Forest Service: Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to	 
Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement	 
Needs (27-APR-05, GAO-05-586T). 				 
                                                                 
In 2004, the Forest Service reported to the Congress that it had 
a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing		 
reforestation--the planting and natural regeneration of trees.	 
Reforestation and subsequent timber stand improvement treatments,
such as thinning trees and removing competing vegetation, are	 
critical to restoring and improving the health of our national	 
forests after timber harvests or natural disturbances such as	 
wildland fires. GAO was asked to (1) examine the reported trends 
in federal lands needing reforestation and timber stand 	 
improvement, (2) identify the factors that have contributed to	 
these trends, and (3) describe any potential effects of these	 
trends that Forest Service officials have identified. This	 
testimony is based on GAO's report Forest Service: Better Data	 
Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize Reforestation and Timber	 
Stand Improvement Needs (GAO-05-374), being released today.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-586T					        
    ACCNO:   A22805						        
  TITLE:     Forest Service: Better Data and Clear Priorities Are     
Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand	 
Improvement Needs						 
     DATE:   04/27/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Forest conservation				 
	     Forest management					 
	     Land management					 
	     National forests					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Plants (organisms) 				 
	     Wilderness areas					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Forest Service Reforestation and Timber		 
	     Stand Improvement Program				 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** 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-05-586T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, Committee on
Resources, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT FOREST SERVICE

Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation
                       and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

Statement of Robin M. Nazzaro, Director Natural Resources and Environment

GAO-05-586T

[IMG]

April 2005

FOREST SERVICE

Better Data and Clear Priorities Are Needed to Address Increasing Reforestation
and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

What GAO Found

The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand
improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according to Forest
Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other
studies. While the Forest Service data are sufficiently reliable to
identify this relative trend, they are not sufficiently reliable to
accurately quantify the agency's specific needs, establish priorities
among treatments, or estimate a budget. The data's reliability is limited
in part because some Forest Service regions and forests define their needs
differently, and some do not systematically update the data to reflect
current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Forest
Service officials acknowledge these problems, and the agency is
implementing a new data system to better track its needs. While helpful,
this action alone will not be sufficient to address the data problems GAO
has identified.

According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs have been
increasing in spite of declining timber harvests because of the growing
acreage of lands affected by natural disturbances such as wildland fires,
insect infestation, and diseases. In the past, reforestation needs
resulted primarily from timber harvests, whose sales produced sufficient
revenue to fund most reforestation needs. Now needs are resulting mainly
from natural causes, and funding sources for such needs have remained
relatively constant rather than rising in step with increasing needs. For
timber stand improvement, the acreage needing attention is growing in part
because highdensity planting practices, used in the past to replace
harvested trees, are creating needs for thinning treatments today and
because treatments have not kept pace with the growing needs.

Forest Service officials believe the agency's ability to achieve its
forest management objectives may be impaired if future reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs continue to outpace the agency's ability to
meet these needs. For example, maintaining wildlife habitat-one forest
management objective-could be hindered if brush grows to dominate an area
formerly forested with tree species that provided forage, nesting, or
other benefits to wildlife. Also, if treatments are delayed, costs could
increase because competing vegetation-which must be removed to allow newly
reforested stands to survive-grows larger over time and becomes more
costly to remove. Further, without needed thinning treatments, agency
officials said forests become dense, fueling wildland fires and creating
competition among trees, leaving them stressed and vulnerable to insect
attack and disease. While agency officials expressed concern about these
potential effects, the agency has not adjusted its policies and priorities
for the reforestation and timber stand improvement program so that adverse
effects can be minimized. Forest Service officials did, however,
acknowledge the need to make such changes.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss several issues related to the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program within the Department
of Agriculture's Forest Service. Last March, the agency reported to this
Subcommittee that it had a backlog of nearly 900,000 acres of land needing
reforestation. Reforestation, whether it is achieved by planting trees or
letting them naturally regenerate, is critical to restoring and improving
the health of our national forests after timber harvests, as well as after
natural disturbances such as wildland fires, outbreaks of disease, or
insect infestations. The success of reforestation efforts, as well as the
overall health of the forests, often depends upon subsequent timber stand
improvement treatments, such as removing competing vegetation to allow
seedlings to survive. In some parts of the country, without active
intervention, it may take decades for disturbed land to return to a
forested condition. In other parts, trees may naturally return soon after
a disturbance, but the type of regrowth may not be consistent with the
Forest Service's program objectives, such as improving wildlife habitat,
enhancing recreational opportunities, and ensuring timber production.

My testimony summarizes the results of our report being released today on
the (1) reported trends in federal lands needing reforestation and timber
stand improvement, (2) factors that have contributed to these trends, and
(3) potential effects of these trends that Forest Service officials have
identified.1 In conducting our review, we analyzed Forest Service data for
1995 through 2004, interviewed agency officials at all levels, and visited
four regions with the largest reported reforestation or timber stand
improvement needs. We focused on the Forest Service's reforestation and
timber stand improvement program because this program, which covers 155
national forests, is the largest one administered by a federal land
management agency. In 2004, for example, the Forest Service reported
reforesting more than 150,000 acres nationwide, while the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior, which has the
second-largest program, reported reforesting less than 20,000 acres. While
our work included a limited review of BLM's program, my testimony today
centers on our findings about the Forest Service's program because we
found no significant issues to report concerning BLM.

1GAO, Forest Service: Better Data Are Needed to Identify and Prioritize
Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs, GAO-05-374 (Washington
D.C.: April 15, 2005).

Summary

The acreage of Forest Service lands needing reforestation and timber stand
improvement has been generally increasing since 2000, according to Forest
Service officials and data reported to the Congress, as well as other
studies. Much of the increase in reforestation needs occurred in western
regions, where needs associated with natural disturbances, such as
wildland fires, began to increase dramatically in 2000. While the Forest
Service data are sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend,
they are not sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's
specific treatment needs, establish priorities among treatments, or
estimate a budget. The data are limited in part because Forest Service
regions and forests define their needs differently, and some do not
systematically update their data to reflect current forest conditions or
review their data's accuracy. Forest Service officials acknowledge these
problems, and the agency is implementing a new data system to better track
its needs. However, while helpful, taking this action alone will not
resolve the data problems we have identified without making changes to
agency policies and practices to standardize how reforestation and timber
stand improvement needs are defined, reported, and validated.

According to Forest Service officials, reforestation needs are
accumulating because of the increasing acreage of land affected by natural
disturbances-such as wildland fires, insect infestation, and diseases. In
the past, reforestation needs resulted primarily from timber harvests, and
timber sales produced enough revenue to pay for most of the related
reforestation needs. Since 2000, however, needs have been resulting mainly
from natural disturbances, and funding sources to pay for such needs have
remained relatively stable rather than rising in step with the increasing
needs. For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that needs are
increasing in part because managers in some Forest Service regions do not
emphasize these treatments. They believe reforestation treatments-which
generally must be completed within 5 years after harvesting trees-are more
important than timber stand improvement treatments. Another reason for the
reported increase in the acreage needing attention is that high-density
planting practices, used in the past to replace harvested trees, are
creating needs for thinning treatments today.

If future reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to
outpace the Forest Service's ability to meet these needs and treatments
are delayed, agency officials believe their ability to achieve forest
management objectives, such as protecting wildlife habitat, may be
impaired; treatment costs could increase; and forests could become more
susceptible to fire, disease, and insect damage. For example, forest

Background

management objectives could be impaired if an area previously dominated by
forests became dominated by shrub fields, compromising wildlife habitat,
recreation, and timber value. While Forest Service officials expressed
concern about these potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the
agency has not adjusted its policies, practices, and priorities for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect this concern
and the current environment of constrained budgets. Forest Service
officials did acknowledge the need to make such changes.

In our report, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the
Chief of the Forest Service to take several actions to improve the
agency's ability to identify its reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs and ensure funding for its most critical projects. In
commenting on a draft of our report, the Forest Service agreed with our
findings and recommendations and stated it was preparing an action plan to
address the recommendations.

Historically, the Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand
improvement program focused on maximizing timber production. Now, however,
the program is intended to achieve a variety of objectives, such as
improving wildlife habitat, maintaining water quality, and ensuring
sustainable timber production. To achieve these objectives after timber
harvests or natural events that damage forests, Forest Service staff
identify sites needing reforestation and plan specific treatments. For
reforestation, staff either plant seedlings or allow the sites to
regenerate naturally as existing trees reseed the area. The latter
approach sometimes requires the sites to be prepared by removing unwanted
vegetation that could compete with young seedlings. As with reforestation,
Forest Service staff identify areas of a forest needing timber stand
improvement and plan specific treatments. These treatments are intended to
provide better growing conditions for trees and include activities such as
removing competing vegetation and thinning forests when trees are too
crowded.

In 1974, the Forest Service reported a reforestation and timber stand
improvement backlog affecting 3.3 million acres of forested lands. To
address this backlog, the Congress included a provision in the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requiring the Forest Service to
annually report the estimated funding needed to prevent the recurrence of

a backlog on lands available for timber production.2 The Forest Service
primarily uses moneys generated from the sale of timber to reforest areas
where timber has been harvested, whereas it relies primarily on annual
appropriations to reforest areas affected by natural disturbances. In
1980, the Congress created the Reforestation Trust Fund, which is funded
through tariffs on imported wood products, to provide dedicated funding
for reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments and to help
eliminate the backlog. In 1985, the Forest Service declared that it had
virtually eliminated the backlog reported in 1974.

The Forest Service's implementation, management, and oversight of the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program are decentralized. Its
headquarters and 9 regional offices establish policy and provide technical
direction to 155 national forest offices on various aspects of the
program. District office staff within these national forests are
responsible for assessing reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs, planning treatments to address the needs, and accomplishing the
treatments. Although the Forest Service's Director of Forest Management in
headquarters is responsible for reporting agency-wide reforestation and
timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the standards and
procedures for collecting and reporting these data are decentralized.

Forest Service reports to the Congress show a generally increasing trend
in reforestation and timber stand improvement needs during the last 5
years, as shown in figure 1. While the Forest Service data are
sufficiently reliable to identify this relative trend, they are not
sufficiently reliable to accurately quantify the agency's specific needs,
establish priorities among treatments, or estimate a budget. Although the
Forest Service is developing a new national data system, the agency does
not anticipate making significant changes to its policies and practices to
improve the quality of the data.

2Shortly after the Forest Service reported its backlog, the Congress
enacted the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974,
requiring the Forest Service to annually request funds for an orderly
program to eliminate backlogs in all Forest Service renewable resource
programs. This act was amended by NFMA, which contains more specific
direction to address the elimination of reforestation backlogs.

Forest Service Reports Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs, but Inconsistent Definitions and Data Make It Difficult
to Accurately Quantify Its Needs

Figure 1: Forest Service's Reported Reforestation and Timber Stand
Improvement Needs for Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004

Thousands of acres

                                     2,500

                                     2,000

                                     1,500

                                     1,000

Forest Service reports to the Congress show that the acreage of agency
lands needing reforestation declined steadily between fiscal years 1995
and 1999 but then steadily increased from 2000 through 2004. Much of the
recent increase in reforestation needs occurred in Forest Service regions
located in western states. Officials from three of the four regions we
visited (the Northern, Pacific Northwest, and Pacific Southwest Regions)
expressed concern about the increasing level of their reforestation needs
relative to their future ability to meet these needs. With respect to
timber stand improvement needs, the Forest Service reports that the
acreage of its lands needing such treatments increased most years since
1995. While nationwide timber stand improvement needs generally have been
increasing, some regions have reported stable or decreasing trends. For
example, the Pacific Southwest Region has reported slightly decreasing

                                     500 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fiscal year

Timber stand improvement needs Reforestation needs

                          Source: Forest Service data.

Note: This graph is presented only to illustrate trends in reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs reported by the Forest Service.
Although the Forest Service data, in combination with other information,
are sufficiently reliable for this purpose, these data cannot be used to
accurately quantify the agency's reforestation and timber stand
improvement needs.

The Forest Service Reports Increasing Needs

needs since 1995, which agency officials attribute in part to an emphasis
on thinning treatments associated with the National Fire Plan.3

Forest Service Data Are Not Sufficient to Accurately Quantify the Agency's
Needs

The Forest Service's reforestation and timber stand improvement data, when
combined with other information from Forest Service officials and
nongovernmental experts-as well as data on recent increases in natural
disturbances such as wildland fires-are sufficiently reliable for
identifying relative trends in needs. However, we have concerns about the
use of these data in quantifying the acreage of Forest Service lands
needing reforestation and timber stand improvement treatments for several
reasons.

o  	First, Forest Service regions and forests define their needs
differently. For example, the Pacific Southwest Region reports
reforestation needs in areas where it anticipates a timber harvest, even
though the forest is still fully stocked with trees, while other regions
we visited do not report a need until after the timber is harvested.

o  	Second, differences in Forest Service data among locations are
compounded because the reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
reported are a mixture of actual needs diagnosed through site visits and
estimates. In cases where the needs are based on estimates-for example
after a wildland fire-the reported needs may not always be adjusted after
the actual needs are known.

o  	Third, Forest Service regions do not always update the data to reflect
current forest conditions or review the accuracy of the data. Moreover,
some regions cannot link reported needs to distinct forest locations,
making it difficult for them to detect obsolete needs and update the data.

o  	Finally, Forest Service headquarters staff have not conducted reviews
in the last decade to ensure that the data reflect on-the-ground
conditions.

These inconsistencies in data and data quality mean that the needs
reported at the regional level may be understated or overstated and cannot
be meaningfully aggregated at the national level. Moreover, many of these

3In 2001, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior developed a
National Fire Plan with state and local agencies and tribal governments to
provide technical and financial resources to reduce the risk to
communities and ecosystems from wildland fire, in part, by reducing
hazardous fuels by thinning trees-one type of timber stand improvement
treatment.

Agency Officials Link Natural Causes and Management Decisions to
Increasing Reforestation and Timber Stand Improvement Needs

data problems are long-standing and may not be adequately addressed when
the Forest Service implements a new data system later this year. Although
the new system will replace individual district, forest, and regional
systems for reporting needs with a modern agency-wide database, the
quality of the data used in the new system will not improve unless the
Forest Service addresses how reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs are defined, interpreted, and reported. Forest Service officials
acknowledge these problems and are preparing an action plan to address
them.

Forest Service officials told us that reforestation needs have been rising
largely because such needs have increasingly been generated by causes
other than timber harvests, and funding to address these needs has not
kept pace. During the early 1990s, the agency shifted its management
emphasis from timber production to enhancing forest ecosystem health and,
as a result, harvested less timber. Timber harvests, which provided
sufficient revenue to pay for related reforestation needs, are no longer
the main source of such needs. According to Forest Service reports,
beginning around 2000, the acreage burned in wildland fires and damaged by
insects and diseases annually began to increase significantly, leaving
thousands of acres needing reforestation. Nationally, wildland fires
burned over 8 million acres in 2000, compared with about 2.3 million acres
in 1998.4 Similarly, the amount of land damaged by insects and diseases
increased significantly, with over 12 million acres of forest affected in
2003, compared with less than 2 million acres in 1999.5 As the acreage
affected by these natural disturbances increased, so did reforestation
needs. However, funding allocated to pay for reforestation did not
increase at the same rate, so needs began to accumulate.

For timber stand improvement, agency officials said that management
practices have been the primary factor contributing to the increase in
acreage needing treatment. For example, some regions prioritize funding
for reforestation treatments over timber stand improvement treatments and
consequently do not treat timber stand improvement needs as quickly as
they are accumulating. These regions follow this practice in part

4These numbers include lands under federal and state ownership, not just
Forest Service land.

5These numbers include all forested lands under federal, state, and other
ownership, not just Forest Service land.

because they are required to complete reforestation treatments within 5
years of harvesting, whereas for timber stand improvement, there is no
such requirement. National timber stand improvement needs also are
increasing because the Forest Service has expanded the scope of the
program, now identifying lands where timber stand improvement work is
needed to meet objectives beyond maximizing timber yield, such as
improving wildlife habitats or thinning hazardous fuels to reduce fire
danger. As the objectives of timber stand improvement have expanded, needs
have expanded accordingly. Finally, nationwide timber stand improvement
needs are increasing because reforestation techniques favored in the 1980s
and 1990s recommended planting trees much more densely than may be
currently recommended so that as the trees grew, the agency could keep the
largest and healthiest of them for cultivating, and thin out the others.
Consequently, many stands that were planted 15 or 20 years ago now need
thinning, according to agency officials.

Agency Officials Cite Adverse Effects That Could Result If Needs Are Not
Addressed, but Have Not Positioned the Agency to Manage Such Effects

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs continue to accumulate
in the future and the Forest Service is unable to keep pace with the
needs, the agency will likely have to postpone some treatment projects.
According to agency officials, the agency's ability to achieve forest
management objectives may consequently be impaired; treatment costs could
increase; and forests could become more susceptible to fire, disease, and
insect damage. While Forest Service officials expressed concern about the
potential harmful effects of delaying projects, the agency has not
clarified its direction and priorities for the reforestation and timber
stand improvement program to reflect this concern and the current context
in which the program operates.

Achievement of Management Objectives Could Be Impaired; Treatment Costs
Could Increase; and Forests Could Become More Vulnerable to Fire, Insects,
and Disease

The Forest Service's ability to meet the management objectives defined in
its forest plans6-such as maintaining a variety of tree species in a
forest or appropriate habitat for certain wildlife-could be impaired if
reforestation or timber stand improvement treatments are delayed. For
example, an area previously dominated by forests could become dominated by
shrubfields, compromising wildlife habitat, recreation, and timber value.
Such a situation developed in the Tahoe National Forest, where about 750
acres were cleared by a 1924 wildland fire and replaced by shrubs that
remained until agency officials replanted the area in 1964- 40 years
later.

If reforestation and timber stand improvement needs are not addressed in a
timely manner, treatment costs also could increase because removing
competing vegetation, which is required for most reforestation and timber
stand improvement projects, will become more costly as the vegetation
grows. In addition, forests would likely become more susceptible to severe
wildland fires and damage from insects and disease, according to agency
officials. When reforestation needs are left unattended, brush can grow in
place of forests, providing dense, continuous fuel for wildland fires.
When thinning needs are left unattended, experts believe the
tightly-spaced trees fuel wildland fires, causing the fires to spread
rapidly and increasing the likelihood of unusually large fires that create
widespread destruction. In addition, densely populated forests tend to be
stressed because the trees compete with one another for sunlight, water,
and nutrients. When insects or diseases infect such forests, they can
spread rapidly.

Forest Service Is Not Well Positioned to Manage Potential Effects of
Increasing Needs

Although Forest Service officials expressed concern about the potential
effects of leaving reforestation and timber stand improvement needs
unattended, the agency has not made sufficient adjustments to address
these concerns and adapt to the present context in which the program
operates. Over the past decade, the Forest Service has shifted its
management emphasis from timber production to ecosystem management,
sources of reforestation needs have shifted from timber harvests to
natural causes, and budgets have become increasingly constrained. The
agency, however, has not adjusted the program's direction, policies,
practices, and

6Under NFMA, each national forest is required to have a forest management
plan describing the agency's objectives for the forest, including those
related to reforestation and timber stand improvement.

priorities in keeping with these changes, although agency officials
acknowledged the need to do so.

While the Forest Service formally shifted its management emphasis from
timber production to ecosystem management in the early 1990s, there
remains a lack of clarity about agency mission and goals, and more
specifically, about the direction and goals for the reforestation and
timber stand improvement program, according to agency officials. When
timber production was the emphasis, program direction was clearly focused,
whereas in the current environment, it is less so. Reforestation and
timber stand improvement projects now are done for multiple purposes-such
as improving wildlife habitat, protecting streams, and reducing
susceptibility to wildland fires-but it is unclear which purposes are more
important, if any, and how to allocate limited funds to support such
diverse purposes. The lack of clarity is apparent in forest management
plans, where objectives are expressed in vague or contradictory language,
according to agency officials. The plans are intended to help guide
decisions, such as which reforestation techniques to use, but agency
officials said it can be difficult to interpret the plans because of the
problematic language.

In the absence of clear, up-to-date program direction, there are
priorities, policies, and practices remaining in place that reflect
outdated management emphasis. For example, a 2001 report had recommended
that the Pacific Northwest region change its priorities by diverting some
of its reforestation funds to pay for timber stand improvement. Doing so
could help reduce the impacts of wildland fire, and thereby reduce the
reforestation needs created by such fires, the report argued.
Nevertheless, regional officials we talked with did not all agree with the
recommendation, and the region has instead continued to prioritize
reforestation over timber stand improvement as it has done since the
inception of the timber program. Similarly, in the Pacific Southwest
region, when officials reforest an area, they almost always rely on
planting-a more expensive method than natural regeneration. This approach
may have been appropriate when timber production was the emphasis and
timber revenues were higher, because natural regeneration can be slower
and less productive than planting. However, the region continues to avoid
natural regeneration because they have always done so and, according to
agency officials, this practice has been reinforced by the regional
culture.

Conclusions 	Although the Forest Service annually reports its
reforestation and timber stand improvement needs to the Congress, the
agency has not developed a

tally of these needs that accurately reflects the condition of our
national forests. While we recognize that the systematic collection of
accurate data may take resources away from reforestation and timber stand
improvements in the short-term, such an investment could lay the
foundation for the Forest Service to provide a credible picture of our
forests' needs to the Congress. With the advent of a new agency-wide data
collection system, the Forest Service has the opportunity to improve the
consistency and accuracy with which its data reflect on-the-ground
conditions in our national forests. Consistent, accurate data would help
the agency to build a well-founded budget case for funding reforestation
and timber stand improvement needs.

However, the Forest Service must recognize that in the current, fiscally
constrained environment, even well-supported needs may not always be
funded. The agency needs to update its goals and policies for the
reforestation and timber stand improvement program to reflect the current
fiscal environment, as well as its current emphasis on ecosystem
management. Until it does so, it will be difficult for the Forest Service
to identify the best investments to minimize adverse effects on the
lasting health and productivity of our national forests.

To address these issues, we recommended in our report that the Secretary
of Agriculture direct the Chief of the Forest Service to standardize
guidance for reporting data on reforestation and timber stand improvement
needs and improve the data's accuracy in time for congressional
deliberation on the Forest Service's 2007 appropriations request. We
further recommended that the Secretary direct the Chief to clarify the
program direction and policies, and establish criteria for prioritizing
the agency's use of program funds. The Forest Service, on behalf of the
Department of Agriculture, concurred with our findings and
recommendations.

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

GAO Contacts and 	For further information about this testimony, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or at [email protected]. Bill Bates, David P.
Bixler, Christy

Staff Colburn, Sandy Davis, Omari Norman, Cynthia Norris, Jena Sinkfield,
and

Acknowledgments Jay Smale made key contributions to this statement.

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.

GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

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. Government Accountability 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] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street
NW, Room 7125 Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs 	Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548

                           PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
*** End of document. ***