21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current 
and Emerging Challenges (13-JUL-05, GAO-05-830T).		 
                                                                 
The daunting challenges that face the nation in the 21st century 
establish the need for the transformation of government and	 
demand fundamental changes in how federal agencies should meet	 
these challenges by becoming flatter, more results-oriented,	 
externally focused, partnership-oriented, and employee-enabling  
organizations. This testimony addresses how the long-term fiscal 
imbalance facing the United States, along with other significant 
trends and challenges, establish the case for change and the need
to reexamine the base of the federal government; how federal	 
agencies can transform into high-performing organizations; and	 
how multiple approaches and selected initiatives can support the 
reexamination and transformation of the government and federal	 
agencies to meet these 21st century challenges. 		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-05-830T					        
    ACCNO:   A29697						        
  TITLE:     21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet 
Current and Emerging Challenges 				 
     DATE:   07/13/2005 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Federal agency reorganization			 
	     Federal social security programs			 
	     Financial management				 
	     Fiscal policies					 
	     Human capital					 
	     Human capital management				 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Medicaid						 
	     Medicare						 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Productivity in government 			 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Social Security 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-05-830T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday, July 13, 2005

21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES

        Transforming Government to Meet Current and Emerging Challenges

Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States

                                       A

GAO-05-830T

[IMG]

July 13, 2005

21ST CENTURY CHALLENGES

Transforming Government to Meet Current and Emerging Challenges

  What GAO Found

Long-term fiscal challenges and other significant trends and challenges
facing the United States provide the impetus for reexamining the base of
the federal government. Our nation is on an imprudent and unsustainable
fiscal path driven by known demographic trends and rising health care
costs, and relatively low revenues as a percentage of the economy. Unless
we take effective and timely action, we will face large and growing
structural deficit shortfalls, eroding our ability to address the current
and emerging needs competing for a share of a shrinking budget pie. At the
same time, policymakers will need to confront a host of emerging forces
and trends, such as changing security threats, increasing global
interconnectedness, and a changing economy. To effectively address these
challenges and trends, government cannot accept all of its existing
programs, policies, functions, and activities as "givens." Reexamining the
base of all major existing federal spending and tax programs, policies,
functions, and activities offers compelling opportunities to redress our
current and projected fiscal imbalances while better positioning
government to meet the new challenges and opportunities of this new
century.

In response, agencies need to change their cultures and create the
capacity to become high-performing organizations, by implementing a more
resultsoriented and performance-based approach to how they do business. To
successfully transform, agencies must fundamentally reexamine their
business processes, outmoded organizational structures, management
approaches, and, in some cases, missions. GAO has hosted several forums to
explore the change management practices that federal agencies can adopt to
create high-performing organizations. For example, participants at a GAO
forum broadly agreed on the key characteristics and capabilities of
high-performing organizations, which can be grouped into four themes:

o  a clear, well-articulated, and compelling mission;

o  focus on needs of clients and customers;

o  strategic management of people; and

o  strategic use of partnerships.

A successful reexamination of the base of the federal government will
entail multiple approaches over a period of years. The reauthorization,
appropriations, oversight, and budget processes should be used to review
existing programs and policies. However, no single approach or
institutional reform can address the myriad of questions and program areas
that need to be revisited. GAO has recommended certain other initiatives
to assist in the needed transformations. These include (1) development of
a governmentwide strategic plan and key national indicators to assess the
government's performance, position, and progress; (2) implementing a
framework for federal human capital reform; and (3) proposing specific
transformational leadership models, such as creating a Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Official with a term appointment at select
agencies.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO's work on the transformation of
government in the 21st century. The daunting challenges that face us in
this new century establish the need for this transformation and demand
fundamental changes in what the government should do, how the government
should do business, and how we should finance government. Federal agencies
will need to become flatter, more results-oriented, externally focused,
partnership-oriented, and employee-enabling organizations.

In summary, I will discuss three areas today:

o 	how the long-term fiscal imbalance facing the United States, along with
other significant trends, establish the case for change and the need to
reexamine the base of the federal government;

o 	how federal agencies can transform into high-performing organizations,
including GAO's own efforts to transform; and

o 	how multiple approaches and selected initiatives can support the
reexamination and transformation of the government and federal agencies to
meet these 21st century challenges.

This testimony draws upon our prior work and GAO's insights on 21st
century challenges and the reexamination of the base of the federal
government, organizational transformation and high-performing
organizations, and federal programs and operations that GAO has designated
to be high risk. We conducted our work in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

  The Case for Change: Long-Term Fiscal Challenges and Other Significant Trends
  Establish the Need for Reexamining the Base

Let me begin by laying out the case for change. As Congress is well aware,
the nation faces a number of significant forces that are already working
to reshape American society, our place in the world, and the role of the
federal government. Our capacity to address these and other emerging needs
will be predicated on when and how we deal with our large and growing
long-range fiscal imbalance. As I have said before, our nation is on an
imprudent and unsustainable fiscal path driven largely by known
demographic trends and rising health care costs. These trends are
compounded by the presence of near-term deficits arising from new
discretionary and mandatory spending as well as lower revenues as a share

of the economy. Unless we take effective and timely action, we will face
large and growing structural deficit shortfalls. Not only would continuing
deficits eat away at the capacity of everything the government does, but
they will erode our ability to address the wide range of emerging needs
and demands competing for a share of a shrinking budget pie.

Over the next few decades, as the baby boom generation retires and health
care costs continue to escalate, federal spending on Social Security,
Medicare, and Medicaid is expected to grow dramatically. Other federal
fiscal commitments, such as environmental cleanup and veterans' benefits,
will also bind the nation's fiscal future. GAO's long-term budget
simulations illustrate the magnitude of this fiscal challenge. Figures 1
and 2 show these simulations under two different sets of assumptions.
Figure 1 uses the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) January 2005 baseline
through 2015. As required by law, that baseline assumes no changes in
current law, that discretionary spending grows with inflation through
2015, and that all tax cuts currently scheduled to expire are permitted to
expire. In figure 2, two assumptions about that first 10 years are
changed: (1) discretionary spending grows with the economy rather than
with inflation and (2) all tax cuts currently scheduled to expire are made
permanent. In both simulations discretionary spending is assumed to grow
with the economy after 2015 and revenue is held constant as a share of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at the 2015 level. Also, in both simulations
long-term Social Security and Medicare spending are based on the 2005
trustee's intermediate projections, and we assume that benefits continue
to be paid in full after the trust funds are exhausted. Long-term Medicaid
spending is based on CBO's December 2003 long-term projections under their
midrange assumptions.1

1 For additional discussion of our budget simulations, see GAO, Our
Nation's Fiscal Outlook: The Federal Government's Long-Term Budget
Imbalance, at http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/longterm.html.

Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP, Under Baseline
Extended Percent of GDP

                                       50

                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

                                       10

                                       0

2004 2015 2030 2040 Fiscal year

All other spending Medicare and Medicaid Social Security Net interest

Source: GAO's March 2005 analysis.

Notes: In addition to the expiration of tax cuts, revenue as a share of
GDP increases through 2015 due to (1) real bracket creep, (2) more
taxpayers becoming subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT), and (3)
increased revenue from tax-deferred retirement accounts. After 2015,
revenue as a share of GDP is held constant.

Figure 2: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming Discretionary
Spending Grows with GDP After 2005 and All Expiring Tax Provisions Are
Extended

Percent of GDP

                                       50

                                       40

                                       30

                                       20

                                       10

                                       0

2004 2015 2030 2040 Fiscal year

All other spending Medicare and Medicaid Social Security Net interest

Source: GAO's March 2005 analysis.

Notes: Although expiring tax provisions are extended, revenue as a share
of GDP increases through 2015 due to (1) real bracket creep, (2) more
taxpayers becoming subject to the AMT, and (3) increased revenue from
tax-deferred retirement accounts. After 2015, revenue as a share of GDP is
held constant.

As both these simulations illustrate, absent policy changes on the
spending and/or revenue side of the budget, the growth in spending on
federal retirement and health entitlements will encumber an escalating
share of the government's resources. Indeed, when we assume that recent
tax reductions are made permanent and discretionary spending keeps pace
with the economy, our long-term simulations suggest that by 2040 federal
revenues may be adequate to pay little more than interest on the federal
debt. Neither slowing the growth in discretionary spending nor allowing
the tax provisions to expire-nor both together-would eliminate the
imbalance. Although revenues will ultimately be part of the debate about
our fiscal future, making no changes to Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, and other drivers of the long-term fiscal gap would require at
least a doubling of taxes in the future-and that seems both inappropriate

and implausible. Accordingly, substantive reform of Social Security,
Medicare, and other major mandatory programs remains critical to
recapturing our future fiscal flexibility.

The government can help ease our nation's future fiscal burdens through
actions on the spending and/or revenue side that reduce debt held by the
public, increase saving for the future, and enhance the pool of economic
resources available for private investment and long-term growth. Economic
growth is essential, but our long-term fiscal gap is simply too great to
grow our way out of the problem. Closing the current long-term fiscal gap
would require sustained economic growth far beyond that experienced in
U.S. economic history since World War II. Tough choices are inevitable,
and the sooner we act the better.

In addition to the nation's large and growing long-term fiscal imbalance,
policymakers must confront a host of emerging forces and trends shaping
the United States, which GAO highlights in its strategic plan for serving
Congress.2 We face a world in which national boundaries are becoming less
relevant in addressing a range of economic, security, social, public
health, energy, and environmental issues. The shift to a knowledge-based
economy and additional productivity gains are having significant impacts
on the job market. Scientific research and technological developments are
improving and even extending life, but they are also raising profound
ethical questions for society. Accompanying these changes are new
expectations about the quality of life for Americans and how we should
measure the nation's position and progress. Governance structures are
evolving in order to contend with these new forces and an accelerating
pace of change. These broad themes-changing security threats, increasing
global interconnectedness, the changing economy, an aging and more diverse
population, scientific and technological change, concern for quality of
life, and evolving governance structures-present both challenges and
opportunities to our economy and our society.

If government is to address these challenges and trends effectively, it
cannot accept all of its existing programs, policies, and activities as
"givens." Many of the federal government's programs, policies, functions,
and activities were designed decades ago to address earlier challenges.
Outmoded commitments and operations constitute an encumbrance on the

2 GAO, GAO's Strategic Plan for Serving the Congress and the Nation
(2004-2009) (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

future that can erode the capacity of the nation to better align its
government with the needs and demands of a changing world and society.
Accordingly, reexamining the base of all major existing federal spending
and tax programs, policies, functions, and activities by reviewing their
results and testing their continued relevance and relative priority for
our changing society is an important step in the process of assuring
fiscal responsibility and facilitating national renewal. Reexamining the
base offers compelling opportunities to redress our current and projected
fiscal imbalance while better positioning government to meet the new
challenges and opportunities of this new century.

In our recent publication 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of
the Federal Government, we focused on these challenges and trends, along
with GAO's institutional knowledge and issued work, to identify
reexamination areas and suggest some questions to use for this
reexamination.3 The specific questions were informed by a set of generic
evaluation criteria which are useful for reviewing any government program,
policy, function, or activity; these are displayed in table 1.

Table 1: Generic Reexamination Criteria and Sample Questions

Relevance of Why did the federal government initiate this program and what
was the purpose and government trying to accomplish?

the federal Have there been significant changes in the country or the
world that relate role to the reason for initiating it?

Measuring Are there outcome-based measures? If not, why?

success	If there are outcome-based measures, how successful is it based on
these measures?

Targeting Is it well targeted to those with the greatest needs and the
least capacity to benefits

                               meet those needs?

Affordability Is it using the most cost-effective or net beneficial
approaches when
and cost compared to other tools and program designs?
effectiveness

Best practices Is the responsible entity employing prevailing best
practices to discharge its responsibilities and achieve its mission?

Source: GAO.

3 GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

In the report, we also describe 12 broad reexamination areas, based in
large measure on functional areas in the federal budget, as shown in
figure 3.

                      Figure 3: Twelve Reexamination Areas

Mission Areas

Defense Natural Resources, Energy and

Education and Employment Environment
Financial Regulation and Housing Retirement and Disability
Health Care Science and Technology

Homeland Security Transportation
International Affairs

Crosscutting Areas

Governance Tax System

Source: GAO.

Since health policy is both a driver of our long-term trends and a new
area of oversight for this subcommittee, I will use it to illustrate the
reexamination challenges and questions. Between 1992 and 2002, overall
health care spending rose from $827 billion to about $1.6 trillion; it is
projected to nearly double to $3.1 trillion in the following decade. This
price tag results, in part, from advances in expensive medical technology,
including new drug therapies, and the increased use of high-cost services
and procedures. Many policymakers, industry experts, and medical
practitioners contend that the U.S. health care system-in both the public
and private sectors-is in crisis.

Despite the significant share of the economy consumed by health care, U.S.
health outcomes continue to lag behind many other industrialized nations.
The United States now spends over 15 percent of its gross domestic product
on health care-far more than other major industrialized nations. Yet
relative to these nations, the United States performs below par in such
measures as rates of infant mortality, life expectancy, and premature and
preventable deaths. Moreover, evidence suggests that the American people
are not getting the best value for their health care dollars.

Given this picture, there are a number of important questions that need to
be addressed. Among them are the following:

o 	How can we perform a systematic reexamination of our current health
care system? For example, could public and private entities work

jointly to establish formal reexamination processes that would (1) define
and update as needed a minimum core of essential health care services; (2)
ensure that all Americans have access to the defined minimum core
services; (3) allocate responsibility for financing these services among
such entities as government, employers, and individuals; and (4) provide
the opportunity for individuals to obtain additional services at their
discretion and cost?

o 	How can we make our current Medicare and Medicaid programs financially
sustainable? For example, should the eligibility requirements (e.g., age,
income requirements) for these programs be modified?

o 	How can health care tax incentives be designed to encourage employers
and employees to better control health care cost? For example, should tax
preferences for health care be designed to cap the health insurance
premium amount that can be excluded from an individual's taxable income?

o 	How can technology be leveraged to reduce costs and enhance quality
while protecting patient privacy?

Health care is not, of course, the only area in which fundamental change
is necessary. All of our federal agencies must become high-performing
organizations. I will turn now to a discussion of the elements that can
help to make such a transformation a reality.

  Transforming Federal Agencies into High-Performing Organizations: Key Elements
  of Transformations

Government is being transformed by the challenges and trends I discussed
previously. As a result, federal agencies must change their cultures and
create the institutional capacity to become high-performing organizations
that can adapt to the changing demands of the 21st century, by
implementing a more results-oriented and performance-based approach to how
they do business.

Unfortunately, in many cases, the government is still trying to do
business in ways that are based on conditions, priorities, and approaches
that existed decades ago and are not well suited to addressing 21st
century challenges. For example, some agencies do not yet have sufficient
abilities, leadership, and management capabilities to transform their
cultures and operations. As you know, on a biennial basis, GAO updates its
list of highrisk areas for the federal government, and most recently did
so in January

of this year.4 Increasingly, GAO also is identifying high-risk areas to
focus on the need for broad-based transformations to address major
economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. To illustrate, several
of these highrisk areas include the U.S. Postal Service transformation
efforts and longterm outlook, implementing and transforming the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense's (DOD) approach
to business transformation, as shown in table 2. GAO will continue to use
the high-risk designation to highlight additional areas facing major
transformational challenges.

4 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January
2005).

Table 2: GAO's 2005 High-Risk List 2005 High-Risk Areas

              Addressing Challenges In Broad-based Transformations

o  Strategic Human Capital Managementa

o  U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlooka

o  Managing Federal Real Propertya

o  Protecting the Federal Government's Information Systems and the
Nation's Critical Infrastructures

o  Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security

o  Establishing Appropriate And Effective Information-Sharing Mechanisms
to Improve Homeland Security

o  DOD Approach to Business Transformationa

o  DOD Business Systems Modernization

o  DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program

o  DOD Support Infrastructure Management

o  DOD Financial Management

o  DOD Supply Chain Management (formerly Inventory Management)

o  DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition

                 Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively

o  DOD Contract Management

o  DOE Contract Management

o  NASA Contract Management

o  Management of Interagency Contracting Assessing the Efficiency and
Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration

o  Enforcement of Tax Lawsa, b

o  IRS Business Systems Modernizationc
Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs�

o  Modernizing Federal Disability Programsa

o  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Insurance Programa

o  Medicare Programa

o  Medicaid Programa

o  HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing Assistance
Programs Other

o  FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization

Source: GAO.

aLegislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions by the
executive branch, in order to effectively address this high-risk area.

bTwo high-risk areas-Collection of Unpaid Taxes and Earned Income Credit
Noncompliance-have been consolidated to make this area.

cThe IRS Financial Management high-risk area has been incorporated into
this high-risk area.

To successfully navigate transformation across the government, these and
other agencies must fundamentally reexamine not only their business
processes, but also their outdated organizational structures, management
approaches, and in some cases, missions. GAO has hosted several forums
bringing together senior leaders from the federal sector, executives from
the private and not-for-profit sectors, and members of academia, to
explore the specific change management practices that federal agencies can
adopt to create high-performing organizations. In September 2002, in
anticipation of the creation of DHS, we convened a forum of these leaders
to identify useful practices and lessons learned from major private and
public sector organizational mergers, acquisitions, and transformations
that federal agencies could implement to successfully transform their
cultures.5 These key practices are summarized in the broad categories
displayed in figure 4. In a follow-on report, we identified the specific
implementation steps for the key mergers and transformation practices
raised at the forum.6

5 GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformation: Lessons
Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal Agencies,
GAO-03-293SP (Washington, D.C.: November 2002).

6 GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers
and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July
2003).

Figure 4: Cultural Changes and Key Practices Necessary for Successful
Transformation

Source: GAO analysis.

In November 2003, GAO held a related forum on the metrics, means, and
mechanisms to achieve high performance in the 21st century public
management environment.7 There was broad agreement among the forum
participants on the key characteristics and capabilities of
high-performing organizations, which can be grouped into the following
four themes:

o 	A clear, well-articulated, and compelling mission. High-performing
organizations have a clear, well-articulated, and compelling mission; the
strategic goals to achieve it; and a performance management system that
aligns with these goals to show employees how their performance can
contribute to overall organizational results.

o 	Focus on needs of clients and customers. Serving the needs of clients
and customers involves identifying their needs, striving to meet them,
measuring performance, and publicly reporting on progress to help assure
appropriate transparency and accountability.

7GAO, High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for
Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public Management
Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).

o 	Strategic management of people. Most high-performing organizations have
strong, charismatic, visionary, and sustained leadership; the capability
to identify what skills and competencies the employees and the
organization need; and other key characteristics including effective
recruiting, comprehensive training and development, retention of
highperforming employees, and a streamlined hiring process.

o 	Strategic use of partnerships. Since the federal government is
increasingly reliant on partners to achieve its outcomes, becoming a
high-performing organization requires that federal agencies effectively
manage relationships with other organizations outside of their direct
control.

GAO has used these tools, and others, to fundamentally change our
organization. Shortly after I was appointed Comptroller General, I
determined that GAO should undertake a major transformation effort to
better enable it to "lead by example" and better support Congress in the
21st century. To provide the foundation for GAO's transformation, we first
developed a set of core values and a strategic plan for the 21st century.
We used our strategic plan as a framework to align our organization,
allocate its resources, and determine appropriate priorities and
performance measures. For example, we streamlined and realigned the agency
to eliminate a management layer, consolidated 35 issue areas into 13
teams, and reduced our field offices from 16 to 11. We also reallocated
our resources to focus more on matrixing internally and partnering
externally. In the human capital area and in all other management
functions, we seek to lead by example in modernizing our policies and
procedures. For example, in the human capital area, we have adopted a
range of strategic workforce policies and practices, such as recruiting
and succession planning strategies, as a result of a comprehensive
workforce planning effort. We have also updated our performance management
and compensation systems and our training and development programs to
maximize staff effectiveness and fully develop the potential of our staff.

Given these challenges and trends, and the need for federal agencies to
transform, where do we go from here?

  The Way Forward: Multiple Approaches to Reexamine the Base of Government and
  Selected Initiatives to Support Government Transformation

In our system, the reexamination of programs and the transformation of
agencies are not easy processes-there is little "low hanging fruit," or
few easy, quick fixes. Although resistance can be expected, there are
cases where program areas and agencies have been reformed in the past that
we can draw lessons from in going forward. A successful process to
reexamine the base of the federal government will in all likelihood rely
on multiple approaches over a period of years. The reauthorization,
appropriations, oversight, and budget processes have all been used, on
some occasions in the past, to review existing programs and policies.
Adding other specific approaches and processes-such as temporary
commissions to develop policy alternatives or executive reorganizations-
has been proposed. Each approach needs to be considered separately for
each program area and organizational problem to determine which set of
approaches is best tailored for each.

Performance and analytic tools can play a vital role in facilitating
reexamination. In this regard, the performance metrics and plans ushered
in by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) have led
to a growing supply of increasingly sophisticated measures and data on the
results achieved by various federal programs. Agencies and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) have been working over the years to strengthen
the links between this information and the budget. Under the
Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), for example, OMB
is rating the effectiveness of each program in the budget over a 5-year
period. Since the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle, OMB has applied PART to
607 programs (about 60 percent of the federal budget).

In conjunction with the multiple reexamination approaches that can be
used, GAO has, in the past, recommended or asked Congress to consider
certain initiatives to assist in government and agency transformations.
These include (1) requiring a governmentwide strategic plan and developing
a set of key national indicators to help inform the plan; (2) implementing
a governmentwide framework for federal human capital reform; and (3)
proposing specific leadership models to address transformation challenges,
such as creating a Chief Operating Officer (COO)/Chief Management Official
(CMO) at select agencies.

Governmentwide strategic plan and key national indicators

We have previously recommended that Congress consider amending GPRA to
require the President to develop a governmentwide strategic plan to
provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to address
issues that cut across federal agencies.8 A strategic plan for the federal
government, supported by key national outcome-based indicators to assess
the government's performance, position, and progress, could be a valuable
tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as
proposals for new programs.9 Developing a strategic plan can help clarify
priorities and unify stakeholders in the pursuit of shared goals.
Therefore, developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be
an important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of
the federal government. If fully developed, a governmentwide strategic
plan can potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals
of the federal government and provide a much-needed basis for fully
integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal
activities.

Similar to GPRA's requirement that agencies consult with Congress as they
develop their strategic plans, OMB should also be required to consult with
Congress as it develops the governmentwide strategic plan. If fully
implemented, the governmentwide strategic plan could also provide a
framework for congressional oversight and other activities. To that end,
we have also suggested that Congress consider the need to develop a more
systematic vehicle for communicating its top performance concerns and
priorities; develop a more structured oversight agenda to prompt a more
coordinated congressional perspective on crosscutting performance issues;
and use this agenda to inform its authorization, appropriations, and
oversight processes. One possible approach would involve developing a
congressional performance resolution identifying the key oversight and
performance goals that Congress wishes to set for its own committees and
for the government as a whole. Such a resolution could be developed by
modifying the current congressional budget resolution, which is already
organized by budget function. Initially, this may involve collecting the
"views and estimates" of authorization and appropriations committees on
priority performance issues for programs under their jurisdiction and
working with crosscutting committees.

8 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).

9 GAO, Informing Our Nation: Improving How to Understand and Assess the
USA's Position and Progress, GAO-05-1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2004).

The development of a set of key national indicators that would provide
information on a core set of information regarding the economic,
environmental, social, and cultural condition of the nation over time,
including safety and security, could be used as a basis to inform the
development of a governmentwide strategic plan. The indicators could also
link to and provide information to support outcome-oriented goals and
objectives in agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.
Currently, the National Academies are facilitating the development of a
framework for a key national indicator system. As currently planned, this
framework will include a description of the indicators in many areas,
without the data, by the end of 2005.

Federal human capital reform

As I have repeatedly stated, people are an organization's most important
asset, and strategic human capital management should be the centerpiece of
any effort to transform the cultures of government agencies. However, the
existing federal personnel system is outmoded, and in some ways serves as
a barrier to government transformation. GAO first placed strategic human
capital management on the high-risk list in 2001 to focus attention on
needed reforms. More progress in addressing human capital challenges was
made in the last several years than in the previous 20, and additional
significant changes in how the federal workforce is managed are underway.

To help advance the discussion concerning how governmentwide human capital
reform should proceed, GAO and the National Commission on the Public
Service Implementation Initiative hosted a forum on whether there should
be a governmentwide framework for human capital reform and, if so, what
this framework should include.10 There was widespread recognition among
the forum participants that a "one size fits all" approach to human
capital management is not appropriate for the challenges and demands
government faces. However, a reasonable degree of consistency across the
government is still desirable in a governmentwide framework that would
include principles, criteria, and processes. We believe that future human
capital reform should be put in operation only when an

10 GAO and the National Commission on the Public Service Implementation
Initiative, Highlights of a Forum: Human Capital: Principles, Criteria,
and Processes for Governmentwide Federal Human Capital Reform, GAO-05-69SP
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 2004).

agency has the institutional infrastructure in place to use the new
authorities effectively. This infrastructure includes, at a minimum,

o 	a strategic human capital planning process linked to the agency's
strategic plan;

o 	capabilities to design and implement a new human capital system
effectively; and

o 	a modern, effective, credible, and validated performance management
system that includes adequate safeguards to ensure the fair, effective,
and nondiscriminatory implementation of the system.

Importantly, it is possible to enact broad-based human capital reforms
that would enable agencies to move to a more market-oriented and
performance-based system. However, any such effort should require that the
agency not implement key reforms until after it meets certain procedural
management assessment and independent certification requirements relating
to the above-referenced criteria.

Transformational Leadership

We have reported that the personal involvement of top leadership in
organizational transformation provides an identifiable source for
employees to rally around during the tumultuous times created by dramatic
reorganizations and transformations. Leadership must set the direction,
pace, and tone for the transformation and should provide sustained and
focused attention over the long term. This is because the experience of
successful transformations and change management initiatives in large
public and private organizations suggests that it can take at least 7
years until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are
transformed in a substantial manner.

As DHS, DOD, and other agencies embark on large-scale organizational
change initiatives to address 21st century challenges, there is a
compelling need for leadership to provide the continuing focused attention
essential to completing these multiyear transformations. We have reported
that creation of a COO or CMO with term appointments at selected agencies
could help to (1) elevate attention on management issues and
transformational change, (2) integrate various key management and
transformation efforts, and (3) institutionalize accountability for

addressing these issues and leading this change.11 As I have testified on
several occasions, one way to ensure sustained leadership over DOD's
business transformation efforts would be to create a full-time
executivelevel II position for a CMO, who would serve as the Deputy
Secretary of Defense for Management, or Principal Undersecretary. I have
also stated that establishing a term that spans administrations
underscores the importance of a professional, nonpartisan approach to this
business management-oriented position. In April 2005, Senators Ensign,
Akaka, and Voinovich introduced legislation (S. 780) to create a
CMO/Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management position for DOD. The
Deputy Secretary of Defense for Management would report to the Secretary
of Defense and serve for a term of 7 years with an annual performance
agreement.

Conclusions	In establishing more results-oriented and performance-based
cultures, government organizations and their leaders need to carefully
select the best solution for their organizations in terms of structure,
systems, and processes. Supporting new and more adaptable ways of doing
business will be vital to successful transformation. Though progress is
being made on many fronts, much remains to be done.

Regardless of the specific combination of reexamination approaches or
selected initiatives adopted to transform the government and agencies, the
ultimate success of this process will depend on several important
overarching conditions:

o 	Sustained leadership to champion changes and reforms through the many
stages of the policy development and subsequent implementation process.

o  Broad-based input by a wide range of stakeholders.

11 GAO, DOD's High-Risk Areas: Successful Business Transformation Requires
Sound Strategic Planning and Sustained Leadership, GAO-05-520T
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2005); GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A
Comprehensive and Sustained Approach Needed to Achieve Management
Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005); GAO, The Chief
Operating Officer Concept and Its Potential Use as a Strategy to Improve
Management at the Department of Homeland Security, GAO-04-876R
(Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2004); and GAO, Highlights of a GAO
Roundtable: The Chief Operating Officer Concept: A Potential Strategy to
Address Federal Governance Challenges, GAO-03-192SP (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 4, 2002).

o 	Reliable data and credible analysis from a broad range of sources that
provide a compelling fact-based rationale for changing the base of
programs and policies for specific areas.

o 	Clear and transparent processes for engaging the broader public in the
debate over the recommended changes.

Policy and organizational change is not an easy process, but one that we
have no choice but to embrace to reclaim our fiscal future and make
government relevant for this new century. We at GAO stand ready to help
Congress address these challenges.

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

For future information on this testimony, please contact J. Christopher
Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-03-669, a report to congressional requesters

The Comptroller General convened a forum in September 2002 to identify
useful practices and lessons learned from major private and public sector
mergers, acquisitions, and organizational transformations. This was done
to help federal agencies implement successful transformations of their
cultures, as well as the new Department of Homeland Security merge its
various originating components into a unified department. There was
general agreement on a number of key practices found at the center of
successful mergers, acquisitions, and transformations. In this report, we
identify the specific implementation steps for the key practices raised at
the forum with illustrative private and public sector examples.

To identify these implementation steps and examples, we relied primarily
on interviews with selected forum participants and other experts about
their experiences implementing mergers, acquisitions, and transformations
and also conducted a literature review.

July 2003

RESULTS-ORIENTED CULTURES

  Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations

At the center of any serious change management initiative are the people.
Thus, the key to a successful merger and transformation is to recognize
the "people" element and implement strategies to help individuals maximize
their full potential in the new organization, while simultaneously
managing the risk of reduced productivity and effectiveness that often
occurs as a result of the changes. Building on the lessons learned from
the experiences of large private and public sector organizations, these
key practices and implementation steps can help agencies transform their
cultures so that they can be more results oriented, customer focused, and
collaborative in nature.

Key Practices and Implementation Steps for Mergers and Organizational
Transformations

Practice Implementation Step

Ensure top leadership drives the  o  Define and articulate a succinct and
compelling transformation. reason for change.

o  	Balance continued delivery of services with merger and transformation
activities.

        Establish a coherent mission o      Adopt leading practices for 
                    and                                results-oriented 
         integrated strategic goals         strategic planning and      
                to guide the                      reporting.            
              transformation.           
           Focus on a key set of     o  Embed core values in every      
               principles and           aspect of the                   
        priorities at the outset of     organization to reinforce the   
                    the                 new culture.                    
              transformation.           

Set implementation goals and a timeline to  o  Make public implementation
goals and timeline.

build momentum and show progress from  o  Seek and monitor employee
attitudes and take day one. appropriate follow-up actions.

o  	Identify cultural features of merging organizations to increase
understanding of former work environments.

o  Attract and retain key talent.

o  	Establish an organizationwide knowledge and skills inventory to
exchange knowledge among merging organizations.

Dedicate an implementation team to  o  Establish networks to support
implementation manage the transformation process. team.

o  Select high-performing team members.

Use the performance management system to define responsibility and assure
accountability for change.

o  	Adopt leading practices to implement effective performance management
systems with adequate safeguards.

Establish a communication strategy to create shared expectations and
report related progress.

o  Communicate early and often to build trust.

o  Ensure consistency of message.

o  Encourage two-way communication.

o  	Provide information to meet specific needs of employees.

Involve employees to obtain their ideas and gain their ownership for the
transformation.

o  Use employee teams.

o  	Involve employees in planning and sharing performance information.

o  	Incorporate employee feedback into new policies and procedures.

o  	Delegate authority to appropriate organizational levels.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-669.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm, (202)
512-6806 or [email protected].

Build a world-class organization.  o  	Adopt leading practices to build a
world-class organization.

Source: GAO

Highlights of GAO-04-343SP.

As we face the challenges of the 21st century, the federal government must
strive to build high-performing organizations. Nothing less than a
fundamental transformation in the people, processes, technology, and
environment used by federal agencies to address public goals will be
necessary to address public needs. In high-performing organizations,
management controls, processes, practices, and systems are adopted that
are consistent with prevailing best practices and contribute to concrete
organizational results. Ultimately, however, the federal government needs
to change its culture to become more resultsoriented, client- and
customerfocused, and collaborative in nature.

On November 6, 2003, GAO hosted a forum to discuss what it means for a
federal agency to be highperforming in an environment where results and
outcomes are increasingly accomplished through partnerships that cut
across different levels of government and different sectors of the
economy. The forum included discussions of the metrics, means, and
mechanisms that a federal agency should use to optimize its influence and
contribution to nationally important results and outcomes. The forum
included representatives of the public, not-for-profit, and for-profit
sectors as well as academia who are knowledgeable of what it takes for
organizations to become high-performing.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-343SP.

To view the full product click on the link above. For more information,
contact J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues on (202)
512-6806 or [email protected].

February 2004

HIGHLIGHTS OF A GAO FORUM

High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for
Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public Management
Environment

There was broad agreement among participants at the forum on the key
characteristics and capabilities of high-performing organizations, which
comprise four themes as follows:

o  	A clear, well-articulated, and compelling mission. Highperforming
organizations have a clear, well-articulated, and compelling mission, the
strategic goals to achieve it, and a performance management system that
aligns with these goals to show employees how their performance can
contribute to overall organizational results.

o  	Strategic use of partnerships. Since the federal government is
increasingly reliant on partners to achieve its outcomes, becoming a
high-performing organization requires that federal agencies effectively
manage relationships with other organizations outside of their direct
control.

o  	Focus on needs of clients and customers. Serving the needs of clients
and customers involves identifying their needs, striving to meet them,
measuring performance, and publicly reporting on progress to help assure
appropriate transparency and accountability.

o  	Strategic management of people. Most high-performing organizations
have strong, charismatic, visionary, and sustained leadership, the
capability to identify what skills and competencies the employees and the
organization need, and other key characteristics including effective
recruiting, comprehensive training and development, retention of
high-performing employees, and a streamlined hiring process.

During the forum, the Comptroller General offered several options that the
Congress, the executive branch, and others could pursue to facilitate
transformation and to achieve high performance in the federal government.
Several of the participants provided their views and experiences with
these options. These options included:

o  	establishing a governmentwide transformation fund where federal
agencies could apply for funds to make short-term targeted investments,
based on a well-developed business case;

o  	employing the Chief Operating Officer concept or establishing a
related senior management position, such as a Principal Under Secretary
for Management and/or Chief Administrative Officer, to provide long-term
attention and focus on management issues and transformational change at
selected federal agencies; and

o  	examining certain federal budget reforms, such as a biennial budget
process, which could encourage the Congress and federal agencies to focus
on long-range issues and possibly provide more time for oversight of
existing government programs, policies, functions, and activities.

Highlights of GAO-04-38, a report to congressional requesters

Now that the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in
effect for 10 years, GAO was asked to address (1) the effect of GPRA in
creating a governmentwide focus on results and the government's ability to
deliver results to the American public, (2) the challenges agencies face
in measuring performance and using performance information in management
decisions, and (3) how the federal government can continue to shift toward
a more results-oriented focus.

GAO recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) improve its
guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation, as well as develop a
governmentwide performance plan. GAO also believes Congress should
consider amending GPRA to require that (1) agencies update their strategic
plans at least once every four years, consult with congressional
stakeholders at least once every new Congress, and make interim updates to
strategic and performance plans as appropriate; and (2) the President
develop a governmentwide strategic plan. OMB generally agreed with our
recommendations, but stated that the President's Budget can serve as both
a governmentwide strategic and annual plan. However, we believe the budget
provides neither a long-term nor an integrated perspective on the federal
government's performance.

March 2004

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results

GPRA's requirements have established a solid foundation of
results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the
federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having
significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA
(see figure below). GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of
resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to
increase the use of performance information to make decisions about
resources. We also found agency strategic and annual performance plans and
reports we reviewed have improved over initial efforts.

Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant
challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership
commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the
development of results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in
certain areas, federal managers continue to have difficulty setting
outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking
institutional, program, unit, and individual performance measurement and
reward systems. Finally, there is an inadequate focus on addressing issues
that cut across federal agencies.

OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is
responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these
challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues
during the past several years. However, it has showed less commitment to
GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and in using the
governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an
integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide
strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal
activities to achieve national goals.

Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of
Performance Measures Called for by GPRA

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38.

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

[IMG]

November 2004

INFORMING OUR NATION

Improving How to Understand and Assess the USA's Position and Progress

What GAO Found

GAO studied a diverse set of key indicator systems that provide economic,
environmental, social and cultural information for local, state, or
regional jurisdictions covering about 25 percent of the U.S. population-as
well as several systems outside of the United States. GAO found
opportunities to improve how our nation understands and assesses its
position and progress.

Citizens in diverse locations and at all levels of society have key
indicator systems. Building on a wide array of topical bodies of knowledge
in areas such as the economy, education, health, and the environment, GAO
found that individuals and institutions across the United States, other
nations, and international organizations have key indicator systems to
better inform themselves. These systems focus on providing a public good:
a single, freely available source for key indicators of a jurisdiction's
position and progress that is disseminated to broad audiences. A broad
consortium of public and private leaders has begun to develop such a
system for our nation as a whole.

These systems are a noteworthy development with potentially broad
applicability. Although indicator systems are diverse, GAO identified
important similarities. For example, they faced common challenges in areas
such as agreeing on the types and number of indicators to include and
securing and maintaining adequate funding. Further, they showed evidence
of positive effects, such as enhancing collaboration to address public
issues, and helping to inform decision making and improve research.
Because these systems exist throughout the United States, in other
nations, and at the supranational level, the potential for broad
applicability exists, although the extent of applicability has yet to be
determined.

Congress and the nation have options to consider for further action.

GAO identified nine key design features to help guide the development and
implementation of an indicator system. For instance, these features
include establishing a clear purpose, defining target audiences and their
needs, and ensuring independence and accountability. Customized factors
will be crucial in adapting such features to any particular level of
society or location. Also, there are several alternative options for a
lead entity to initiate and sustain an indicator system: publicly led,
privately led, or a public-private partnership in either a new or existing
organization.

Observations, Options, and Next Steps

Key indicator systems merit serious discussion at all levels of society,
including the national level, and clear implementation options exist from
which to choose. Hence, Congress and the nation should consider how to

o  improve awareness of these systems and their implications for the
nation,

o  support and pursue further research,

o  help to catalyze discussion on further activity at subnational levels,
and

o  begin a broader dialogue on the potential for a U.S. key indicator
system.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

[IMG]

December 2004

HIGHLIGHTS OF A FORUM

Human Capital: Principles, Criteria, and Processes for Governmentwide
Federal Human Capital Reform

What Participants Said

Forum participants discussed (1) Should there be a governmentwide
framework for human capital reform? and (2) If yes, what should a
governmentwide framework include?

There was widespread recognition that a "one size fits all" approach to
human capital management is not appropriate for the challenges and demands
government faces. However, there was equally broad agreement that there
should be a governmentwide framework to guide human capital reform built
on a set of beliefs that entail fundamental principles and boundaries that
include criteria and processes that establish the checks and limitations
when agencies seek and implement their authorities. While there were
divergent views among the participants, there was general agreement that
the following served as a starting point for further discussion in
developing a governmentwide framework to advance needed human capital
reform.

Principles

o  	Merit principles that balance organizational mission, goals, and
performance objectives with individual rights and responsibilities

o  	Ability to organize, bargain collectively, and participate through
labor organizations

o  Certain prohibited personnel practices

o  Guaranteed due process that is fair, fast, and final

Criteria

o  Demonstrated business case or readiness for use of targeted authorities

o  	An integrated approach to results-oriented strategic planning and
human capital planning and management

o  	Adequate resources for planning, implementation, training, and
evaluation

o  	A modern, effective, credible, and integrated performance management
system that includes adequate safeguards to ensure equity and prevent
discrimination

Processes

o  	Prescribing regulations in consultation or jointly with the Office of
Personnel Management

o  	Establishing appeals processes in consultation with the Merit Systems
Protection Board

o  	Involving employees and stakeholders in the design and implementation
of new human capital systems

o  Phasing in implementation of new human capital systems

o  Committing to transparency, reporting, and evaluation

o  Establishing a communications strategy

o  Assuring adequate training

                 United States Government Accountability Office

              United States General Accounting Office October 2002

G A O HIGHLIGHTS OF A GAO ROUNDTABLE

Accountability Integrity Reliability	The Chief Operating Officer Concept:
A Potential Strategy to Address FederalHighlights Governance Challenges

Highlights of GAO-03-192SP

Why GAO Convened This Roundtable

The federal government is in a period of profound transition that requires
a comprehensive review, reassessment, reprioritization, and reengineering
of what the government does, how it does business, and, in some cases, who
does the government's business. Agencies will need to transform their
cultures so that they are more results oriented, customer focused, and
collaborative in nature. At the same time, GAO's work over the years has
amply documented that agencies are suffering from a range of long-standing
management problems that are undermining their abilities to efficiently,
economically, and effectively accomplish their missions and achieve
results.

On September 9, 2002, GAO convened a roundtable to discuss the application
and the related advantages and disadvantages of the Chief Operating
Officer (COO) concept and how it might apply within selected federal
departments and agencies as one strategy to address certain systemic
federal governance and management challenges. The invited participants
have current or recent executive branch leadership responsibilities,
significant executive management experience, or both.

What Participants Said

At the roundtable, participants generated ideas and engaged in an open
dialogue on the possible application of the COO concept. There was general
agreement that the following three themes provide a course for action.

Elevate attention on management issues and transformational change. The
nature and scope of the changes needed in many agencies require the
sustained and inspired commitment of the top political and career
leadership.

Integrate various key management and transformation efforts.

While officials with management responsibilities often have successfully
worked together, there needs to be a single point within agencies with the
perspective and responsibility-as well as authority-to ensure the
successful implementation of functional management and, if appropriate,
transformational change efforts.

Institutionalize accountability for addressing management issues and
leading transformational change. The management weaknesses in some
agencies are deeply entrenched and long standing and will take years of
sustained attention and continuity to resolve. In addition, making
fundamental changes in agencies' cultures will require a long-term effort.
In the federal government, the frequent turnover of the political
leadership has often made it difficult to obtain the sustained and
inspired attention required to make needed changes.

Within the context of these generally agreed-upon themes, the participants
offered a number of ideas to help address management weaknesses and drive
transformational change.

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	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.

Obtaining Copies of 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 postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony 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

Congressional	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 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
*** End of document. ***