposals for the private  sector to demolish old terminal buildings and construct, partially finance,  operate, and maintain a new Central Terminal Building for LaGuardia  Airport in New York City in return for a share of terminal revenues. In  addition, Gary/Chicago International Airport in Gary, Indiana, outside  Chicago has entered into a public-private partnership with a private sector  firm to both operate the airport and economically develop off-airport  property. We are currently examining airport privatization and the APPP  and plan to report our findings later this year.
In conclusion, this year commemorates one century since the first  commercial airline flight, and in that relatively short time span,  commercial aviation has grown at an amazing pace to become a  ubiquitous and mature industry in the United States. While commercial  aviation still has many exciting prospects for its second century, it also  faces many challenges, chief among these are ensuring that airports can  continue to accommodate millions of flights and hundreds of millions of  passengers every year. Maintaining and upgrading this vital infrastructure  will require the combined resources of federal, state, and local  governments, as well as private companies’ capital and expertise.  Effectively supporting this development involves focusing federal  resources on the FAA’s key priorities of maintaining one of the world’s  safest aviation system and providing adequate system capacity, while  allowing maximum flexibility for local airport sponsors to maximize local  investment and revenue opportunities. In deciding the best course for  future federal investment in our national airport system, key  considerations for Congress will be to balance the interests of all aviation  stakeholders, including airports, airlines, and most importantly  passengers and shippers, to help ensure a safe and vibrant aviation  system.
Chairman LoBiondo, Ranking Member Larsen, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact Gerald L.  Dillingham at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony  include Paul Aussendorf (Assistant Director), Amy Abramowitz, Jessica  Bryant-Bertail, Jonathan Carver, Ben Emmel, John Healey, David  Goldstein, Greg Hanna, David Hooper, Delwen Jones, Jennifer Kamara,  Maureen Luna-Long, Faye Morrison, Eleni Orphanides, Justin Reed,  Melissa Swearingen, and Pamela Vines.
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.