District of Columbia: Structural Imbalance and Management Issues 
(22-JUN-04, GAO-04-908T).					 
                                                                 
District of Columbia officials have reported both a current	 
services budget gap and a more permanent structural imbalance	 
between costs and revenue-raising capacity. They maintain that	 
the structural imbalance largely stems from the federal 	 
government's presence and restrictions on the District's tax	 
base. Accordingly, at various times District officials have asked
the Congress for additional funds and other measures to enhance  
revenues. In that context, the Subcommittee has asked GAO to	 
discuss its May 2003 report, District of Columbia: Structural	 
Imbalance and Management Issues (GAO-03-666). This testimony	 
addresses the key findings and concluding observations of the May
2003 report. Specifically, this testimony discusses: (1) whether,
or to what extent, the District faces a structural imbalance	 
between its revenue capacity and the cost of providing residents 
with average levels of public services by using a representative 
services approach; (2) any significant constraints on the	 
District's revenue capacity; (3) cost conditions and management  
problems in key program areas; and (4) the effects of the	 
District's fiscal situation on its ability to fund infrastructure
projects and repay related debt.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-908T					        
    ACCNO:   A10587						        
  TITLE:     District of Columbia: Structural Imbalance and Management
Issues								 
     DATE:   06/22/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Budget deficit					 
	     Budget outlays					 
	     Budgets						 
	     Financial management				 
	     Fiscal policies					 
	     Intergovernmental fiscal relations 		 
	     Municipal budgets					 
	     Proposed legislation				 
	     Strategic planning 				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-908T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Appropriations, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10 a.m. EDT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

                   Structural Imbalance And Management Issues

Statement of Patricia A. Dalton, Director, Strategic Issues

                                       A

GAO-04-908T

Highlights of GAO-04-908T, testimony before the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia, Committee on Appropriations, U. S. Senate

District of Columbia officials have reported both a current services
budget gap and a more permanent structural imbalance between costs and
revenue-raising capacity. They maintain that the structural imbalance
largely stems from the federal government's presence and restrictions on
the District's tax base. Accordingly, at various times District officials
have asked the Congress for additional funds and other measures to enhance
revenues. In that context, the Subcommittee has asked GAO to discuss its
May 2003 report,

District of Columbia: Structural Imbalance and Management Issues
(GAO-03-666). This testimony addresses the key findings and concluding
observations of the May 2003 report. Specifically, this testimony
discusses: (1) whether, or to what extent, the District faces a structural
imbalance between its revenue capacity and the cost of providing residents
with average levels of public services by using a representative services
approach; (2) any significant constraints on the District's revenue
capacity; (3) cost conditions and management problems in key program
areas; and (4) the effects of the District's fiscal situation on its
ability to fund infrastructure projects and repay related debt.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-908T

To view the full product, click on the link above. For more information,
contact Patricia A. Dalton at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected].

June 2004

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Structural Imbalance and Management Issues

GAO used a multifaceted approach to measure structural imbalance, which
involves comparing a fiscal system's ability to fund an average level of
public services with revenues that it could raise with an average level of
taxation, plus the federal aid it receives. This approach compared the
District's circumstances to a benchmark based on the average spending and
tax policies of the 50 state fiscal systems (each state and its local
governments). GAO also reviewed key programs as well as infrastructure and
outstanding debt. GAO found:

o  	The cost of delivering an average level of services per capita in the
District far exceeds that of the average state fiscal system due to
factors such as high poverty, crime, and a high cost of living.

o  	The District's per capita total revenue capacity is higher than all
state fiscal systems but not to the same extent that its costs are higher.
In addition, its revenue capacity would be larger without constraints on
its taxing authority, such as its inability to tax federal property or the
income of nonresidents.

o  	The District faces a substantial structural deficit in that the cost
of providing an average level of public services exceeds the amount of
revenue it could raise by applying average tax rates. Data limitations and
uncertainties surrounding key assumptions in our analysis made it
difficult to determine the exact size of the District's structural
deficit, though it likely exceeds $470 million annually. Consequently,
even though the District's tax burden is among the highest in the nation,
the resulting revenues plus federal grants are only sufficient to fund an
average level of public services, if those services were delivered with
average efficiency.

o  	The District's significant, long-standing management problems in key
programs waste resources and make it difficult to provide even an average
level of services. Examples include inadequate financial management,
billing systems, and internal controls, resulting in tens of millions of
dollars being wasted, and hindering its ability to receive federal
funding. Addressing management problems would not offset the District's
underlying structural imbalance because this imbalance is determined by
factors beyond the District's direct control. Addressing these management
problems would help offset its current budget gap or increase service
levels.

o  The District continues to defer major infrastructure projects and
capital

investment because of its structural imbalance and its high debt level. If
this imbalance is to be addressed in the near term, it is a policy issue
for the Congress to determine if it should change federal policies to
expand the District's tax base or provide additional support. However,
given the existence of structural imbalances in other jurisdictions and
the District's significant management problems and the federal
government's own fiscal challenges, federal policymakers face difficult
choices regarding what changes, if any, they should make in their
financial relationship with the District. If the District were to receive
additional federal support to compensate for its structural imbalance and
enhance its ability to fund capital investments, it is important that the
District follow sound practices to avoid the costly management
inefficiencies it has experienced in the past. These practices include
evaluating and selecting capital assets using an investment approach,
integrating organizational goals into the capital decision-making process,
and providing transparency and accountability over the use of federal
funds.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, District of Columbia:
Structural Imbalance and Management Issues.1 Though our report was
released a year ago, its focus on fundamental aspects of the District's
financial structure continues to be relevant. In recent years, District of
Columbia (District) officials have reported that a continuation of the
District's current spending and taxing policies would result in ongoing
current services budget imbalances. While District officials have
demonstrated their resolve to maintain fiscal discipline by taking the
steps needed to balance their budgets for fiscal years 2004 and 2005,
those officials claim that the District faces a more permanent structural
imbalance between its revenue-raising capacity and the cost of meeting its
public service responsibilities that are the result of many factors,
several stemming from the federal government's presence in the District
and the restrictions on the District's tax base.

Although there is no uniform definition of structural imbalance, there are
two concepts that can be used to measure it-current services and
representative services imbalances. A current services imbalance answers
the question: If a jurisdiction were to maintain its current level of
services into the future, would it be able to raise the revenues necessary
to maintain that level of service under its current taxing policies? This
type of longitudinal analysis compares a jurisdiction's projected fiscal
position with its current position and is independent of other similarly
situated jurisdictions. In contrast, a representative services imbalance
answers the question: If a jurisdiction were to provide a representative
basket of public services with average efficiency, would it be able to
generate sufficient revenues from its own taxable resources and federal
grants to fund the representative basket of services if its resources were
taxed at representative rates? This type of analysis uses a basket of
services and tax structure typical of other jurisdictions with similar
public service responsibilities as a benchmark against which to compare
imbalances between the cost of public services and revenue-raising
capacity. The approach attempts to compare differences in jurisdictions'
fiscal positions under a common set of policies regarding levels of
services and taxation. The District has reported both a current services
and a more permanent structural imbalance between its costs and
revenue-raising capacity.

1 U.S. General Accounting Office, District of Columbia: Structural
Imbalance and Management Issues, GAO-03-666 (Washington, D.C.: May 2003).

My statement today will discuss (1) whether, and to what extent, the
District faces a structural imbalance between its revenue capacity and the
cost of providing residents and visitors with average levels of public
services by using a representative services approach; (2) any significant
constraints on the District's revenue capacity; (3) cost conditions and
management problems in key program areas; and (4) the effects of the
District's fiscal situation on its ability to fund infrastructure projects
and repay related debt.2  We performed our work assessing the structural
imbalance and management issues from August 2002 through May 2003 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, and in
June 2004 we obtained updated budget information.

GAO's Methodology for Assessing Structural Imbalance

We used a representative services analysis to conduct our work on whether
and to what extent the District has a structural imbalance. This approach
allows us to compare the District's fiscal circumstances against a
benchmark based on services and taxation that is typical of jurisdictions
with similar fiscal responsibilities, which is different from a current
services approach, which would be based on the District's historical
spending and tax choices.

When analyzing a representative service imbalance, the choice of a
benchmark for a representative level of public services and taxation is a
critical decision. In fact, the appropriate level of services and taxation
is a matter of perennial debate in every jurisdiction in the nation. For
this reason, we used as a benchmark national average levels of spending
and taxation because they are independent of individual jurisdictions'
particular preferences, policy choices, and efficiency of service
provision. National averages provide benchmarks that are "representative"
of the level of services that a typical state fiscal system (the
collections of a state, counties, cities, and a myriad of special purpose
district governments) employs. A fiscal system is said to have a
structural imbalance if it is unable to finance an average (or
representative) level of services by taxing its funding capacity at
average (or representative) rates. Because we defined structural imbalance
in terms of comparisons to national averages, for any given time period a
significant proportion of all fiscal systems will have structural
deficits.

2 Prior to our May 2003 report, we issued a preliminary report on these
issues in September 2002. See U.S. General Accounting Office, District of
Columbia: Fiscal Structural Balance Issues, GAO-02-1001 (Washington, D.C.:
September 2002).

Determining empirically whether the District has a structural imbalance is
a complex task that involves making judgments about: (1) the appropriate
set of governments to use when developing benchmarks for the District's
spending and revenue capacity; (2) the influence that various workload and
cost factors, such as the number of school age children and number of
vehicle miles traveled, have on the cost of public services; and (3) the
best way to measure revenue capacity.

Using economic modeling, we were unable to provide a single, precise point
estimate of structural imbalance, but provided a range instead. Given the
lack of professional consensus and a limited empirical basis for many of
the decisions underlying our methodology, which was vetted with key
experts, we performed several sensitivity analyses to show how our
estimates changed as we varied key assumptions. In addition, the precision
of our estimates is adversely affected by data limitations for various
cost and tax bases. Nevertheless, we believe that the consistency of our
basic result over a broad range of alternative assumptions and approaches
provides sufficient support for the conclusions offered in this report.
Moreover, we supplemented our quantitative analysis with a programmatic
review of the District's three highest cost program areas to provide
additional insights into the level of services, costs, management, and
financing.

For our cost analysis, we computed two separate sets of benchmarks: one
based on a "state" services basket, the mix of services typically provided
by state fiscal systems (each state and all of its local governments), and
a second based on an "urban" services basket, the mix of services that are
typically provided by governments in more densely populated areas. The
scope of services included is the same for both baskets; what differs is
the proportion of total spending that is allocated to each service. For
example, the "urban" basket of services gives greater weight to public
safety functions and less weight to higher education than does the state
basket of services.

To estimate total revenue capacity of each state fiscal system, we
combined estimates for the two principal sources from which those systems
finance their expenditures: (1) revenues that could be raised from each
system's own economic base (own-source revenue), and (2) the federal
grants that each system would receive if it provided an average basket of
services. Two basic methodologies have been employed to estimate the
own-source revenue capacity of states: (1) the total taxable resources
(TTR), which uses income to measure the ability of governments to fund
public services;

and (2) the representative tax system (RTS), which measures the amount of
revenue that could be raised in each state if an average set of tax rates
were applied to a specified set of statutory tax bases "typically" used to
fund public services. Because experts disagree as to which approach is
superior, we computed separate results using both methodologies.

We estimated the size of the District's structural imbalance as the
difference between its cost of providing an average level of services and
its total revenue capacity-the amount of revenue the District would have
(including federal grants) if it applied average tax rates to its taxable
resources.

The District's Public Service Costs Are the Highest in the Nation

Using other state fiscal systems as a benchmark, our analysis indicated
that the cost of delivering an average level of services per capita in the
District exceeds that of the average state fiscal system by approximately
75 percent (or a total of $2.3 billion more annually than if it faced
average costs circumstances) and is over a third more than the second
highest-cost state system, New York. If state fiscal systems were to
provide a basket of services typically provided in more densely populated
urban areas, we estimated that the District would have to spend over 85
percent more (or a total of $2.6 billion more annually) than average to
fund an average level of services.

The District faces high-cost circumstances, largely beyond its control, in
key program areas including Medicaid, elementary and secondary education,
and police and fire services that increase the fiscal burdens on the
District's budget. For example, regarding Medicaid, we estimated that
high-cost circumstances, such as its large low-income population, would
require the District to spend well over twice the national average per
capita. Consequently, to provide an average level of services the District
would have to spend a total of $437 million more than if it faced average
cost circumstances. Similarly, we estimated that the District's per capita
cost of elementary and secondary education is 18 percent above the average
state fiscal system due to circumstances such as a disproportionately high
percentage of low-income children. As a result, to provide an average
level of services the District would have to spend a total of about $136
million more than if it faced average cost circumstances. Likewise, for
police and fire services, the District's per capita costs of providing an
average level of services are well over twice the national average due to
circumstances such as its relatively young population, especially high
crime rates, and its dense living conditions. As a result, to

provide an average level of services the District would have to spend
about $480 million more than if it faced average cost circumstances.
Further, our cost estimates do not explicitly account for the various
public safety demands and costs associated with the federal government's
presence.

The District's Revenue Capacity Is Among the Highest in the Nation,
Despite Some Constraints on Its Taxing Authority

Our analysis indicated that the District's per capita total revenue and
own-source revenue capacities are higher than those of all but a few state
fiscal systems. Its capacity is high even though the District faces some
significant constraints on its taxing authority, such as the inability to
tax federal property or the income of nonresidents who work in the
District.

The two estimation approaches we used to measure the District's revenue
capacity yielded the same basic result: The District's own-source revenue
capacity per capita ranked among the top five when compared to those of
the 50 state fiscal systems. This high own-source revenue capacity,
combined with the fact that its per capita federal grant funding is over
two and one-half times the national average, gives it a higher total
revenue capacity than any other state fiscal system. Depending on which
estimation approach we used, the District's total revenue capacity ranged
from 47 percent above the national average (based on a conservative
version of the RTS approach) to 60 percent above (based on the TTR
approach).

The District Faces a Structural Deficit

We concluded that the District does have a substantial structural deficit
in the sense that the cost of providing an average level of public
services exceeds the amount of revenue it could raise by applying average
tax rates, although considerable uncertainty exists regarding its exact
size. We obtained our lowest deficit estimate of about $470 million per
year by combining the lowest estimate of the District's costs (the one
based on the state basket of services) with the highest estimate of the
District's total revenue capacity (TTR). In contrast, we obtained the
highest deficit estimate of over $1.1 billion per year by combining the
highest estimate of the District's costs (the one based on the urban
basket of services) with the lowest estimate of the District's total
revenue capacity (RTS). Among the contributing factors to the structural
imbalance are high-cost conditions largely beyond the District's control,
such as high poverty rates, large concentrations of low-income children
and the elderly, and high crime rates. Figure 1 shows how the District's
structural deficit per capita compares to the state fiscal systems with
the largest structural deficits.

    Figure 1: Fiscal Systems with the Largest Structural Deficits Per Capita

2500 Deficit per capita (national average = 0) District of Columbia

Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Georgia Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico New
                              York Oklahoma Texas

State services, TTR capacity
Urban services, RTS "Low" capacity

Despite a High Tax Burden, the District's Revenues Are Only Sufficient to
Fund an Average Level of Services

                                  Source: GAO.

In addition to having high revenue capacity, the District also imposes
above average tax rates; however, high taxes are only sufficient to fund
an average level of services. Figure 2 shows the District's tax burden and
costadjusted spending. Because of its high tax rates, actual revenues
collected by the District exceeded our lower estimate of its own-source
revenue capacity at an average tax burden by 33 percent and exceeded our
higher estimate of that capacity by 18 percent (see the first two bars of
fig. 2). However, the District's actual fiscal year 2000 spending was only
equal to the cost of an average level of public services, based on the
basket of services provided by the average state fiscal system. Using the
basket of services typically provided by urban governments as a benchmark,
the District's spending is 5 percent below that needed to fund an average
level of services (see the last two bars of fig. 2). Our estimates of the
cost of delivering an average level of services presume that they are
provided with average efficiency. To the extent that the District does not
deliver services with average efficiency, its actual level of services may
be below average.

           Figure 2: District's Tax Burden and Cost-adjusted Spending

                       160 Percentage of U.S. average 140

The District's long-standing management problems waste resources that it
cannot afford to lose and draw resources away from providing even an
average level of services. In three key program areas (Medicaid,
elementary and secondary education, and police and fire services), our
original report identified significant management problems, such as
inadequate financial management, billing systems, and internal controls.
While the District has taken some actions to correct management
inefficiencies, more improvements are needed. In the case of Medicaid, in
fiscal year 2001 the District wrote off over $78 million for several years
worth of unreimbursed claims for federal Medicaid matching funds. The
District was not able to claim this reimbursement because of late
submission of reimbursement requests, incomplete documentation, inadequate
computerized billing systems, providing services to individuals not
eligible for Medicaid at the time of delivery, and billing for services
not allowable under Medicaid. The independent auditor of the District's
financial statements continued to report Medicaid accounting and claims
processing as a material weakness in fiscal year 2003. The extent of these

                                      120

                                     100 80

                                       60

                                       40

                                      20 0

                 Low capacity High State service Urban service 
                     capacity                    
                 estimate estimate        basket    basket     
                        Tax                      
                      burden                     

Cost-adjusted spending

                                  Source: GAO.

Management Problems Result in Unnecessary Spending That Compromises the
District's Ability to Provide an Average Level of Public Services.

management problems suggests that the District continues to bear more of
the burden of Medicaid costs than necessary.

In the case of education, in the recent past District public school
officials were not able to track either the total number of employees or
whether particular positions were still available or had been filled. For
example, in March 2003, District officials announced that the school
system had hired 640 more employees than its budget authorized, resulting
in the District exceeding its personnel budget by a projected amount of
$31.5 million over the entire fiscal year. In another example, the
District's lack of internal control for procurement practices in its
public school system resulted in $10 million in unauthorized purchases.
While our cost analysis shows that the District is spending an amount that
could provide an average level of services, the extent of these management
problems suggests that the District provides less than the national
average of education services.

In the case of police and fire services, the District historically has not
adequately tracked the costs it incurs to support the federal presence, in
areas such as providing protection to federal officials and key
dignitaries and dealing with an array of special events and
demonstrations. This hinders its ability to make a case for additional
federal reimbursement, requiring it to spend more of its own resources to
support the federal presence.

The District Continues to Defer Improvements to Its Infrastructure While
Debt Pressures Remain

Although the District is making some attempts to address its backlog of
infrastructure needs, it has nonetheless continued to defer significant
amounts of infrastructure projects because of constraints in its operating
budget. Most of the District's infrastructure and capital improvement
projects are financed by using general obligation bonds. The interest and
principal payments (debt service) on those bonds are paid from the
District's operating budget. Although the District is not close to its
legal debt limit, it cannot accommodate additional debt without cutting
services or raising taxes that are already higher than those of other
jurisdictions. Contributing to the District's difficulties is its legacy
of deteriorated infrastructure and its 40 percent share of funding the
metropolitan area's costly mass transit system. However, the District is
attempting to address its backlog of infrastructure needs through
increased capital expenditures (estimated at roughly $371 million in
fiscal year 2003). Nevertheless, the reality is that the District
continues to defer major infrastructure and capital investment in part
because of its structural imbalance.

From 1995 to 2002, the District's outstanding general obligation debt
changed little, totaling slightly over $2.67 billion as of September 30,
2002, and debt per capita has remained fairly constant. The District's
total outstanding general obligation debt as of September 30, 2003, was
$3.25 billion. As a percentage of local general fund revenues, debt
service costs, which were 7.5 percent of revenue for fiscal year 2003, are
expected to climb to approximately 10 percent by 2006. The District's
projections assume that debt service costs will increase at a higher rate
than local revenues. Furthermore, when compared to combined state and
local debt across the 50 states, the District's debt, both per capita and
as a percentage of own-source revenue, ranks among the highest in the
nation. Despite the challenges it faces, the District has been successful
in having its bond rating upgraded by all the major rating agencies in
part due to the improving economy and improved financial management.

Concluding Observations

Due to a combination of its substantial structural deficit and significant
management problems, the District is likely providing a below-average
level of services even though its tax burden is among the highest in the
nation. By addressing its management problems, in the long term the
District could reduce future budget shortfalls. However, management
improvements will not offset the underlying structural imbalance because
it is caused by factors beyond the direct control of District officials.
As a consequence, District officials may face more difficult policy
choices than most other jurisdictions in addressing a budget gap between
spending and revenues based on current policies. Since the District may
not be providing an average level of services, it would also be difficult
to cut services further and the tax burden it imposes is among the highest
in the nation. An alternative option to raising taxes or cutting services
would be for District officials to continue deferring improvements to its
capital infrastructure. This strategy also is not viable in the long run
in that deteriorating infrastructure would of necessity lead to further
reductions in the levels and types of services provided and ultimately
would necessitate either higher taxes or cuts in services.

Although it would be difficult, District officials could address a budget
gap by taking actions such as cutting spending, raising taxes, and
improving management inefficiencies. However, a structural imbalance is
beyond the direct control of local officials. Without changes in the
underlying factors driving expenses and revenue capacity, the structural
imbalance will remain. If this imbalance is to be addressed, in the near
term it may be necessary to change federal policies to expand the
District's tax base or to

provide additional financial support. However, given the existence of
structural imbalances in other jurisdictions and the District's
significant management problems, federal policymakers face difficult
choices regarding what changes, if any, they should make in their
financial relationship with the District. Further, another consideration
for the Congress is that the federal government faces its own long-term
fiscal challenges with the prospect of large, persistent deficits.
Nevertheless, by virtue of the District being the nation's capital,
justification may exist for a greater role by the federal government to
help the District maintain fiscal balance. At the same time, the District
must achieve basic management performance and accountability standards to
ensure an efficient use of any resources.

Accordingly, if the District were to receive additional federal assistance
to compensate for its structural imbalance and enhance its ability to fund
capital investments-as is proposed in the District of Columbia Fair
Federal Compensation Act of 2004 (H.R. 4269)-it is important that the
District follow sound practices in order to avoid the costly management
inefficiencies it has experienced in the past. The Congress needs
assurance that any federal assistance to the District would be spent
effectively and efficiently. It is critical to have clear, transparent
reporting and accountability mechanisms in place to ensure the proper use
of federal funds. Also, the Congress might want to consider incentives to
encourage the effective utilization of any federal funds.

Specifically, we have issued detailed guidance-based on best practices of
public and private entities- for the planning, budgeting, acquisition, and
management of capital assets, including infrastructure projects and
technology upgrades.3 Key elements of this guidance are to closely link
any planned capital investments to a government or agency's strategic
goals and objectives, ensure that effective information systems are in
place to support sound decision making and management, and for city
leaders to clearly communicate their vision and goals to project managers.
In addition, our past work has shown that it is useful to make capital
decisions based on the following five basic principles and to follow
related practices.

3 U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in
Capital Decision-Making GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

o 	Integrate organizational goals into the capital decision-making
process, such as conducting comprehensive assessments of needs in relation
to the current inventory of assets, and evaluating alternative approaches
to meeting needs.

o 	Evaluate and select capital assets using an investment approach,
meaning that a clear project approval framework should be established,
projects should be ranked based on established criteria, and long-term
capital plans should be developed.

o 	Balance budgetary control and managerial flexibility when funding
capital projects, which entails budgeting for the projects in segments and
considering full, upfront funding.

o 	Use project management techniques to optimize project success, such as
monitoring project performance, establishing incentives for
accountability, and using cross-functional teams to manage the projects.

o 	Evaluate results to make sure goals and objectives are being met and
incorporate lessons learned into the decision-making process, including
occasional reappraisals of decision-making and management processes.

We have not examined the District's capital planning and management
functions. District officials may already be following these principles
and practices. Nevertheless, all of them are important to consider in
order to maximize investment.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee may have
at this time.

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Patricia A.
Dalton, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806. Other individuals
who made key contributions to this testimony were Thomas Yatsco, Eric
Mader, Jeanette Franzel, Norma Samuel, Ann Calvaresi Barr, Jerry Fastrup,
and James Wozny.

GAO's Mission	The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Federal Programs  Automated answering system:
(800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs	Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

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.
*** End of document. ***