Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in Selection	 
Process Are Likely to Limit Identification of Similar Research	 
(26-MAY-05, GAO-05-759T).					 
                                                                 
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) supports research that	 
accelerates the development of high-risk technologies with the	 
potential for broad-based economic benefits for the nation. Under
the program, administrators at the National Institute of	 
Standards and Technology are to ensure that they do not fund	 
research that would be conducted in the same period without ATP  
funding. Between 1990 and September 2004, ATP funded 768 projects
at a cost of about $2.3 billion. There is a continuing debate	 
over whether the private sector has sufficient incentives to	 
undertake research on high-risk, high-payoff emerging		 
technologies without government support, such as ATP. This	 
testimony discusses the results of GAO's April 2000 report,	 
Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in the Selection	 
Process Could Limit Identification of Similar Research		 
(GAO/RCED-00-114) and provides updated information. GAO 	 
determined (1) whether ATP had funded projects with research	 
goals that were similar to projects funded by the private sector 
and (2) if ATP did, whether its award selection process ensures  
that such research would not be funded in the future.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-759T					        
    ACCNO:   A25418						        
  TITLE:     Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in	      
Selection Process Are Likely to Limit Identification of Similar  
Research							 
     DATE:   05/26/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Federal funds					 
	     Information technology				 
	     Private sector					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Research and development				 
	     Research programs					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Technology assessment				 
	     Research grants					 
	     Research program management			 
	     Conflict of interests				 
	     Biotechnology					 
	     Critical technologies				 
	     Government/business relations			 
	     NIST Advanced Technology 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-05-759T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT Thursday, May 26, 2005

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

  Inherent Factors in Selection Process Are Likely to Limit Identification of
                                Similar Research

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

GAO-05-759T

[IMG]

May 2005

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

Inherent Factors in Selection Process Are Likely to Limit Identification of
Similar Research

  What GAO Found

The three completed ATP-funded projects GAO reviewed, which were approved
for funding in 1990 and 1992, addressed research goals that were similar
to those already funded by the private sector. GAO chose these 3 projects
from among the first 38 completed projects, each representing a different
technology sector: computers, electronics, and biotechnology. These three
technology sectors represent 26 of the 38 completed ATP projects, or 68
percent. The projects included an on-line handwriting recognition system,
a system to increase the capacity of existing fiber optic cables for the
telecommunications industry, and a process for turning collagen into
fibers for human prostheses use. In the case of the handwriting
recognition project, ATP provided $1.2 million to develop a system to
recognize cursive handwriting for pen-based (i.e., without a keyboard)
computer input. GAO identified several private firms that were conducting
similar research on handwriting recognition at approximately the same time
the ATP project was funded. In fact, this line of research began in the
late 1950s. In addition, GAO identified multiple patents, as early as 5
years prior to the start of the ATP project, in the field of handwriting
recognition. GAO found similar results in the other two projects.

Two inherent factors in ATP's award selection process-the need to guard
against conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary
information-make it unlikely that ATP can avoid funding research already
being pursued by the private sector in the same time period. These
factors, which have not changed since 1990, make it difficult for ATP
project reviewers to identify similar efforts in the private sector. For
example, to guard against conflicts of interest, the program uses
technical experts who are not directly involved with the proposed
research. Their acquaintance with ongoing research is further limited by
the private sector's practice of not disclosing its research efforts or
results so as to guard proprietary information. As a result, it may be
impossible for the program to ensure that it is consistently not funding
existing or planned research that would be conducted in the same time
period in the absence of ATP financial assistance.

GAO made no recommendations in its April 2000 report.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss our past work,1 as well as to
provide some updated information, on the funding that the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP) provides for private research. As you know, ATP
was established in 1988 to support research that accelerates the
development of high-risk technologies with the potential for broad-based
economic benefits for the nation.2 Under the provisions establishing ATP,
program administrators at the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) are to ensure that they are not funding existing or
planned research that would be conducted in the same time period in the
absence of ATP financial assistance. Between 1990 and September 2004, ATP
funded 768 projects at a cost of about $2.3 billion in federal matching
funds.

Research can provide both private benefits, which accrue to the owners of
the research results, and societal benefits, which accrue to society as a
whole. In some instances, the private sector does not fund research that
would be beneficial to society because doing so might not provide an
adequate return on a firm's investment. To address this situation, the
federal government, through tax credits or direct public funding, supports
research that has very broad societal benefits, such as basic research and
research focused on developing technologies in areas such as public health
and nutrition, energy conservation, and environmental protection. However,
there is a continuing debate over whether the private sector has
sufficient incentives to undertake research on high-risk, high-payoff
emerging and enabling technologies without government support, such as
ATP.

In this context, in our prior work, we determined (1) whether, in the
past, ATP had funded projects with research goals that were similar to
projects funded by the private sector and (2) if we identified such cases,
whether ATP's award selection process ensures that such research would not
be funded in the future. To determine whether ATP has funded projects
similar to private sector projects, we chose 3 of the first 38 completed
projects, each representing a different technology sector: biotechnology;
electronics; and information, computers, and communications. These

1GAO, Advanced Technology Program: Inherent Factors in Selection Process
Could Limit Identification of Similar Research, GAO/RCED-00-114
(Washington, D.C.: April 24, 2000).

2The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. No. 100-418).

  Results in Brief

three technology sectors represent 26 of the 38, or 68 percent, of the ATP
projects completed by 1999. We reviewed the ATP project files and held
discussions with industry and academic experts, technical reviewers, and
award recipients to assist in our examination of these projects. We also
conducted patent searches on the technical areas associated with each of
the three projects. Our objective was not to provide an evaluation of the
quality of the research funded by ATP or the private sector, nor the
impact these projects may or may not have had on their respective
industries. To address the second objective, we reviewed ATP's award
selection process. We did not review the overall management of the
program. We performed our initial work from October 1999 through April
2000, and developed updated information in May 2005, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

The three completed ATP-funded projects, which were approved for funding
in 1990 and 1992, addressed research goals that were similar to those
already funded by the private sector. The projects included an online
handwriting recognition system, a system to increase the capacity of
existing fiber optic cables for the telecommunications industry, and a
process for turning collagen into fibers for human prostheses use. In the
case of the handwriting recognition project, ATP provided $1.2 million to
develop a system to recognize cursive handwriting for pen-based (i.e.,
without a keyboard) computer input. We identified several private firms
that were conducting similar research on handwriting recognition at
approximately the same time the ATP project was funded. In fact, this line
of research began in the late 1950s. In addition, we identified multiple
patents, as early as 5 years prior to the start of the ATP project, in the
field of handwriting recognition. We found similar results in the other
two projects.

Two inherent factors in ATP's award selection process-the need to guard
against conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary
information-make it unlikely that ATP can avoid funding research already
being pursued by the private sector in the same time period. These
factors, which have not changed since 1990, make it difficult for ATP
project reviewers to identify similar efforts in the private sector. For
example, to guard against conflicts of interest, the program uses
technical experts who are not directly involved with the proposed
research. Their acquaintance with on-going research is further limited by
the private sector's practice of not disclosing its research efforts or
results so as to guard proprietary information. As a result, it may be
impossible for the program to ensure that it is consistently not funding
existing or planned

research that would be conducted in the same time period in the absence of
ATP financial assistance.

                                   Background

ATP, which began funding projects in fiscal year 1990, was intended to
fund high-risk research and development (R&D) projects with broad
commercial and societal benefits that would not be undertaken by a single
company or group of companies, either because the risk was too high or
because the economic benefits of success would not accrue to the
investors. ATP is viewed as a mechanism for fostering investment in areas
in which societal returns would exceed private returns. ATP has addressed
other opportunities to achieve broader societal goals, such as small
business participation, as well as the establishment of joint ventures for
high-risk technologies that would be difficult for any one company to
justify because, for example, the benefits spread across the industry as a
whole. Thus, ATP is seen by some as a means of addressing market failure
in research areas that would otherwise not be funded, thereby facilitating
the economic growth that comes from the commercialization and use of new
technologies in the private sector. Advocates of the program believe that
the government should serve as a catalyst for companies to cooperate and
undertake important new work that would not have been possible in the same
time period without federal participation. Critics of the program view ATP
as industrial policy, or the means by which government rather than the
marketplace picks winners and losers.

ATP provides funding through cooperative agreements-a type of financial
assistance in which the federal government is substantially involved in
project management. ATP offers these agreements through announced annual
competitions. It provides multiyear funding to single companies and to
industry-led joint ventures. The proposal review and selection process is
a multistep process based on NIST regulations. In general, these steps
include a preliminary screening, technical and business reviews,
semifinalist identification, oral reviews, ranking, and final selection.
At the beginning of each round of ATP competitions, NIST establishes
Source Evaluation Boards (SEBs) to ensure that all proposals receive
careful consideration. Each SEB is comprised of NIST technical experts as
well as outside specialists with backgrounds in business and economics.
ATP supplements the SEBs with outside technical reviewers, generally
federal government experts in the specific industry of the proposal.
Independent business experts are also hired on a consulting basis,
including high-tech venture capitalists, people who teach strategic
business planning, retired corporate executives from large and small
hightech businesses, as well as economists and business development

specialists. All SEB members and outside reviewers must sign nondisclosure
statements, agree to protect proprietary information, and certify that
they have no conflicts of interest.

As part of the proposal evaluation process, ATP uses the external
reviewers to assess the technical and business merit of the proposed
research. Each proposal is sponsored by both technical and business SEB
members, whose roles include identifying reviewers, summarizing evaluative
comments, and making recommendations to the SEB. The SEB evaluates the
proposals, selects the semifinalists, conducts oral interviews with
semifinalists, and ranks the semifinalists. A source selecting official
makes the final award decisions based on the ranked list of proposals from
the SEB.

The three projects that we reviewed received funding through the ATP
competitions announced in 1990 and 1992. In those years, the selection
criteria included scientific and technical merit, potential broad-based
benefits, technology transfer benefits, the proposing organization's
commitment level and organizational structure, and the qualifications and
experience of the proposing organization's staff. Each of the five
selection criteria was weighted at 20 percent. Today, these same selection
criteria are used but are grouped into two categories, each weighted at 50
percent. The "Scientific and Technical Merit" category addresses a variety
of issues related to the technical plan and the relevant experience of the
proposing organization. The second category, "Potential for Broad-Based
Economic Benefits," addresses the means to achieving an economic benefit
and commercialization plans, as well as issues related to the proposer's
level of commitment, organizational structure, and management plan.
Technical and business reviewers complete documentation, referred to as
technical and business evaluation worksheets, that address various aspects
of these criteria.

The three completed projects that we reviewed addressed research goals
that were similar to goals the private sector was addressing at about the
same time. Each of the three projects was from a different sector of
technology-computers, electronics, and biotechnology. The projects include
(1) an on-line handwriting recognition system for computer input, (2) a
system to increase the capacity of existing fiber optic cables for the
telecommunications industry, and (3) a process for turning collagen into
fibers for human prostheses use.

  Three ATP Projects Addressed Similar Research Goals to Projects in the Private
  Sector

ATP Project on Handwriting Recognition

Both the ATP project and several private sector projects had a similar
research goal of developing an on-line system to recognize natural or
cursive handwritten data without the use of a keyboard. This technology
would make computers more useful where keyboard use is limited by physical
problems or in situations where using a keyboard is not practical. On-line
handwriting recognition means that the system recognizes handwritten data
while the user writes. The primary technical problem in handwriting
recognition is that writing styles vary greatly from person to person,
depending upon whether the user is in a hurry, fatigued, or subject to a
variety of other factors. While the technology for obtaining recognition
of constrained careful writing or block print writing was commercially
available, systems for cursive writing recognition were not commercially
available because of the greater handwriting variability that was
encountered.

The ATP project we reviewed sought to develop an on-line natural
handwriting recognition system that was user-independent and able to
translate natural or cursive handwriting. Communication Intelligence
Corporation (CIC) was the award recipient. CIC used its ATP funding of
$1.2 million from 1991 to 1993 to build its own algorithms and models for
developing its handwriting recognition system.3 During the project, CIC
created a database that includes thousands of cursive handwriting samples
and developed new recognition algorithms. Some of this technology has been
incorporated into a registered software product that has the ability to
recognize cursive writing in limited circumstances.

According to the experts we interviewed, as well as literature and patent
searches, several companies were attempting to achieve a similar goal of
handwriting recognition through their research around the same time that
the ATP project received funding. Some of the key players in the private
sector conducting research on cursive handwriting recognition included
Paragraph International (in collaboration with Apple Computer) and Lexicus
(which later became a division of Motorola). For example, Apple licensed a
cursive handwriting recognition system from a Soviet company, Paragraph
International, according to articles published in computer magazines in
October 1991. According to these sources, this technology provided Apple
with a foundation for recognizing printed, cursive, or block handwritten
text.

3Algorithm here refers to the mathematical procedures involved in
recognizing writing as it is being written on a computer device.

Another indication of research with a similar goal appeared in the October
1990 edition of PC Week, which reported that "handwriting recognition is
an emerging technology that promises increased productivity both for
current microcomputer owners and for a new breed of users armed with
hand-held `pen-based' computers." Similarly a technical journal article
indicated that there was renewed interest in the 1980s in this field of
online handwriting recognition, from its advent in the 1960s, because of
more accurate electronic tablets, more compact and powerful computers, and
better recognition algorithms.4

Moreover, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO)
database, over 450 patents were issued on handwriting recognition
software, concepts, and related products from 1985 through 1999,5
indicating that research of a similar goal was being conducted around the
time of the ATP project. Given the fact that it can take many years
between the time a research project takes place and the time that an
outcome is realized, this time period for a patent search allowed us to
determine whether there was research ongoing during the time of the ATP
project. The dates of the patents actually occurred sometime after the
research was conducted. And, as we reported in a prior report,6 the time
between the point when a patent application is filed until the date when a
patent is issued, or the application is abandoned, ranged from 19.8 months
to 21 months, adding additional time to when the research was done.

ATP Project on Capacity Expansion of Fiber Optic Cables

Another ATP project we reviewed, which proposed to develop a system to
increase the capacity of existing fiber optic cables for the
telecommunications industry, also had a similar goal to that of research
in the private sector. At the same time, firms in the private sector were
attempting to increase the number of light signals that can be transmitted
through a single strand of fiber optic cable using a technology called
wavelength division multiplexing (WDM).7 In the 1980s, telephone

4IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, "The
State of the Art in On-Line Handwriting Recognition" (Aug. 1990), vol. 12,
no. 8.

5A patent is a grant given by a government to an inventor of the right to
exclude others for a limited time (usually 20 years) from making, using,
or selling his or her invention.

6GAO, Intellectual Property: Comparison of Patent Examination Statistics
for Fiscal Years 1994-1995, GAO/RCED-97-58 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 13,
1997).

7A fiber optic cable consists of many extremely thin strands of glass or
plastic, each capable of transmitting light signals. Wavelength division
multiplexing transmits separate light signals through a single optical
fiber strand at different wavelengths.

companies laid fiber optic cables across the United States and other
countries to create an information system that could carry significantly
more data than the copper wires they replaced. Tremendous increases in
cable traffic, primarily from the Internet, have crowded these cables. WDM
technology was aimed at providing a cost-effective alternative to the
expensive option of installing additional fiber optic cables.

Accuwave Corporation (Accuwave) was the ATP award recipient. Accuwave used
its ATP funding of approximately $2 million from March 1993 through March
1995 to develop a wavelength division multiplexing system that would
substantially increase the number of signals that could be transmitted
through a single optical fiber strand, using the concept of volume
holography. Volume holography uses holograms to direct multiple light
signals simultaneously through a single fiber strand. Accuwave was able to
make improvements on these issues but not enough to fully develop and
market a successful WDM system for the telecommunications market. In 1996,
a competitor beat Accuwave to the market. After the completion of the ATP
project, Accuwave filed for bankruptcy protection due to its inability to
successfully commercialize a wavelength division multiplexing system.

Other private firms were involved in research with a similar goal of
increasing the capacity of fiber optic cable at about the same time as
Accuwave was conducting its research. Conceptual research on such systems
dates back to the early 1980s, but development and commercialization did
not flourish until the mid-to late-1990s. Bell Labs (now Lucent
Technologies), Nortel Networks, and Ciena Corporation, among others, were
considered some of the major competitors in the industry. In the early
1990s, these firms were attempting to develop WDM technology using
different methods and materials. For example, Ciena Corporation developed
a system that incorporated fiber-Bragg gratings, which are filters
embedded directly onto fiber optic cable that help to separate multiple
light signals through a single fiber strand.

We also found an indication of WDM-related research through a review of
issued patents. According to PTO's database, over 2,000 patents were
issued related to wavelength division multiplexing components, systems,
and concepts from 1985 through 1999. The patents issued ranged from 10
patents in 1985 to 493 in 1999.

ATP Project on Regenerating Tissues and Organs

Both the ATP project and private sector projects we identified in the
tissue engineering field had similar broad research goals of developing
biological equivalents for defective tissues and organs utilizing diverse
technical approaches. ATP's project proposed procedures for extracting,
storing, spinning, and weaving collagen (the main constituent of
connective tissue and bones) into fibers suitable for human prostheses
that could induce the body's cells to regenerate lost tissue. Tissue
Engineering, Inc., received ATP's award of about $2 million for use over
the years 1993 through 1996. The company's long-term and yet unrealized
goal is to transplant these prostheses into humans, after which the
collagen framework, or scaffold, would induce the growth and function of
normal body cells within it, eventually remodeling lost human tissue and
replacing the scaffold.

Within the very innovative field of tissue engineering, however, many
competitors were attempting to achieve similar broad research goals.
Organogenesis, the Collagen Corporation, Integra LifeSciences, Advanced
Tissue Sciences, Genzyme Tissue, Osiris Therapeutics, Matrix
Pharmaceuticals, and ReGen Biologics are key players in the market to
develop structures that could replace or regenerate cells, tissues, and
organs such as skin, teeth, orthopedic structures, cartilage, and valves.
A number of these companies have subsequently received ATP awards. In
addition, universities and medical schools have researchers investigating
the many possibilities to engineer human tissues, and eventually complex
organs, such as the liver, pancreas, and heart. According to one expert,
there is a great deal of competition within the field of tissue
engineering.

Although the Tissue Engineering, Inc. research focused on the use of
collagen as the basis for these structures, other companies were pursuing
a variety of technical approaches for addressing the goal of developing
biological equivalents for defective tissues and organs. In addition to
research in collagen, other companies and researchers have also been
attempting to create human tissues and organs from other biological
materials, synthetics, and hybrid products, which are both biologic and
synthetic. For example, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) developed an artificial skin product using collagen and a
natural polymer. Several companies have since developed comparable
products. In 1986, researchers from MIT and a hospital in Massachusetts
began inserting cells into scaffolds created of biodegradable polymer. As
the cells multiply, tissues form. The magazine BusinessWeek reported this
concept as "an elegantly simple concept that underlies most engineered

tissue."8 Two competitors, Integra LifeSciences and Organogenesis,
reported that they were also doing work on the use of collagen in various
applications. Although their technical approaches were different than the
ATP project, the broad research goals were similar.

In addition to our discussions with experts and literature searches,
patent research shows that there was activity related to the field of
tissue engineering prior to and during the ATP project. According to a
search done on the PTO website, at least 370 patents were issued related
to cell culturing, scaffolding or matrix development, and tissue
engineering from 1985 through 1999. Experts have also indicated that there
are several patents related to the field, with a considerable amount of
overlap in the technologies described in those patents.

Two factors in ATP's award selection process could result in ATP's funding
research similar to research that the private sector would fund in the
same time period. These two factors are inherent in the review process and
limit the information the reviewers have on similar private sector
research efforts. Due to conflict-of-interest concerns, technical
reviewers are precluded from being directly involved with the proposed
research, making them less likely to know about all the research in an
area. Also, the information available about private sector research is
limited because of the private sector practice of not disclosing research
results. Until a patent is issued, a private sector firm generally
publishes very few details about the research to protect proprietary
information. Therefore, it is difficult for the reviewers to identify
other cutting-edge research.

  ATP's Award Selection Process Is Unlikely to Avoid Funding Similar Research

ATP's Conflict-of-Interest Provision Limits Its Ability to Identify
Similar Research

ATP selection officials rely on outside technical reviewers to evaluate a
proposal's scientific and technical merit. All reviewers must certify that
they have no conflicts of interest. To minimize possible conflicts of
interest, the technical reviewers are generally federal government
employees who are experts in the specific technology of the research
proposal but are not directly involved with the proposed research area.
Although this approach helps to guard against conflict of interest, it has
inherent limitations on the program's ability to identify similar research
efforts. The technical reviewers rely on their own knowledge of research
underway in the private sector. One of the technical reviewers we

8"Biotech Bodies," BusinessWeek, July 27, 1998.

interviewed said that he did not personally know of other companies that
were doing similar work. However, he believed that it was unlikely that
there were not dozens of others working on the same issue.

Proprietary Information Limits ATP's Ability to Identify Similar Research

ATP reviewers are significantly limited in their ability to identify
similar research efforts by an inherent lack of information on private
sector research. Although ATP officials use several sources, such as
colleagues, conferences and symposia, and current technical literature, to
try to identify research efforts conducted by the private sector and the
federal government, this information is often proprietary. Most of the
private sector and university experts we consulted agreed that it can be
very difficult to identify the specific research that private sector firms
are conducting, especially considering the competitive nature of most
industries. The early release of information on a company's research could
be costly to the firm. If a competing firm could determine the nature and
progress of another company's research, it could help the competitor to
develop and commercialize an identical or higher-quality product before
the other firm. At the very least, the early release of research
information by a firm can give competitors an idea as to the focus of the
firm's strategic plan. Thus, many firms are very careful about releasing
detailed information related to research and development activities they
are conducting.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the process ATP follows to select projects
for funding is limited in its ability to identify similar research efforts
in the private sector. Our retrospective look at the three ATP research
projects showed that their goals were similar to research goals already
being funded by the private sector. Examining the process that ATP uses to
select projects, we found two inherent factors-the need to guard against
conflicts of interest and the need to protect proprietary information-that
limit ATP's ability to identify similar research efforts in the private
sector. These two factors have not changed since the beginning of the
program. We recognize the valid need to guard against conflicts of
interest and to protect proprietary information; thus, we did not
recommend any changes to the award selection process. However, we believe
that it may be impossible for the program to ensure that it is
consistently not funding existing or planned research that would be
conducted in the same time period in the absence of ATP financial
assistance.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

Contacts and For further information about this testimony, please contact
Robin M. Nazzaro at 202-512-6246. Diane Raynes, Carol Herrnstadt Shulman,
andAcknowledgements Jessica Evans 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. ***