High Risk Series: An Update (31-JAN-07, GAO-07-310).		 
                                                                 
GAO's audits and evaluations identify federal programs and	 
operations that, in some cases, are high risk due to their	 
greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and		 
mismanagement. In recent years, GAO also has identified high-risk
areas to focus on the need for broad-based transformations to	 
address major economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.  
Since 1990, GAO has periodically reported on government 	 
operations it has designated as high risk. In this 2007 update	 
for the 110th Congress, GAO presents the status of high-risk	 
areas identified in 2005 and new high-risk areas warranting	 
attention by Congress and the executive branch. Lasting solutions
to high-risk problems offer the potential to save billions of	 
dollars, dramatically improve service to the public, strengthen  
confidence and trust in the performance and accountability of the
U.S. government, and ensure the ability of government to deliver 
on its promises.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-310 					        
    ACCNO:   A65424						        
  TITLE:     High Risk Series: An Update			      
     DATE:   01/31/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Contracts						 
	     Counterterrorism					 
	     Defense procurement				 
	     Federal procurement				 
	     Federal property management			 
	     Financial management systems			 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Housing programs					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Transportation					 
	     Business planning					 
	     High Risk Series 2003				 
	     High Risk Series 2005				 

******************************************************************
** 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-07-310

   

     * [1]Historical Perspective
     * [2]High-Risk Designations Removed

          * [3]U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Out
          * [4]HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing Assi

     * [5]New High-Risk Areas

          * [6]Financing the Nation's Transportation System
          * [7]Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical t
          * [8]Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety

     * [9]Progress Being Made in Other High-Risk Areas
     * [10]Highlights for Each High-Risk Area

          * [11]Order by Mail or Phone

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

January 2007

HIGH-RISK SERIES

An Update

GAO-07-310

Contents

Letter 1

Historical Perspective 4
High-Risk Designations Removed 9
U.S. Postal Service's Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlook 9
HUD's Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing Assistance
Programs 11
New High-Risk Areas 16
Financing the Nation's Transportation System 16
Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S.
National Security Interests 20
Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety 26
Progress Being Made in Other High-Risk Areas 32
Highlights for Each High-Risk Area 38

Tables

Table 1: Changes to GAO's High-Risk List, 1990 to 2007 4
Table 2: Areas Removed from GAO's High-Risk List, 1990-2007 5
Table 3: Year That Areas on GAO's 2007 High-Risk List Were Designated as
High Risk 6
Table 4: U.S. Government Programs for the Identification and Protection of
Critical Technologies 21

Figure

Figure 1: Current Highway Trust Fund Year-End Balance Forecasts 17

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.

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

                                                          Comptroller General

                                                         of the United States

January 2007

The President of the Senate
The Speaker of the House of Representatives

Since 1990, GAO has periodically reported on government programs and
operations that it identifies as "high risk." This effort, which is
supported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has
brought a much needed focus to a targeted list of major challenges that
are impeding effective government and costing the government billions of
dollars each year. To help improve these high-risk operations, GAO has
made hundreds of recommendations. Moreover, GAO's focus on high-risk
problems contributed to Congress enacting a series of governmentwide
reforms to address critical human capital challenges, strengthen financial
management, improve information technology practices, and instill a more
effective, credible, and results-oriented government.

GAO's high-risk status reports are provided at the start of each new
Congress to help in setting congressional oversight agendas. These reports
also help Congress and the executive branch carry out their
responsibilities while improving the government's performance and
enhancing its accountability for the benefit of the American people. In
this regard, I recently provided congressional leadership with a set of
recommendations based on GAO's work, including work on areas we have
designated as high risk, for its consideration in developing the oversight
agenda of the 110th Congress. Together, the high-risk update and the
recommendations for oversight can help congressional decision makers focus
on the key management challenges facing the nation.

The nation also continues to face broader policy challenges associated
with the current long-term fiscal imbalance and other key sustainability
challenges, as well as the need to ensure the federal government is
transparent, economical, efficient, effective, ethical, and equitable.
Addressing these challenges will require Congress to make tough choices
that fundamentally re-examine and transform the government to be more
effective in the 21st century. The infrastructure to support these
decisions is not fully in place, and focused attention by the legislative
and executive branches is needed to make progress. In this regard, in the
coming months, I plan to highlight the set of tools needed to support more
strategic decision making related to these broader challenges facing our
nation. These tools will center on expanding the governmentwide focus on
results; improving transparency through better financial and performance
management reporting; building structures and processes that facilitate
more strategic, systemic, and integrated solutions; and transforming
federal organizations, functions, and operations.

This report summarizes progress made in correcting high-risk problems,
actions under way, and further actions that GAO believes are needed. In
addition, GAO has determined that sufficient progress has been made to
remove the high-risk designation from two areas: the U.S. Postal Service's
transformation efforts and long-term outlook, and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's single-family mortgage insurance and
rental housing assistance programs. GAO has also designated three new
areas as high risk: financing the nation's transportation system, ensuring
the effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. national
security interests, and transforming federal oversight of food safety.
Furthermore, the Department of Defense (DOD) continues to dominate the
high-risk list. Specifically, DOD has eight of its own high-risk areas and
shares responsibility for seven governmentwide high-risk areas.

In recent years, GAO's high-risk program has increasingly focused on those
major programs and operations that need urgent attention and
transformation in order to ensure that our national government functions
in the most economical, efficient, and effective manner possible. Further,
the administration has looked to GAO's program in shaping governmentwide
initiatives such as the President's Management Agenda; and more recently,
the administration undertook an effort to encourage agencies to develop
corrective action plans for high-risk areas. As in prior GAO high-risk
update reports, federal programs and operations are also emphasized when
they are at high risk because of their greater vulnerabilities to fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In addition, some of these high-risk
agencies, programs, or policies are in need of transformation, and several
items will require action by both the executive branch and Congress. Our
objective for the high-risk list is to bring visibility and urgency to
these areas in order to prompt needed actions sooner rather than later.

Copies of this update are being sent to the President, the congressional
leadership, other Members of Congress, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and the heads of major departments and agencies.

David M. Walker
Comptroller General of the United States

Historical Perspective

In 1990, GAO began a program to report on government operations that we
identified as "high risk." Since then, generally coinciding with the start
of each new Congress, we have periodically reported on the status of
progress to address high-risk areas and updated our high-risk list. Our
most recent high-risk update was in January 2005.^1

Overall, our high-risk program has served to identify and help resolve
serious weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources and provide
critical services to the public. Since our program began, the government
has taken high-risk problems seriously and has made long-needed progress
toward correcting them. In some cases, progress has been sufficient for us
to remove the high-risk designation. A summary of changes to our high-risk
list over the past 17 years are shown in table 1. Areas removed from the
high-risk list over that same period are shown in table 2. The areas on
GAO's 2007 high-risk list, and the year each was designated as high risk,
are shown in table 3.

Table 1: Changes to GAO's High-Risk List, 1990 to 2007

                                           Number of areas 
Original high-risk list in 1990                      14 
High-risk areas added since 1990                     33 
High-risk areas removed since 1990                   18 
High-risk areas consolidated since 1990               2 
High-risk list in 2007                               27 

Source: GAO.

^1GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [12]GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).

Table 2: Areas Removed from GAO's High-Risk List, 1990-2007

                                                         Year designated high 
Area                                     Year removed risk                 
Federal Transit Administration Grant     1995         1990                 
Management                                                                 
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation     1995         1990                 
Resolution Trust Corporation             1995         1990                 
State Department Management of Overseas  1995         1990                 
Real Property                                                              
Bank Insurance Fund                      1995         1991                 
Customs Service Financial Management     1999         1991                 
Farm Loan Programs                       2001         1990                 
Superfund Program                        2001         1990                 
National Weather Service Modernization   2001         1995                 
The 2000 Census                          2001         1997                 
The Year 2000 Computing Challenge        2001         1997                 
Asset Forfeiture Programs                2003         1990                 
Supplemental Security Income             2003         1997                 
Student Financial Aid Programs           2005         1990                 
Federal Aviation Administration          2005         1999                 
Financial Management                                                       
Forest Service Financial Management      2005         1999                 
HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and 2007         1994                 
Rental Housing Assistance Programs                                         
U.S. Postal Service Transformation       2007         2001                 
Efforts and Long-Term Outlook                                              

Source: GAO.

Table 3: Year That Areas on GAO's 2007 High-Risk List Were Designated as
High Risk

                                                         Year designated high 
Area                                                  risk                 
Medicare Program                                      1990                 
DOD Supply Chain Management                           1990                 
DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition                        1990                 
DOE Contract Management                               1990                 
NASA Contract Management                              1990                 
Enforcement of Tax Laws                               1990                 
DOD Contract Management                               1992                 
DOD Financial Management                              1995                 
DOD Business Systems Modernization                    1995                 
IRS Business Systems Modernization                    1995                 
FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization                 1995                 
Protecting the Federal Government's Information       1997                 
Systems and the Nation's Critical Infrastructures                          
DOD Support Infrastructure Management                 1997                 
Strategic Human Capital Management                    2001                 
Medicaid Program                                      2003                 
Managing Federal Real Property                        2003                 
Modernizing Federal Disability Programs               2003                 
Implementing and Transforming the Department of       2003                 
Homeland Security                                                          
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer  2003                 
Pension Insurance Program                                                  
Establishing Appropriate and Effective                2005                 
Information-Sharing Mechanisms to Improve Homeland                         
Security                                                                   
DOD Approach to Business Transformation               2005                 
DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program              2005                 
Management of Interagency Contracting                 2005                 
National Flood Insurance Program                      2006                 
Financing the Nation's Transportation System          2007                 
Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies     2007                 
Critical to U.S. National Security Interests                               
Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety         2007                 

Source: GAO.

Over the years, 18 areas have been removed from the high-risk list. Eight
of these were among the 14 programs and operations we determined to be
high risk at the outset of our efforts to monitor such programs. These
results demonstrate that the sustained attention and commitment by
Congress and agencies to resolve serious, long-standing high-risk problems
have paid off, as root causes of the government's exposure for more than
half of our original high-risk list have been successfully addressed.

Historically, high-risk areas have been so designated because of
traditional vulnerabilities related to their greater susceptibility to
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. As our high-risk program has
evolved, we have increasingly used the high-risk designation to draw
attention to areas associated with broad-based transformations needed to
achieve greater economy, efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, and
sustainability of selected key government programs and operations.
Perseverance by the executive branch is needed in implementing our
recommended solutions for addressing these high-risk areas. Continued
congressional oversight and, in some cases, additional legislative action
will also be key to achieving progress, particularly in addressing
challenges in broad-based transformations.

To determine which federal government programs and functions should be
designated high risk, we use our guidance document, Determining
Performance and Accountability Challenges and High Risks.^2 In determining
whether a government program or operation is high risk, we consider
whether it involves national significance or a management function that is
key to performance and accountability. We also consider whether the risk
is:

           o an inherent problem, such as may arise when the nature of a
           program creates susceptibility to fraud, waste, and abuse, or

           o a systemic problem, such as may arise when the programmatic;
           management support; or financial systems, policies, and procedures
           established by an agency to carry out a program are ineffective,
           creating a material weakness.

           Further, we consider qualitative factors, such as whether the risk

           o involves public health or safety, service delivery, national
           security, national defense, economic growth, or privacy or
           citizens' rights, or

           o could result in significantly impaired service; program failure;
           injury or loss of life; or significantly reduced economy,
           efficiency, or effectiveness.

           In addition, we also consider the exposure to loss in monetary or
           other quantitative terms. At a minimum, $1 billion must be at risk
           in areas such as the value of major assets being impaired; revenue
           sources not being realized; major agency assets being lost,
           stolen, damaged, wasted, or underutilized; improper payments; and
           contingencies or potential liabilities.

           Before making a high-risk designation, we also consider corrective
           measures planned or under way to resolve a material control
           weakness and the status and effectiveness of these actions.

           When legislative and agency actions, including those in response
           to our recommendations, result in significant and sustainable
           progress toward resolving a high-risk problem, we remove the
           high-risk designation. Key determinants here include a
           demonstrated strong commitment to and top leadership support for
           addressing problems, the capacity to do so, a corrective action
           plan, and demonstrated progress in implementing corrective
           measures.

           The next section discusses how we applied our criteria in
           determining what high-risk designations to remove and what to add
           for our 2007 update.
			  
			  High-Risk Designations Removed

           For our 2007 high-risk update, we determined that sufficient
           progress has been made to warrant removing two areas from the
           high-risk list: the U.S. Postal Service's transformation efforts
           and long-term outlook and the Department of Housing and Urban
           Development's (HUD) single-family mortgage insurance and rental
           housing assistance programs. As we have with areas previously
           removed from the high-risk list, we will continue to monitor these
           programs, as appropriate, to ensure that the improvements we have
           noted are sustained.
			  
			  U.S. Postal Service Transformation Efforts and Long-Term Outlook

           In 2001, we designated the Postal Service's (Service)
           transformation efforts and long-term outlook as high risk because
           the Service's financial outlook had deteriorated significantly.
           The Service had a projected deficit of $2 billion to $3 billion,
           severe cash flow pressures, its debt was approaching the statutory
           borrowing limit; cost growth was outpacing revenue increases; and
           productivity gains were limited. Other challenges the Service
           faced included liabilities that exceeded assets by $3 billion at
           the end of fiscal year 2002; major liabilities and obligations
           estimated at close to $100 billion; a restructuring of the
           workforce due to impending retirements and operational changes;
           and long-standing labor-management relations problems. We were
           also concerned that the Service had no comprehensive plan to
           address its financial, operational, or human capital challenges,
           including how it planned to reduce its debt, and it did not have
           adequate financial reporting and transparency that would allow the
           public to understand changes in its financial situation. Thus, we
           recommended that the Service develop a comprehensive plan, in
           conjunction with other stakeholders, that would identify the
           actions needed to address its challenges and provide publicly
           available quarterly financial reports with sufficient information
           to understand the Service's current and projected financial
           condition. As the Service's financial difficulties continued in
           2002, we concluded that the need for a comprehensive
           transformation of the Service was more urgent than ever. The
           Service's basic business model, which assumed that rising mail
           volume would cover rising costs and mitigate rate increases, was
           outmoded as mail volumes stagnated or deteriorated in an
           increasingly competitive environment. We called for Congress to
           act on comprehensive postal reform legislation.

           In our January 2003 high-risk report, we noted that the Service
           had made progress by issuing a Transformation Plan in April 2002
           and was beginning to implement the plan. However, no consensus had
           been reached on the Service's future, and we continued to have
           concerns about its financial outlook. Subsequently, the Service
           gained some financial breathing room primarily because legislation
           enacted in April 2003 reduced the Service's payments for its
           pension obligations, which allowed the Service to achieve record
           net income, repay debt, and delay rate increases until January
           2006. In addition, a presidential commission issued a report in
           July 2003 with a proposed future vision for the Service and
           recommendations to ensure the viability of postal services, and
           Congress considered proposed postal reform legislation.

           Since 2003, the Service has continued to make progress in
           addressing its financial and human capital challenges, it improved
           its financial reporting by instituting quarterly financial
           reports, and it updated its Transformation Plan in September 2005.
           At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Service had paid off its debt.
           In addition, as of the end of fiscal year 2006, it had achieved 7
           consecutive years of productivity gains, positive net income for
           fiscal years 2003 through 2006, more than $5 billion in cost
           savings since 2001, and it reduced its complement by 95,000 since
           2001. Also, in December 2006, the Service reached tentative
           compensation contract agreements, subject to ratification by union
           members, with three of its four major unions. Very importantly,
           significant progress was also made when Congress enacted
           comprehensive postal reform legislation in December 2006, which
           provides a framework for modernizing the Service's rate-setting
           processes and addresses the Service's long-term financial
           obligations by returning responsibility for employees' military
           pension benefits to the U.S. Treasury and establishing a mechanism
           for prefunding retiree health benefits.

           The Postal Service's management has demonstrated a commitment to
           implementing the Transformation Plan and addressing many of the
           financial and human capital challenges it faces. Also, the new
           postal reform legislation gives the Service additional pricing
           flexibility and allows it to retain earnings, which provide
           additional mechanisms to address continuing challenges related to
           the Service's increasingly competitive environment, given new and
           emerging technologies. These continuing challenges include (1)
           generating sufficient revenues as First-Class Mail volume declines
           and the changing mail mix provides less revenue contribution than
           First-Class Mail, (2) controlling costs as compensation and
           benefit costs rise, (3) continuing work-hour reductions while
           maintaining service, (4) optimizing its infrastructure and
           workforce to reduce costs and improve operational efficiency, and
           (5) providing reliable data to assess performance.

           Some of the Service's challenges relate to governmentwide
           challenges that remain on our high-risk list, such as strategic
           human capital management and managing federal real property. In
           the human capital area, the Service continues to faces challenges
           related to managing workforce changes due to retirements and
           network consolidations and implementing performance-based
           compensation systems. In the real property area, significant
           challenges remain related to how the Service is planning and
           implementing infrastructure realignment to reduce excess capacity
           as well as reflect changes in operations. Further challenges
           persist related to the Service's identification and disposal of
           excess property. We plan to closely monitor these challenges to
           ensure that they are addressed. We will also monitor the
           implementation of the postal reform legislation to determine how
           the results and impacts compare with legislative intentions.
			  
			  HUD Single-Family Mortgage Insurance and Rental Housing
			  Assistance Programs

           In 1994, we designated the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
           Development (HUD) as high risk because of fundamental management
           and organizational problems that put billions of dollars in
           insured mortgages and housing and community development assistance
           at risk. In 2001, we narrowed the high-risk designation to HUD's
           single-family mortgage insurance and rental housing assistance
           programs because progress was made overall, but significant and
           persistent problems in these two program areas remained.
           Consistent with this designation, four of the five material
           weaknesses cited in the audit report on HUD's fiscal year 2001
           financial statements related to these programs. Under these
           programs, HUD manages more than $400 billion in insured mortgages
           and annually spends about $30 billion to subsidize rents for
           lower-income households. To accomplish this, HUD relies on
           thousands of intermediaries, including lenders, appraisers,
           property management contractors, public housing agencies, and
           multifamily property owners. Historically, weaknesses in HUD's
           oversight of these entities have made the programs vulnerable to
           fraud, waste, and abuse. For example, in prior high-risk updates
           we noted that deficiencies in HUD's approval, monitoring, and
           enforcement efforts for lenders and appraisers increased the risk
           of insurance losses. In the rental assistance program area, we
           reported that problems with HUD's monitoring of public housing
           agencies and multifamily property owners contributed to billions
           of dollars in improper rent subsidy payments (i.e., payments that
           were too high or too low).

           In our January 2005 high-risk update, we reported that HUD had
           demonstrated commitment to and progress in addressing weaknesses
           in the two high-risk program areas but that some of HUD's
           corrective actions were in the early stages of implementation and
           additional steps were needed to resolve ongoing problems. For
           example, in the single-family mortgage insurance area, we reported
           that HUD had improved its oversight of lenders and appraisers and
           issued or proposed regulations to strengthen lender accountability
           and combat predatory lending practices. However, we also noted
           that HUD continued to grant loan underwriting authority to lenders
           that had not met the agency's performance standards, and that
           weaknesses in HUD's process for paying single-family property
           management contractors made the agency vulnerable to questionable
           and potentially fraudulent payments. In the rental housing
           assistance program area, we reported that HUD made progress in
           reducing improper rental assistance payments. However, we also
           noted that HUD had not fully implemented a critical part of its
           efforts to reduce improper rental assistance payments--the
           verification of tenant incomes using a Web-based data system--and
           it was uncertain whether the agency would be able to sustain the
           reductions it had already achieved. HUD had also made progress in
           ensuring that HUD-assisted housing met the agency's physical
           condition standards.

           Since 2005, HUD has continued to demonstrate a commitment to and
           capacity for resolving risks, develop corrective action plans,
           institute programs to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of
           corrective measures, and demonstrate progress in implementing
           corrective measures. For example, HUD has continued to take
           actions to address long-standing problems in its single-family
           mortgage insurance programs, and has addressed more recently
           identified problems. More specifically:

           o In accordance with our recommendations, HUD has made progress in
           implementing its corrective action plan for improving oversight of
           lenders. Specifically, HUD has developed and implemented new and
           clearer guidance for granting lenders underwriting authority. HUD
           has hired a contractor to review the implementation of the new
           guidance and plans to conduct additional monitoring through
           periodic internal reviews. Additionally, in 2005, HUD modified its
           system for rating the underwriting quality of loans in a way
           intended to focus more on underwriting errors that are likely to
           affect HUD's insurance risk.^3

           o HUD made substantial progress in implementing its corrective
           action plan to address weaknesses we identified in its process for
           paying single-family property management contractors.^4 For
           example, in response to our recommendations, HUD has developed a
           financial control manual that contains internal control procedures
           and policies, including strict documentation requirements, for HUD
           field staff to use in reviewing and approving payments. To ensure
           the effectiveness of these corrective measures, HUD retained an
           independent public accountant to periodically review the
           performance of the property managers and test HUD field offices
           for compliance with the internal control policies and procedures.

           o In September 2005, we reported that HUD consistently
           underestimated the subsidy costs for its single-family mortgage
           insurance program.^5 To more reliably estimate program costs, we
           recommended that HUD study and report in the annual actuarial
           review of its insurance fund the impact of variables not in the
           agency's loan performance models that have been found in other
           studies to influence credit risk. Consistent with our
           recommendation, a HUD contractor incorporated variables for
           down-payment assistance and borrower credit history into the
           actuarial review. According to HUD, the contractor will continue
           to improve the forecasting ability of the models as necessary
           using research and development funds provided for in the contract.
           The audit report on HUD's fiscal year 2006 financial statements
           eliminated the agency's only two outstanding material weaknesses
           because of the improvements HUD made to its process for estimating
           subsidy costs.

           o In an April 2006 report, we cited factors limiting the
           effectiveness of HUD's mortgage scorecard (an automated tool that
           evaluates the default risk of borrowers).^6 In response to our
           recommendations, HUD developed a policy and procedures manual that
           calls for annual (1) monitoring of the scorecard's ability to
           predict loan default, (2) testing of additional predictive
           variables to include in the scorecard, and (3) updating the
           scorecard with recent loan performance data.

           HUD has also taken actions to address the remaining problems in
           its rental housing assistance programs. For example:

           o HUD continued to reduce the amount of improper rent subsidies
           and exceeded goals set in The President's Management Agenda,
           Fiscal Year 2002. HUD's goal for fiscal year 2005 was to reduce
           improper rent subsidies by 50 percent, compared with fiscal year
           2000, when HUD paid an estimated $2.2 billion in improper
           subsidies. HUD exceeded this goal by reducing estimated improper
           subsidies to $925 million in fiscal year 2005, a decline of 58
           percent. Although the amount of improper subsidies is still
           sizable, because of this progress the audit report on HUD's fiscal
           year 2005 financial statements eliminated a long-standing material
           weakness related to oversight and monitoring of subsidy
           calculations. In accordance with the Improper Payments Information
           Act of 2002, HUD plans to continue monitoring the effectiveness of
           its corrective actions by making annual estimates of improper
           payments.

           o In 2006, HUD executed an important part of its plan for reducing
           improper rental assistance payments by implementing a Web-based
           system that provides public housing agencies with an efficient
           method for validating the incomes of families receiving
           assistance. This system, which HUD also plans to implement for
           multifamily property owners, utilizes a database containing wage,
           unemployment, and new hire information compiled by the Department
           of Health and Human Services. HUD expects that the system will
           avoid an estimated $6 billion in improper rent subsidies over 10
           years.

           o In response to our recommendations, HUD made on-site reviews of
           public housing agencies' compliance with policies for determining
           rent subsidies a permanent part of its oversight activities.^7
           Beginning in fiscal year 2006, HUD committed resources to review
           275 public housing agencies annually. HUD also developed and
           implemented a system designed to collect complete and consistent
           information from these reviews to help focus corrective actions
           where needed.

           o HUD has continued to monitor the physical condition of
           HUD-assisted housing, and its assessments indicate a substantial
           level of compliance with the agency's physical standards. HUD
           physical inspections showed that in fiscal years 2005 and 2006,
           about 94 percent of HUD-assisted properties had satisfactory
           inspection scores.

           In addition, HUD has made progress on human capital, acquisition
           management, and information technology issues that in previous
           years we cited as major management challenges contributing to
           HUD's high-risk designation. For example, consistent with our
           recommendations, in 2005 HUD finalized guidance for implementing a
           comprehensive strategic workforce plan that identifies the
           knowledge, skills, and abilities HUD needs and the actions that it
           plans to take to build its workforce for the future.^8 HUD also
           developed a new succession management plan to help ensure that the
           large number of staff expected to retire over the next several
           years are replaced with qualified employees. In the acquisition
           management area, HUD responded to our recommendations by
           developing guidance emphasizing the use of contract administration
           plans and a risk-based approach for overseeing the work of
           contractors.^9 Finally, HUD has made progress in its information
           technology by reducing the number of noncompliant financial
           management systems from 17 in 2003 to 2 in 2006.

           We are removing the high-risk designation from HUD's single-family
           mortgage insurance and rental housing assistance programs because
           of the agency's progress in addressing problems in these areas.
           However, it will be important for HUD to continue to place a high
           priority on efficient and effective management of these programs.
           Proposed program changes could introduce new risks and oversight
           challenges. More specifically, HUD has proposed changes to its
           single-family mortgage insurance program that would increase the
           size of the mortgages the agency could insure, give the agency
           flexibility to set insurance premiums based on the credit risk of
           borrowers, and reduce down-payment requirements from the current 3
           percent to potentially zero. However, to implement this
           legislative proposal, HUD would have to manage new risks and
           accurately estimate the costs of program changes. The
           administration has also made legislative proposals to replace
           HUD's largest rental housing assistance program (the Housing
           Choice Voucher program) with a broader-purpose grant program.
           While such proposals could help control rental subsidy costs and
           increase administrative flexibility for public housing agencies,
           they also could complicate HUD's oversight efforts by eliminating
           the uniformity of the current program.
			  
			  New High-Risk Areas

           GAO's use of the high-risk designation to draw attention to the
           challenges associated with the economy, efficiency, and
           effectiveness of government programs and operations in need of
           broad-based transformation has led to important progress. We will
           also continue to identify high-risk areas based on the more
           traditional focus on fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Our
           focus will continue to be on identifying the root causes behind
           vulnerabilities, as well as actions needed on the part of the
           agencies involved and, if appropriate, Congress.

           For 2007, we have designated the following three new areas as high
           risk: financing the nation's transportation system, ensuring the
           effective protection of technologies critical to U.S. national
           security interests, and transforming federal oversight of food
           safety.
			  
			  Financing the Nationï¿½s Transportation System

           The nation's economic vitality and its citizens' quality of life
           depend significantly on the efficiency of its transportation
           infrastructure. This efficiency is threatened by increasing
           congestion. For example, travel on roads is expected to increase
           by about 25 percent from 2000 to 2010, freight traffic is expected
           to increase by 43 percent from 1998 to 2010, and air traffic is
           expected to triple by 2025. As congestion increases, the federal
           government faces the challenge of providing funds to help maintain
           and expand the nation's transportation system and ensuring that
           these funds are used efficiently. However, revenues from
           traditional funding mechanisms may not keep pace with demand.
           Furthermore, the nation's long-term fiscal challenges limit the
           ability of decision makers to look to other revenue sources that
           are currently funding security and other vital needs, raising
           questions about the ability of federal programs to provide the
           robust growth that many transportation advocates believe is
           required to meet the nation's mobility needs. Compounding these
           funding constraints is the absence of a link between federal grant
           funding levels and specific performance-related goals and
           outcomes, resulting in little assurance that federal funding is
           being channeled to the nation's most critical mobility needs. In
           addition, federal funding is often tied to a single transportation
           mode, which may limit the use of federal funds to finance the
           greatest improvements in mobility.

           Revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund--the major source of
           federal highway and transit funding--are eroding. Receipts for the
           Highway Trust Fund, which are derived from motor fuel and
           truck-related taxes (on truck and trailer sales, truck tires, and
           heavy-vehicle use) are continuing to grow. However, the federal
           motor fuel tax rate of 18.4 cents per gallon has not been
           increased since 1993, and thus the purchasing power of fuel tax
           revenues has eroded with inflation. Furthermore, that erosion will
           continue with the introduction of more fuel-efficient vehicles and
           alternative-fueled vehicles in the coming years, raising the
           question of whether fuel taxes are a sustainable source for
           financing transportation. In addition, funding authorized in the
           recently enacted highway and transit program legislation is
           expected to outstrip the growth in trust fund receipts. As a
           result, the Department of the Treasury and the Congressional
           Budget Office are forecasting that the trust fund balance will
           steadily decline and reach a negative balance by the end of fiscal
           year 2011. (See fig. 1.) On a positive note, the 2005
           reauthorization of the trust fund and its related programs
           established a commission--chaired by the Secretary of
           Transportation and which will report later this year--to recommend
           approaches for placing the trust fund on a sustainable path.

           Figure 1: Current Highway Trust Fund Year-End Balance Forecasts

           In the face of these constraints, state and local governments are
           pursuing alternative mechanisms that have the potential to meet
           mobility and financing needs and help decision makers carry out
           and grow their surface transportation programs. For example, many
           states are pursuing tolling projects that have the promise to
           raise revenues, improve capital investment decisions by better
           targeting spending for new capacity, and enhance private-sector
           investment in public infrastructure. Tolls that vary according to
           the level of congestion (called congestion or value pricing) can
           maintain a predetermined level of service, create incentives for
           drivers to avoid driving alone in congested conditions, and
           encourage drivers to use public transportation or travel at less
           congested times. One state, Oregon, is studying the technical
           feasibility of replacing its motor fuel tax with a per-mile user
           fee.

           Intercity passenger rail service is also at a critical juncture.
           The existing intercity passenger rail system is in poor financial
           condition, and the federal funds provided for it are not targeted
           to the greatest public benefits, such as transportation congestion
           relief. The current service provider (Amtrak) continues to rely
           heavily on federal subsidies--over $1 billion annually in recent
           years--and will require billions more to address deferred
           maintenance and achieve a "state of good repair."^10 This current
           crisis is not unusual; Amtrak has struggled to become financially
           solvent since its inception. We have recommended that Congress
           consider restructuring the nation's intercity passenger rail
           system, which would entail establishing clear goals for the
           system, defining the roles of key stakeholders (including the
           federal government), and developing funding mechanisms that
           include cost sharing between the federal government and other
           beneficiaries.

           The freight railroad industry is projected to grow substantially
           with expected increases in freight traffic, but the industry's
           ability to fund this projected growth is largely uncertain. For
           private companies seeking to maximize returns for shareholders,
           railroad investment poses a substantial risk. But railroad
           investment is critical to freight mobility and economic growth,
           and investments in rail projects can produce public benefits, such
           as reducing highway congestion, strengthening intermodal
           connections and the efficiency of the publicly owned
           transportation system, and enhancing public safety and the
           environment. As a result, the federal and state governments have
           increasingly invested public funds in freight rail projects, such
           as the $100 million that Congress provided in 2005 for rail
           infrastructure improvements in the Chicago area. In the years
           ahead, Congress is likely to receive further requests for funding
           and face additional decisions about potential federal policy
           responses and the federal role in the nation's freight railroad
           infrastructure. In the highly constrained federal funding
           environment, such policy responses need to recognize that the
           freight transportation system functions in a competitive
           marketplace, calling for a mode-neutral approach. Currently, as we
           have reported, the trucking and barge industries have a
           competitive price advantage over railroads because trucks and
           barges use infrastructure that is owned and maintained by the
           government, whereas rail companies use infrastructure that they
           pay to own and maintain.^11 In addition, decision makers will be
           challenged to make investment decisions that reflect public
           priorities and are designed to achieve demonstrable, wide-ranging
           public benefits that warrant the commitment of scarce federal
           funds.

           Federal aviation programs are also facing growing infrastructure
           demands and constrained resources. To meet the anticipated
           increases in commercial aviation travel, the Federal Aviation
           Administration (FAA) and aviation stakeholders are developing the
           "next-generation air transportation system" (NGATS) to modernize
           the nation's air traffic control (ATC) infrastructure and increase
           capacity. This effort is complex and costly: Under one scenario
           that includes a limited, preliminary cost estimate for NGATS,
           FAA's budget would, on average, exceed FAA's fiscal year 2006
           appropriation level by about $1 billion a year (in today's
           dollars) through 2025. FAA and some stakeholders have raised
           doubts about the ability of the current funding system--the
           Aviation Trust Fund--to generate revenues to meet these budgetary
           needs equitably and efficiently over time. Specifically, FAA and
           some stakeholders are concerned that as FAA's workload (and,
           therefore, costs) rises, there will be no corresponding increase
           in its revenues because of the greater use of smaller aircraft and
           a decline in inflation-adjusted airfares. Trends in these data
           provide support for these concerns. While FAA has a history of
           cost control problems associated with ATC modernization, it has
           made a number of important management improvements. However,
           questions remain about FAA's ability to manage the transition to
           NGATS cost-effectively. However, failing to meet these
           infrastructure challenges in aviation may have significant
           consequences, since aviation is an integral part of the economy.
           FAA is expected to release its proposal to reform the current
           funding system within the next few months.

           Given the common challenges spanning the nation's transportation
           infrastructure, Congress and, for some issues, the Department of
           Transportation should reassess the following issues for all
           transportation modes to better position the federal government to
           address these challenges:
			  
			  Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to
			  U.S. National Security Interests

           U.S. military strategy is premised on technological superiority on
           the battlefield. The Department of Defense spends billions of
           dollars each year for the development and production of high
           technology weaponry to maintain superiority. These weapons and
           militarily useful technologies are sold overseas by U.S. companies
           for economic reasons and by the U.S. government for foreign
           policy, security, and economic reasons. Yet, the technologies that
           underpin U.S. military and economic strength continue to be
           targets for theft, espionage, reverse engineering, and illegal
           export. At the same time, the programs the U.S. government has in
           place to protect critical technologies by weighing competing and
           sometimes conflicting national security, foreign policy, and
           economic interests have long been criticized by industry and
           allies for their inability to adapt to a changing world
           environment and their lack of efficiency.

           The U.S. government has a myriad of laws, regulations, policies,
           and processes intended to identify and protect critical
           technologies so they can be transferred to foreign parties in a
           manner consistent with U.S. interests. The government's technology
           protection programs include those that regulate U.S.
           defense-related exports and investigate proposed foreign
           acquisitions of U.S. national security-related companies. (See
           table 4.) Responsibility for administering or overseeing the
           different programs is divided among multiple federal agencies and
           several congressional committees. However, in the decades since
           these programs were put in place, significant forces have
           heightened the U.S. government's challenge of weighing security
           concerns with the desire to reap economic benefits. Most notably,
           in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks, the
           threats facing the nation have been redefined. In addition, the
           economy has become increasingly globalized as countries open their
           markets and the pace of technological innovation has quickened
           worldwide. Government programs established decades ago to protect
           critical technologies are ill-equipped to weigh competing U.S.
           interests as these forces continue to evolve in the 21st century.
           Accordingly, we are designating the effective identification and
           protection of critical technologies as a governmentwide high-risk
           area, which warrants a strategic re-examination of existing
           programs to identify needed changes and ensure the advancement of
           U.S. interests.

                        1. the appropriate federal role and strategy in
                        funding, selecting, and evaluating transportation
                        investments;
                        2. mechanisms to seek alternative sources of revenues
                        and, where appropriate, to increase revenues for
                        infrastructure improvements, including user fees and
                        alternatives to stimulate private investment, while
                        considering their impact on the federal budget; and
                        3. funding allocation and monitoring methods to
                        ensure the equity, efficiency, accountability, and
                        performance of transportation investments.

^2GAO, Determining Performance and Accountability Challenges and High
Risks, [13]GAO-01-159SP (Washington, D.C.: November 2000).

^3GAO, Single-Family Housing: Progress Made, but Opportunities Exist to
Improve HUD's Oversight of FHA Lenders, [14]GAO-05-13 (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 12, 2004).

^4GAO, HUD Single-Family and Multifamily Property Programs: Inadequate
Controls Resulted in Questionable Payments and Potential Fraud,
[15]GAO-04-390 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 2004).

^5GAO, Mortgage Financing: FHA's $7 Billion Reestimate Reflects Higher
Claims and Changing Loan Performance Estimates, [16]GAO-05-875
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2, 2005).

^6GAO, Mortgage Financing: HUD Could Realize Additional Benefits from Its
Mortgage Scorecard, [17]GAO-06-435 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2006).

^7GAO, HUD Rental Assistance: Progress and Challenges in Measuring and
Reducing Improper Rent Subsidies, [18]GAO-05-224 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
18, 2005).

^8GAO, HUD Human Capital Management: Comprehensive Strategic Workforce
Planning Needed, [19]GAO-02-839 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2002).

^9GAO, HUD Management: Actions Needed to Improve Acquisition Management,
[20]GAO-03-157 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2002).

^10"State of good repair" is the outcome expected from the capital
investment needed to restore Amtrak's right-of-way (track, signals, and
auxiliary structures), other infrastructure (e.g., stations), and
equipment to a condition that requires only routine maintenance.

^11As we have reported, the trucking and barge industries pay fees and
taxes to use this government-funded infrastructure, but their payments
generally do not cover the costs they impose on highways and waterways.

Table 4: U.S. Government Programs for the Identification and Protection of
Critical Technologies

Program          Agencies          Program's purpose     Legal authority   
Dual-Use Export  Commerce (lead),  Regulate export of    Export            
Control System   State, Central    dual-use items by     Administration    
                    Intelligence      U.S. companies after  Act of 1979       
                    Agency, Defense,  weighing economic,                      
                    Energy, Homeland  national security,                      
                    Security, and     and foreign policy                      
                    Justice           interests                               
Arms Export      State (lead),     Regulate export of    Arms Export       
Control System   Defense, Homeland arms by U.S.          Control Act of    
                    Security, and     companies, giving     1976              
                    Justice           primacy to national                     
                                      security and foreign                    
                                      policy concerns                         
Foreign Military State and Defense Provide foreign       Arms Export       
Sales Program    (leads), Homeland governments with U.S. Control Act of    
                    Security          defense articles and  1976              
                                      services to help                        
                                      promote                                 
                                      interoperability                        
                                      while lowering the                      
                                      unit costs of weapon                    
                                      systems                                 
National         State, Defense,   Determine the         National Security 
Disclosure       and intelligence  releasibility of      Decision          
Policy Process   community         classified military   Memorandum 119 of 
                                      information,          1971              
                                      including classified                    
                                      weapons and military                    
                                      technologies, to                        
                                      foreign governments                     
Committee on     Treasury (lead),  Investigate the       Exon-Florio       
Foreign          Commerce,         impact of foreign     Amendment of 1988 
Investment in    Defense, Homeland acquisitions on       to the Defense    
the United       Security,         national security and Production Act of 
States (CFIUS)   Justice, State,   to suspend or         1950              
                    and six offices   prohibit acquisitions                   
                    from the          that might threaten                     
                    Executive Office  national security                       
                    of the President                                          
National         Defense (lead),   Ensure that           Executive Order   
Industrial       applicable to     contractors           No. 12829 of 1993 
Security Program other departments (including those                        
                    and agencies      under foreign                           
                                      influence, control,                     
                                      or ownership)                           
                                      appropriately                           
                                      safeguard classified                    
                                      information in their                    
                                      possession                              
Anti-Tamper      Defense           Establish anti-tamper Defense Policy    
Policy                             techniques on weapons Memorandum, 1999  
                                      systems when                            
                                      warranted as a method                   
                                      to protect critical                     
                                      technologies on these                   
                                      systems                                 
Militarily       Defense           Identify and assess   Export            
Critical                           technologies that are Administration    
Technologies                       critical for          Act of 1979       
Program                            retaining U.S.                          
                                      military dominance                      

Sources: GAO (analysis); cited legal authorities (data).

Over the years, we have identified weaknesses in the effectiveness and
efficiency of government programs designed to protect critical
technologies while advancing U.S. interests. While each program has its
own set of challenges, we found that these weaknesses are largely
attributable to poor coordination within complex interagency processes,
inefficiencies in program operations, and a lack of systematic evaluations
for assessing program effectiveness and identifying corrective actions.
The impacts of these weaknesses are not always visible or immediate but,
as we have reported, increase the risk of military gains by entities with
interests contrary to those of the United States and of financial harm to
U.S. companies. Others, including the Office of the National
Counterintelligence Executive, congressional committees, and inspectors
general, have also reported on vulnerabilities in these programs and the
resulting harm--both actual and potential--to U.S. security and economic
interests.

Several of the programs designed to protect critical technologies are
inherently complex. Multiple departments and agencies representing various
interests, which at times can be competing and even divergent, participate
in decisions about the control and protection of critical U.S.
technologies. However, as exemplified below, poor coordination and
fundamental disagreements among the departments have had unintended
consequences for both national security and economic interests.

           o Commerce and State have yet to clearly determine which
           department controls the export of certain missile technology
           items, which increases the risk that these items will fall into
           the wrong hands or creates an unlevel playing field for U.S.
           companies.^12 Since Commerce and State have different restrictions
           on these items, it is important that they define who controls the
           items. Otherwise, the exporter--not the government--is left to
           determine which restrictions apply and the type of governmental
           review.

           o The departments participating in the Committee on Foreign
           Investment in the United States (CFIUS) lack a coordinated
           approach for defining what constitutes a threat to national
           security and what warrants an investigation to ensure that the
           risk of foreign ownership is mitigated.^13 This lack of agreement
           among the members, which limits CFIUS's analyses of proposed and
           completed foreign acquisitions, has been intensified by continued
           economic globalization and by increasingly diffuse threats. Some
           CFIUS members have argued that taking a more traditional and
           narrow view of what constitutes a national security threat can
           limit the protection of critical infrastructure or the
           preservation of technological superiority in the defense arena.
           Recently, member agencies indicated a need for changes to the
           process and some are currently under way.

           o Within Defense, the military services and programs have
           different interpretations of what constitutes military critical
           technologies, which can result in different conclusions about what
           technologies need protection through the application of
           anti-tamper techniques.^14 Defense does not coordinate or oversee
           how the services and programs identify critical technologies
           needing anti-tamper protection. This creates the vulnerability of
           having the same technology protected on one weapon system but not
           on another, thereby exposing both systems to exploitation and
           compromise.

           While government officials responsible for administering the
           programs designed to protect critical technologies may
           appropriately take time to make decisions as they consider the
           multiple interests involved, inefficiencies in the various
           programs have created unnecessary delays in sharing critical
           technologies with allies.

           o Although State has implemented a series of initiatives primarily
           designed to expedite the processing of arms export licenses, we
           found that these initiatives have generally not been
           successful.^15 Most notably, the department designated the
           processing of license applications in support of Operations Iraqi
           Freedom and Enduring Freedom its top priority and established an
           expedited process for reviewing those applications. However, only
           19 percent of the applications submitted through the expedited
           process for these operations were processed within the goals set
           by the department.^16 These included applications for protective
           body armor for U.S. and coalition forces and aircraft defensive
           systems.

           The departments charged with protecting critical technologies have
           not systematically evaluated their respective programs to
           determine whether they are fulfilling their missions in a changing
           environment and whether corrective actions are needed.

           o Given its lack of systematic evaluations, Commerce cannot
           readily identify weaknesses in the dual-use export control system
           or implement needed corrective measures that allow U.S. companies
           to compete in the global marketplace while minimizing the risk to
           other U.S. interests.^17 As we and the Office of Management and
           Budget have reported, Commerce has not established performance
           measures that provide a basis for assessing the effectiveness of
           the dual-use export control system. Instead, Commerce relies on
           narrow measures related to the efficiencies of its processes and
           anecdotal indications to gauge how well the system is functioning.

           o After the September 2001 terrorist attacks, State did not make
           fundamental or significant changes to the arms export control
           system, its objectives, or implementing regulations.^18 State
           officials maintained that such changes are not needed because they
           regard the system as effective in keeping U.S. defense items out
           of enemy hands while ensuring that allies can obtain needed arms.
           However, State's conclusions regarding the system appear without
           basis because State has not provided evidence that it
           systematically assessed the effectiveness of its controls or major
           initiatives that were intended to facilitate sales to allies.
           Further, our reports have documented weaknesses and challenges
           over the years that point to vulnerabilities in the arms export
           control system and its ability to protect U.S. interests.

           o Defense cannot provide assurances that its oversight of foreign
           owned or influenced contractors is sufficient to reduce the risk
           of foreign interests gaining unauthorized access to U.S.
           classified information.^19 Specifically, Defense does not
           systematically collect information to know if contractors are
           reporting certain business transactions, which would enable
           Defense to know when a contractor has come under foreign influence
           and determine what protective measures may be needed to reduce the
           risk of information compromise. For example, one foreign-owned
           contractor appeared to have had access to U.S. classified
           information for at least 6 months before a protective measure was
           implemented. Moreover, Defense neither centrally collects
           information to determine the magnitude of contractors under
           foreign influence nor assesses the effectiveness of its oversight
           so it can identify weaknesses in its protective measures and make
           necessary adjustments.

           We have recommended numerous corrective actions to address these
           weaknesses and inefficiencies, but the departments involved have
           not implemented many of the recommendations that address the most
           fundamental problems affecting the protection of critical
           technologies and the advancement of U.S. interests. Legislation
           has been introduced to modify or reform aspects of the programs
           for protecting critical technologies. For example, legislation was
           introduced in the 109th Congress to reauthorize the Export
           Administration Act.^20 Also, the House of Representatives passed
           legislation in 2005 to create an interagency strategic export
           control board charged with conducting a comprehensive evaluation
           of U.S. export controls and developing recommendations for
           consolidating export control functions. In addition, the House and
           Senate passed two different bills in the last Congress, and new
           legislation has recently been introduced in the House to reform
           CFIUS and its approach to evaluating proposed foreign
           acquisitions. However, to date, legislation has not been enacted
           to overhaul these programs and executive action has not resulted
           in fundamental changes to these programs.

           Implementation of our outstanding recommendations should be an
           interim step in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
           existing government programs intended to identify and protect
           critical technologies. However, further actions are needed. The
           executive and legislative branches need to re-examine the current
           government programs to determine whether and how they can
           collectively achieve their mission and evaluate alternative
           approaches. The results of these efforts should provide the basis
           for establishing a comprehensive framework with clear
           responsibilities and accountability for identifying and protecting
           critical technologies as global forces continue to reshape U.S.
           national security and economic interests.
			  
			  Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety

           This nation enjoys a plentiful and varied food supply that is
           generally considered to be safe. However, the patchwork nature of
           the federal oversight of food safety calls into question whether
           the government can plan more strategically to inspect food
           production processes, identify and react more quickly to any
           outbreaks of contaminated food, and focus on achieving results to
           promote the safety and integrity of the nation's food supply. This
           challenge is even more urgent since the terrorist attacks of
           September 11, 2001, heightened awareness of agriculture's
           vulnerabilities to terrorism, such as the deliberate contamination
           of food or the introduction of disease to livestock, poultry, and
           crops. Over several years, we have reported on issues that suggest
           that food safety could be designated as a high-risk area because
           of the need for transforming the federal oversight framework to
           reduce risks to public health as well as the economy.

           Either an accidental or deliberate contamination of food or the
           introduction of disease to livestock, poultry, and crops could
           undermine consumer confidence in the government's ability to
           ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply, as well as cause severe
           economic consequences. Each year, about 76 million people contract
           a food-borne illness in the United States; about 325,000 require
           hospitalization; and about 5,000 die, according to the Centers for
           Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, agriculture, as the
           largest industry and employer in the United States, generates more
           than $1 trillion in economic activity annually, or about 13
           percent of the gross domestic product. The value of U.S.
           agricultural exports exceeded $68 billion in fiscal year 2006. An
           introduction of a highly infectious foreign animal disease, such
           as avian influenza or foot-and-mouth disease, would cause severe
           economic disruption, including substantial losses from halted
           exports. Similarly, food contamination, such as the recent E. coli
           outbreaks, can have a detrimental impact on local economies. For
           example, industry representatives estimate losses from the recent
           California spinach E. coli outbreak to range from $37 million to
           $74 million.

           A challenge for the 21st century is how several federal agencies
           can integrate the myriad food safety programs and strategically
           manage their portfolios to promote the safety and integrity of the
           nation's food supply.^21 In numerous previous reports, we have
           described the fragmented federal food safety system in which 15
           agencies collectively administer at least 30 laws related to food
           safety. The two primary agencies are the U.S. Department of
           Agriculture (USDA), which is responsible for the safety of meat,
           poultry, and processed egg products and the Food and Drug
           Administration (FDA), which is responsible for virtually all other
           foods. Among other agencies with responsibilities related to food
           safety, the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Department of
           Commerce conducts voluntary, fee-for-service inspections of
           seafood safety and quality; the Environmental Protection Agency
           (EPA) regulates the use of pesticides and maximum allowable
           residue levels on food commodities and animal feed; and the
           Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for
           coordinating agencies' food security activities.

           The food safety system is further complicated by the subtle
           differences in food products that dictate which agency regulates a
           product as well as the frequency with which inspections occur. For
           example, how a packaged ham-and-cheese sandwich is regulated
           depends on how the sandwich is presented. USDA inspects
           manufacturers of packaged open-face meat or poultry sandwiches
           (e.g., those with one slice of bread), but FDA inspects
           manufacturers of packaged closed-face meat or poultry sandwiches
           (e.g., those with two slices of bread). Although there are no
           differences in the risks posed by these products, USDA inspects
           wholesale manufacturers of open-face sandwiches sold in interstate
           commerce daily, while FDA inspects closed-face sandwiches an
           average of once every 5 years.

           This federal regulatory system for food safety evolved piecemeal,
           typically in response to particular health threats or economic
           crises. During the past 30 years, we have detailed problems with
           the fragmented federal food safety system and reported that the
           system has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective
           coordination, and inefficient use of resources. Our most recent
           work demonstrates that these challenges persist. Specifically:

           o Existing statutes give agencies different regulatory and
           enforcement authorities. For example, food products under FDA's
           jurisdiction may be marketed without the agency's prior approval.
           On the other hand, food products under USDA's jurisdiction must
           generally be inspected and approved as meeting federal standards
           before being sold to the public. Under current law, USDA
           inspectors maintain continuous inspection at slaughter facilities
           and examine each slaughtered meat and poultry carcass. They also
           visit each processing facility at least once during each operating
           day. For foods under FDA's jurisdiction, however, federal law does
           not mandate the frequency of inspections.^22

           o We reported that federal agencies are spending resources on
           overlapping food safety activities.^23 USDA and FDA both inspect
           shipments of imported food at 18 U.S. ports-of-entry. However,
           these two agencies do not share inspection resources at these
           ports. For example, USDA officials told us that all USDA-import
           inspectors are assigned to and located at USDA-approved import
           inspection facilities and some of these facilities handle and
           store FDA-regulated products. USDA has no jurisdiction over these
           FDA-regulated products. Although USDA maintains a daily presence
           at these facilities, the FDA-regulated products may remain at the
           facilities for some time awaiting FDA inspection. In fiscal year
           2003, USDA spent almost $16 million on imported food inspections,
           and FDA spent more than $115 million.

           o Food recalls are voluntary and federal agencies responsible for
           food safety have no authority to compel companies to carry out
           recalls--with the exception of FDA's authority to require a recall
           for infant formula. USDA and FDA provide guidance to companies for
           carrying out voluntary recalls. We reported that USDA and FDA can
           do a better job in carrying out their food recall programs so they
           can quickly remove potentially unsafe food from the
           marketplace.^24 These agencies do not know how promptly and
           completely companies are carrying out recalls, do not promptly
           verify that recalls have reached all segments of the distribution
           chain, and use procedures to alert consumers to a recall that may
           not be effective.

           o The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have heightened
           concerns about agriculture's vulnerability to terrorism. The
           Homeland Security Act of 2002 assigned DHS the lead coordination
           responsibility for protecting the nation against terrorist
           attacks, including agroterrorism. Subsequent presidential
           directives further define agencies' specific roles in protecting
           agriculture and the food system against terrorist attacks. We
           reported that in carrying out these new responsibilities, agencies
           have taken steps to better manage the risks of agroterrorism,
           including developing national plans and adopting standard
           protocols.^25 However, we also found several management problems
           that can reduce the effectiveness of the agencies' routine efforts
           to protect against agroterrorism. For example, there are
           weaknesses in the flow of critical information among key
           stakeholders and shortcomings in DHS's coordination of federal
           working groups and research efforts.

           o In response to the nation's pressing fiscal challenges, agencies
           may have to explore new approaches to achieve their missions. FDA
           is responsible for ensuring the safety of seafood. More than 80
           percent of the seafood that Americans consume is imported. We
           reported in 2001 that FDA's seafood inspection program did not
           sufficiently protect consumers.^26 For example, FDA tested about 1
           percent of imported seafood products. We subsequently found that
           FDA's program has shown some improvement. More foreign firms are
           inspected, and inspections show that more U.S. seafood importers
           are complying with its requirements.^27 Given FDA officials'
           concerns about limited inspection resources, we also identified
           options, such as using personnel in the National Oceanic and
           Atmospheric Administration's Seafood Inspection Program to augment
           FDA's inspection capacity or state regulatory laboratories for
           analyzing imported seafood. FDA agreed with these options.

           o We reported that in fiscal year 2003, four agencies--USDA, FDA,
           EPA, and the National Marine Fisheries Service--spent $1.7 billion
           on food safety-related activities.^28 USDA and FDA together were
           responsible for nearly 90 percent of federal expenditures for food
           safety. However, these expenditures were not based on the volume
           of foods regulated by the agencies or consumed by the public. The
           majority of federal expenditures for food safety inspection were
           directed toward USDA's programs for ensuring the safety of meat,
           poultry, and egg products; however, USDA is responsible for
           regulating about 20 percent of the food supply. In contrast, FDA,
           which is responsible for regulating about 80 percent of the food
           supply, accounted for only about 24 percent of expenditures.

           Others have called for fundamental changes to the federal food
           safety system overall. In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences
           concluded that the system is not well equipped to meet emerging
           challenges.^29 In response to the academy's report, the President
           established a Council on Food Safety which released a Food Safety
           Strategic Plan in January 2001. The plan recognized the need for a
           comprehensive food safety statute and concluded "the current
           organizational structure makes it more difficult to achieve future
           improvements in efficiency, efficacy, and allocation of resources
           based on risk."

           While many of the recommendations we made have been acted upon, a
           fundamental re-examination of the federal food safety system is
           warranted. Taken as a whole, our work indicates that Congress and
           the executive branch can and should create the environment needed
           to look across the activities of individual programs within
           specific agencies and toward the goals that the federal government
           is trying to achieve. To that end, we have recommended, among
           other things, that Congress enact comprehensive, uniform, and
           risk-based food safety legislation and commission the National
           Academy of Sciences or a blue ribbon panel to conduct a detailed
           analysis of alternative organizational food safety structures.^30
           We have also recommended that the executive branch reconvene the
           President's Council on Food Safety to facilitate interagency
           coordination on food safety regulation and programs.

           These actions can begin to address the fragmentation in the
           federal oversight of food safety. Going forward, to build a
           sustained focus on the safety and the integrity of the nation's
           food supply, Congress and the executive branch can integrate
           various expectations for food safety with congressional oversight
           and through agencies' strategic planning processes. The
           development of a governmentwide performance plan that is
           mission-based, has a results-orientation, and provides a
           cross-agency perspective offers a framework to help ensure
           agencies' goals are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
           Further, with pressing fiscal challenges, this plan can assist
           decision makers in balancing trade-offs and comparing performance
           when resource allocation and restructuring decisions are made.
			  
^12GAO, Export Controls: Clarification of Jurisdiction for Missile
Technology Items Needed, [307]GAO-02-120 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 9, 2001);
and Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce's Dual-Use System Needed to
Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11 Environment,
[308]GAO-06-638 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2006).

^13GAO, Defense Trade: Enhancements to the Implementation of Exon-Florio
Could Strengthen the Law's Effectiveness, [309]GAO-05-686 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005).

^14GAO, Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Better Support Program
Managers' Implementation of Anti-Tamper Protection, [310]GAO-04-302
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2004).

^15GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11
Environment, [311]GAO-05-234 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005); and
Defense Trade: Arms Export Control Vulnerabilities and Inefficiencies in
the Post-9/11 Security Environment, [312]GAO-05-468R (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 7, 2005).

^16This covers license applications processed between October 1, 2001, and
April 30, 2004.

^17GAO, Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce's Dual-Use System Needed
to Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11 Environment,
[313]GAO-06-638 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2006).

^18GAO, Defense Trade: Arms Export Control Vulnerabilities and
Inefficiencies in the Post-9/11 Security Environment, [314]GAO-05-468R
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2005).

^19GAO, Industrial Security: DOD Cannot Ensure Its Oversight of
Contractors under Foreign Influence Is Sufficient, [315]GAO-05-681
(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2005).

^20The Export Administration Act is not permanent legislation. When the
authority granted under the act lapsed in 2001, the controls established
under the act and the implementing regulations were continued under
Executive Order 13222, which was issued under the authority provided by
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

^21GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [316]GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.: February 2005).

^22GAO, Overseeing the U.S. Food Supply: Steps Should Be Taken to Reduce
Overlapping Inspections and Related Activities, [317]GAO-05-549T
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004).

^23GAO, Oversight of Food Safety Activities: Federal Agencies Should
Pursue Opportunities to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage Resources,
[318]GAO-05-213 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2005).

^24GAO, Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and
Complete Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food, [319]GAO-05-51 (Washington,
D.C.: Oct. 6, 2004).

^25GAO, Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from
a Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain, [320]GAO-05-214
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2005).

^26GAO, Food Safety: Federal Oversight of Seafood Does Not Sufficiently
Protect Consumers, [321]GAO-01-204 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2001).

^27GAO, Food Safety: FDA's Imported Seafood Safety Program Shows Some
Progress, but Further Improvements Are Needed, [322]GAO-04-246
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).

^28GAO, Overseeing the U.S. Food Supply: Steps Should Be Taken to Reduce
Overlapping Inspections and Related Activities, [323]GAO-05-549T
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005).

^29Institute of Medicine, Ensuring Safe Food from Production to
Consumption, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

^30GAO, Food Safety and Security: Fundamental Changes Needed to Ensure
Safe Food, [324]GAO-02-47T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 10, 2001).
			  
			  Progress Being Made in Other High-Risk Areas

           For other areas that remain on our 2007 high-risk list, there has
           been important but varying levels of progress, although not yet
           enough progress to remove these areas from the list. Top
           administration officials have expressed their commitment to
           ensuring that high-risk areas receive adequate attention and
           oversight. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has led an
           initiative to prompt agencies to develop detailed action plans for
           each area on our high-risk list. These plans are to identify
           specific goals and milestones that address and reduce the risks
           identified by us within each high-risk area. Further, OMB has
           encouraged agencies to consult with us regarding the problems our
           past work has identified, and the many recommendations for
           corrective actions we have made. While progress on developing and
           implementing plans has been mixed, such a concerted effort by
           agencies and ongoing attention by OMB are critical; our experience
           over the past 17 years has shown that perseverance is required to
           fully resolve high-risk areas. Congress, too, will continue to
           play an important role through its oversight and, where
           appropriate, through legislative action targeting both specific
           problems and the high-risk areas overall.

           Examples of progress in other programs or operations that were
           previously designated as high risk are discussed below and in the
           highlights pages that follow this section.

           o The Department of Health and Human Services and its Centers for
           Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) have made some progress to
           improve the fiscal integrity and oversight of the Medicaid
           program, which was designated high risk in 2003. For example, CMS
           has taken steps to improve its oversight of certain Medicaid
           financial management activities, including efforts to oversee
           states' financing methods. It also issued a comprehensive 5-year
           plan in July 2006 that outlined initial activities planned for
           implementing the Medicaid Integrity Program required by the
           Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. However, several oversight
           weaknesses previously identified by us have not yet been
           addressed. For example, CMS has not incorporated the use of key
           Medicaid data systems into its oversight of states' Medicaid
           claims, or clarified and communicated its policies in several
           high-risk areas, such as supplemental payment arrangements and
           administrative costs. The results of CMS's actions will need to be
           assessed to determine their effectiveness in improving the
           program's fiscal integrity, and more action is needed before the
           program's high-risk designation can be removed.

           o Regarding the Medicare program, the Centers for Medicare &
           Medicaid Services (CMS) has made some progress in the last 2 years
           in reforming and refining payment methods, enhancing program
           integrity, improving program management, and overseeing patient
           safety and care. For example, CMS is improving how it sets or
           updates rates for hospital services, durable medical equipment,
           and certain drugs and devices supplied in medical facilities.
           Medicare's most recent estimate of its national rate of improper
           payments was 4.4 percent--the lowest since measurement began in
           1996. Nevertheless, Medicare's size, complexity, and vulnerability
           to mismanagement and improper payments suggest that its high-risk
           designation cannot be removed. For example, GAO found weaknesses
           in CMS's information security controls that could make sensitive,
           personally identifiable medical information vulnerable to
           unauthorized access. Similarly, call centers sponsored by the
           agency or private drug plans fell short in providing accurate and
           complete information to callers inquiring about the new
           prescription drug benefit.

           o The administration and real property-holding agencies have made
           progress toward strategically managing federal real property. In
           response to both an executive order aimed at improving real
           property management and the President's Management Agenda
           initiative on real property, agencies have, among other things,
           established asset management plans, standardized data reporting,
           and adopted performance measures. Also, the administration has
           created a Federal Real Property Council and plans to work with
           Congress to provide agencies with tools to better manage real
           property. These actions have addressed our prior concern that a
           strategic governmentwide focus on solving the problems was
           lacking, but the underlying conditions that led to the high-risk
           designation continue to exist.

           o Since the 2005 high-risk update, the Department of Homeland
           Security (DHS) has made progress in addressing major
           transformation, management, and program challenges, which prior
           GAO work has identified as key to successfully transforming 22
           agencies into one department and effectively carrying out its
           homeland security and other missions. DHS has produced a strategic
           plan that contains most elements required by the Government
           Performance and Results Act and the under secretary of management
           is working to integrate some management functions. However, DHS
           has not linked its goals to resource requirements in its strategic
           plan and has not involved all stakeholders in its strategic
           planning process. Moreover, DHS lacks not only a comprehensive
           strategy with overall goals and a timeline but also a dedicated
           management integration team to support its management integration
           efforts. DHS and its components are developing corrective action
           plans to address material weaknesses identified by the financial
           statement auditor, but recent audits found its financial systems
           do not conform to federal requirements, and financial statements
           contain numerous material weaknesses. DHS is working to develop a
           departmentwide framework for managing information but has not
           implemented an effective process for informed decision making by
           senior leadership about competing technology investment options or
           a comprehensive information security program to protect its
           information and systems. DHS has taken some actions to integrate
           the legacy agency workforces that make up its components and has
           made progress in establishing human capital capabilities for the
           US-VISIT program, but DHS has not linked its new human capital
           system to its strategic plan. DHS has made progress in enhancing
           communication among its acquisition organizations through its
           strategic sourcing and small business programs, but some
           components remain exempted from the unified acquisition
           organization, and the chief procurement officer has insufficient
           staff for departmentwide oversight. In addition, DHS has continued
           to form necessary partnerships and has undertaken a number of
           efforts with private entities, but key partnering challenges
           continue as DHS seeks to leverage resources and more effectively
           carry out its homeland security responsibilities. In their program
           activities, DHS and the Transportation Security Administration
           (TSA) have taken numerous actions to strengthen commercial
           aviation security, and the Coast Guard has moved to control costs
           by offering incentives to contractors that attempt to foster
           competition for subcontracts. However, TSA faces the difficult
           task of assessing and allocating resources across all
           transportation modes based on risk, while adapting to changing
           threats within the commercial aviation industry. DHS agencies have
           made progress in activities to refine the screening of foreign
           visitors to the United States, target potentially dangerous cargo,
           and provide the personnel necessary to effectively fulfill border
           security and trade agency missions. However, trade and visitor
           screening systems have weaknesses that must be overcome to better
           ensure border and trade security. DHS has also enhanced the
           efficiency of certain immigration services, reducing the size of
           the backlog of immigration-benefit applications. However, DHS has
           not adopted a comprehensive risk management approach when it comes
           to the detection and investigation of immigration fraud. Finally,
           DHS has made revisions to the National Response Plan to clarify
           federal roles and responsibilities. In response to concerns raised
           by us and others, Congress clarified the roles and
           responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
           in the DHS fiscal year 2007 appropriations act and designated the
           FEMA Administrator as the "Principal Advisor" to the President on
           emergency management. However, DHS has yet to develop necessary
           disaster capabilities and to create accountability systems that
           effectively balance the need for fast and flexible response
           against the need to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse.

           o During the past 2 years, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has
           made progress in its enforcement efforts. Notably, enforcement
           revenue rose from $43.1 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $48.7
           billion in fiscal year 2006. Based on preliminary data, IRS
           increased the overall percentage of tax returns examined between
           fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2006 by about 30 percent. IRS
           completed research in 2005 on individual taxpayers' compliance and
           is currently using the results to better target operational
           audits. IRS also set a long-term goal to increase the compliance
           rate. Despite these promising developments, challenges remain.
           IRS's most recent estimate of the gross tax gap (the difference
           between the taxes that should have been paid voluntarily and on
           time and what was actually paid) was $345 billion for tax year
           2001. Although IRS estimates that it would eventually collect $55
           billion of this amount, a net tax gap of $290 billion would
           remain. Given the magnitude of the tax gap, even a relatively
           small percentage reduction in the gap would yield billions of
           dollars in additional revenue for the government. IRS needs
           periodic, if not annual, measurements of compliance to gauge the
           extent to which compliance is changing and to effectively target
           its service and enforcement efforts. Further, IRS lacks a
           data-based plan to improve compliance and reach its long-term
           goal. Real progress in reducing the tax gap will require efforts
           beyond enforcement. IRS will need to develop and execute multiple
           strategies over a sustained period including working with Treasury
           to develop new and innovative solutions to improve compliance.
           Statutory changes will be needed as well to meaningfully reduce
           the gap and we have presented options, such as additional
           withholding for selected parties and additional information
           reporting on the cost basis for securities sales, for Congress to
           consider.

           o We first added the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's (PBGC)
           single-employer pension insurance program as a high-risk area in
           July 2003 because the program's financial health was threatened by
           structural weaknesses in pension funding rules, the program's
           premium structure, and the potential for large bankruptcies among
           sponsors with underfunded plans in weak industries. Since then,
           Congress passed major pension reform legislation that was signed
           into law. The reforms include revisions to the defined benefit
           pension funding rules, changes to the PBGC program's insurance
           premium structure, and other changes aimed at limiting the risk
           that underfunded plans might pose to PBGC. While some of these
           reforms represent progress, their ultimate impact on the
           single-employer program's deficit is unclear. Many of these
           reforms will be phased in gradually, postponing their potentially
           positive effect on plan funding, while other changes could have
           the effect of increasing PBGC's financial exposure.

           o The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has made significant
           progress in addressing air traffic control modernization program
           weaknesses since it was designated as high risk in 1995. For
           example, FAA has established a framework for improving its system
           management capabilities and addressed weakness on selected air
           traffic control systems; implemented key components of a cost
           accounting system and established a cost estimating methodology;
           and made progress in establishing an organizational culture that
           supports sound acquisitions. FAA has also developed an action plan
           with the Office of Management and Budget to continue to address
           these issues. Additionally, FAA has reported that it has exceeded
           its targets for delivering selected system acquisitions on cost
           and schedule for the past 3 years. However, FAA-improved system
           management capabilities have yet to be institutionalized, the cost
           estimating methodology has not yet been fully implemented, and
           major systems will be coming on line in the next few years.
           Moreover, FAA still faces many human capital challenges, including
           obtaining the technical and contract management expertise needed
           to define, implement, and integrate numerous complex programs and
           systems. With FAA expecting to spend about $9.4 billion between
           now and the end of fiscal year 2011 to upgrade and replace air
           traffic control systems, these actions are as critical as ever.

           o Since 2005, DOD has taken some positive steps toward addressing
           challenges related to the supply chain management high-risk area.
           For example, in collaboration with OMB, DOD developed a plan to
           address some of the systemic weaknesses in supply chain
           management. The plan encompasses 10 initiatives, such as war
           reserve materiel improvements and the expanded use of radio
           frequency identification, aimed at the three focus areas we have
           identified from our prior work: requirements forecasting, asset
           visibility, and materiel distribution. This plan provides a
           framework for addressing systemic weaknesses and focusing
           long-term efforts to improve supply support to the warfighter. DOD
           has made some progress implementing these initiatives, and DOD
           leadership has demonstrated a commitment to resolving supply chain
           management problems. However, successful resolution of these
           long-standing problems will take several years of continued
           efforts, and the department faces challenges and risks in
           successful implementation of proposed changes. For example, DOD's
           plan generally lacks outcome-focused performance metrics for many
           of its initiatives, making it difficult to track and demonstrate
           progress in improving the three focus areas. Further, DOD's
           ability to make coordinated, systemic improvements that cut across
           the multiple organizations involved in the materiel distribution
           system has been hindered by problems defining who has
           accountability and authority for making such improvements.

			  Highlights for Each High-Risk Area

           Overall, the government continues to take high-risk problems
           seriously and is making long-needed progress toward correcting
           them. Congress has also acted to address several individual
           high-risk areas through hearings and legislation. Continued
           perseverance in addressing high-risk areas will ultimately yield
           significant benefits. Lasting solutions to high-risk problems
           offer the potential to save billions of dollars, dramatically
           improve service to the American public, strengthen public
           confidence and trust in the performance and accountability of our
           national government, and ensure the ability of government to
           deliver on its promises.

           We have prepared highlights of each of the 27 high-risk areas on
           our updated list, showing (1) why the area is high risk, (2) the
           actions that have been taken and that are under way to address the
           problem since our last update report as well as the issues that
           are yet to be resolved, and (3) what remains to be done to address
           the risk. These highlights are presented on the following pages.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
           Strategic Human Capital Management

           Office of Personnel Management: Key Lessons Learned to Date for
           Strengthening Capacity to Lead and Implement Human Capital
           Reforms. [21]GAO-07-90 . Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2007.

           Human Capital: Aligning Senior Executives' Performance with
           Organizational Results Is an Important Step Toward Governmentwide
           Transformation. [22]GAO-06-1125T . Washington, D.C.: September 26,
           2006.

           Office of Personnel Management: OPM Is Taking Steps to Strengthen
           Its Internal Capacity for Leading Human Capital Reform.
           [23]GAO-06-861T . Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.

           Human Capital: Trends in Executive and Judicial Pay.
           [24]GAO-06-708 . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006.

           Human Capital: Agencies Are Using Buyouts and Early Outs with
           Increasing Frequency to Help Reshape Their Workforces.
           [25]GAO-06-324 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.

           Human Capital: Observations on Final Regulations for DOD's
           National Security Personnel System. [26]GAO-06-227T . Washington,
           D.C.: November 17, 2005.

           Human Capital: Designing and Managing Market-Based and More
           Performance-Oriented Pay Systems. [27]GAO-05-1048T . Washington,
           D.C.: September 27, 2005.

           Human Capital: DOD's National Security Personnel System Faces
           Implementation Challenges. [28]GAO-05-730 . Washington, D.C.: July
           14, 2005.

           Human Capital: Agencies Need Leadership and the Supporting
           Infrastructure to Take Advantage of New Flexibilities.
           [29]GAO-05-616T . Washington, D.C.: April 21, 2005.

           Human Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital
           Regulations. [30]GAO-05-391T . Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.

           Also see [31]http://www.gao.gov for numerous speeches and
           presentations from the Comptroller General on human capital
           challenges in general and as they apply to specific agencies.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Managing Federal Real Property

           DOD's Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans Continue to Evolve.
           [32]GAO-06-913R . Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.

           Embassy Construction: State Has Made Progress Constructing New
           Embassies, but Better Planning Is Needed for Operations and
           Maintenance Requirements. [33]GAO-06-641 . Washington, D.C.: June
           30, 2006.

           Federal Real Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as
           Intended, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight.
           [34]GAO-06-511 . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006.

           Federal Courthouses: Rent Increases Due to New Space and Growing
           Energy and Security Costs Require Better Tracking and Management.
           [35]GAO-06-613 . Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2006.

           Homeland Security: Guidance and Standards Are Needed for Measuring
           the Effectiveness of Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts.
           [36]GAO-06-612 . Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2006.

           Federal Real Property: Excess and Underutilized Property Is an
           Ongoing Problem. [37]GAO-06-248T . Washington, D.C.: February 6,
           2006.

           Federal Real Property: Reliance on Costly Leasing to Meet New
           Space Needs Is an Ongoing Problem. [38]GAO-06-136T . Washington,
           D.C.: October 6, 2005.

           VA Health Care: Key Challenges to Aligning Capital Assets and
           Enhancing Veterans' Care. [39]GAO-05-429 . Washington, D.C.:
           August 5, 2005.

           Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
           Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. [40]GAO-05-785
           . Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.

           Federal Real Property: Further Actions Needed to Address
           Long-standing and Complex Problems. [41]GAO-05-848T . Washington,
           D.C.: June 22, 2005.

           Smithsonian Institution: Facilities Management Reorganization Is
           Progressing, but Funding Remains a Challenge. [42]GAO-05-369 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2005.

           U.S. Postal Service: The Service's Strategy for Realigning Its
           Mail Processing Infrastructure Lacks Clarity, Criteria, and
           Accountability. [43]GAO-05-261 . Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Protecting the Federal Governmentï¿½s Information Systems and the
			  Nationï¿½s Critical Infrastructures

           Information Security: Federal Reserve Needs to Address Treasury
           Auction Systems. [44]GAO-06-659 . Washington, D.C.: August 30,
           2006.

           Information Security: Leadership Needed to Address Weaknesses and
           Privacy Issues at Veterans Affairs. [45]GAO-06-897T . Washington,
           D.C.: June 20, 2006.

           DHS Faces Challenges in Developing a Joint Public/Private Recovery
           Plan, [46]GAO-06-672 . Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006.

           Information Security: Continued Progress Needed to Strengthen
           Controls at the Internal Revenue Service. [47]GAO-06-328 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 23, 2006.

           Information Sharing: The Federal Government Needs to Establish
           Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive
           but Unclassified Information. [48]GAO-06-385 . Washington, D.C.:
           March 17, 2006.

           Information Security: Federal Agencies Show Mixed Progress in
           Implementing Statutory Requirements. [49]GAO-06-527T . Washington,
           D.C.: March 16, 2006.

           Information Security: Department of Health and Human Services
           Needs to Fully Implement Its Program. [50]GAO-06-267 . Washington,
           D.C.: February 24, 2006.

           Information Security: Progress Made, but Federal Aviation
           Administration Needs to Improve Controls over Air Traffic Control
           Systems. [51]GAO-05-712 . Washington, D.C.: August 26, 2005.

           Critical Infrastructure Protection: Department of Homeland
           Security Faces Challenges in Fulfilling Cybersecurity
           Responsibilities, [52]GAO-05-434 . Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2005.

           Information Security: Federal Agencies Need to Improve Controls
           over Wireless Networks. [53]GAO-05-383 . Washington, D.C.: May 17,
           2005.

           Information Security: Emerging Cybersecurity Issues Threaten
           Federal Information Systems. [54]GAO-05-231 . Washington, D.C.:
           May 13, 2005.

           Information Security: Improving Oversight of Access to Federal
           Systems and Data by Contractors Can Reduce Risk. [55]GAO-05-362 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2005.

           Related Products
			  
			  Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland
			  Security

           Aviation Security: TSA Oversight of Checked Baggage Screening
           Procedures Could Be Strengthened. [56]GAO-06-869 . Washington,
           D.C.: July 28, 2006.

           Homeland Security: Challenges in Creating an Effective Acquisition
           Organization. [57]GAO-06-1012T . Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2006.

           Homeland Security: Progress Continues, but Challenges Remain on
           Department's Management of Information Technology. [58]GAO-06-598T
           . Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.

           Financial Management Systems: DHS Has an Opportunity to
           Incorporate Best Practices in Modernization Efforts.
           [59]GAO-06-553T . Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2006.

           Emergency Preparedness and Response: Some Issues and Challenges
           Associated with Major Emergency Incidents. [60]GAO-06-467T .
           Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2006.

           Risk Management: Further Refinements Needed to Assess Risks and
           Prioritize Protective Measures at Ports and Other Critical
           Infrastructure. [61]GAO-06-91 . Washington, D.C.: December 15,
           2005.

           Department of Homeland Security: Strategic Management of Training
           Important for Successful Transformation. [62]GAO-05-888 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 23, 2005.

           Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning
           Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability.
           [63]GAO-05-300 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005.

           Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
           Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration. [64]GAO-05-139
           . Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005.

           DHS Products

           Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland
           Security. DHS Office of the Inspector General. OIG-07-12.
           Washington, D.C.: December 2006.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Establishing Appropriate and Effective Information-Sharing
			  Mechanisms to Improve Homeland Security

           Managing Sensitive Information: DOJ Needs a More Complete Staffing
           Strategy for Managing Classified Information and a Set of Internal
           Controls for Other Sensitive Information. [65]GAO-07-83 .
           Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2006.

           Critical Infrastructure Protection: Progress Coordinating
           Government and Private Sector Efforts Varies by Sectors'
           Characteristics. [66]GAO-07-39 . Washington, D.C.: October 16,
           2006.

           Terrorist Watch List Screening: Efforts to Help Reduce Adverse
           Effects on the Public. [67]GAO-06-1031 . Washington, D.C.:
           September 29, 2006.

           Critical Infrastructure Protection: DHS Leadership Needed to
           Enhance Cybersecurity. [68]GAO-06-1087T . Washington, D.C.:
           September 13, 2006.

           Maritime Security: Information-Sharing Efforts Are Improving.
           [69]GAO-06-933T . Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2006.

           Managing Sensitive Information: Actions Needed to Ensure Recent
           Changes in DOE Oversight Do Not Weaken an Effective Classification
           System. [70]GAO-06-785 . Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006.

           Managing Sensitive Information: DOD Can More Effectively Reduce
           the Risk of Classification Errors. [71]GAO-06-706 . Washington,
           D.C.: June 30, 2006.

           Information Sharing: DHS Should Take Steps to Encourage More
           Widespread Use of Its Program to Protect and Share Critical
           Infrastructure Information. [72]GAO-06-383 . Washington, D.C.:
           April 17, 2006.

           Information Sharing: The Federal Government Needs to Establish
           Policies and Processes for Sharing Terrorism-Related and Sensitive
           but Unclassified Information. [73]GAO-06-385 . Washington, D.C.:
           March 17, 2006.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Approach to Business Transformation

           Defense Business Transformation: A Comprehensive Plan, Integrated
           Efforts, and Sustained Leadership Are Needed to Ensure Success.
           [74]GAO-07-229T . Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006.

           Defense Transformation: Accountability Challenges.           
			  [75]GAO-06-1083CG . Washington, D.C.:  August 22, 2006.

           Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to
           Effective Financial and Business Management Transformation.
           [76]GAO-06-1006T . Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006.

           Business Systems Modernization: DOD Continues to Improve
           Institutional Approach, but Further Steps Needed. [77]GAO-06-658 .
           Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006.

           GAO High-Risk Program. [78]GAO-06-497T . Washington, D.C.: March
           15, 2006.

           Defense Management: Additional Actions Needed to Enhance DOD's
           Risk-Based Approach for Making Resource Decisions. [79]GAO-06-13 .
           Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2005.

           Defense Management: Foundational Steps Being Taken to Manage DOD
           Business Systems Modernization, but Much Remains to Be
           Accomplished to Effect True Business Transformation.
           [80]GAO-06-234T . Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005.

           21st Century Challenges: Transforming Government to Meet Current
           and Emerging Challenges. [81]GAO-05-830T . Washington, D.C.: July
           13, 2005.

           DOD Business Transformation: Sustained Leadership Needed to
           Address Long-standing Financial and Business Management Problems.
           [82]GAO-05-723T . Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2005.

           Defense Management: Key Elements Needed to Successfully Transform
           DOD Business Operations. [83]GAO-05-629T . Washington, D.C.: April
           28, 2005.

           Transformation Challenges. presentation to the Defense Business
           Transformation Forum. Queenstown, MD: April 17, 2005.

           Defense Management: Successful Business Transformation Requires
           Sound Strategic Planning and Sustained Leadership. [84]GAO-05-520T
           . Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Business Systems Modernization

           Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to
           Effective Financial and Business Management Transformation.
           [85]GAO-06-1006T . Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006.

           Business Systems Modernization: DOD Continues to Improve
           Institutional Approach, but Further Steps Needed. [86]GAO-06-658 .
           Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006.

           DOD Business Transformation: Defense Travel System Continues to
           Face Implementation Challenges. [87]GAO-06-18 . Washington, D.C.:
           January 18, 2006.

           DOD Systems Modernization: Uncertain Joint Use and Marginal
           Expected Value of Military Asset Deployment System Warrant
           Reassessment of Planned Investment. [88]GAO-06-171 . Washington,
           D.C.: December 15, 2005.

           DOD Systems Modernization: Planned Investment in the Naval
           Tactical Command Support System Needs to Be Reassessed.
           [89]GAO-06-215 . Washington, D.C.: December 5, 2005.

           DOD Business Systems Modernization: Important Progress Made in
           Establishing Foundational Architecture Products and Investment
           Management Practices, but Much Work Remains. [90]GAO-06-219 .
           Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2005.

           Defense Management: Foundational Steps Being Taken to Manage DOD
           Business Systems Modernization, but Much Remains to Be
           Accomplished to Effect True Business Transformation.
           [91]GAO-06-234T . Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005.

           DOD Business Systems Modernization: Long-standing Weaknesses in
           Enterprise Architecture Development Need to Be Addressed.
           [92]GAO-05-702 . Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005.

           Army Depot Maintenance: Ineffective Oversight of Depot Maintenance
           Operations and System Implementation Efforts. [93]GAO-05-441 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005.

           DOD Business Transformation: Sustained Leadership Needed to
           Address Long-standing Financial and Business Management Problems.
           [94]GAO-05-723T . Washington, D.C.: June 8, 2005.

           DOD Systems Modernization: Management of Integrated Military Human
           Capital Program Needs Additional Improvements. [95]GAO-05-189 .
           Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Personnel Security Clearance Program

           DOD Personnel Clearances: Additional OMB Actions Are Needed to
           Improve the Security Clearance Process. [96]GAO-06-1070 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2006.

           DOD Personnel Clearances: Questions and Answers for the Record
           Following the Second in a Series of Hearings on Fixing the
           Security Clearance Process. [97]GAO-06-693R . Washington, D.C.:
           June 14, 2006.

           DOD Personnel Clearances: New Concerns Slow Processing of
           Clearances for Industry Personnel. [98]GAO-06-748T . Washington,
           D.C.: May 17, 2006.

           DOD Personnel Clearances: Funding Challenges and Other Impediments
           Slow Clearances for Industry Personnel. [99]GAO-06-747T .
           Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2006.

           Questions for the Record Related to DOD's Personnel Security
           Clearance Program and the Government Plan for Improving the
           Clearance Process. [100]GAO-06-323R . Washington, D.C.: January
           17, 2006.

           DOD Personnel Clearances: Government Plan Addresses Some
           Long-standing Problems with DOD's Program, But Concerns Remain.
           [101]GAO-06-233T . Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2005.

           Questions for the Record Related to DOD's Personnel Security
           Clearance Program. [102]GAO-05-988R . Washington, D.C.: August 19,
           2005.

           DOD Personnel Clearances: Some Progress Has Been Made but Hurdles
           Remain to Overcome the Challenges That Led to GAO's High-Risk
           Designation. [103]GAO-05-842T . Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Support Infrastructure Management

           Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting
           Are Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD's Global Posture
           Restructuring. [104]GAO-06-852 . Washington, D.C.: September 13,
           2006.

           Defense Infrastructure: Actions Taken to Improve the Management of
           Utility Privatization, but Some Concerns Remain. [105]GAO-06-914 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 5, 2006.

           DOD's Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans Continue to Evolve.
           [106]GAO-06-913R . Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.

           Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan for
           Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany. [107]GAO-06-736R . Washington,
           D.C.: May 19, 2006.

           Military Housing: Management Issues Require Attention as the
           Privatization Program Matures. [108]GAO-06-438 . Washington, D.C.:
           April 28, 2006.

           Military Training: Funding Requests for Joint Urban Operations
           Training and Facilities Should Be Based on Sound Strategy and
           Requirements. [109]GAO-06-193 . Washington, D.C.: December 8,
           2005.

           Military Bases: Observations on DOD's 2005 Base Realignment and
           Closure Selection Process and Recommendations.  [110]GAO-05-905 .
           Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005.

           Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
           Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments.
           [111]GAO-05-785 . Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.

           Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing
           and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support.
           [112]GAO-05-556 . Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2005.

           Military Training: Better Planning and Funding Priority Needed to
           Improve Conditions of Military Training Ranges. [113]GAO-05-534 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.

           Defense Infrastructure: Management Issue Requiring Attention in
           Utility Privatization. [114]GAO-05-433 . Washington, D.C.: May 12,
           2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Financial Management

           Defense Travel System: Reported Savings Questionable and
           Implementation Challenges Remain. [115]GAO-06-980 . Washington,
           D.C.: September 26, 2006.

           Financial Management: Improvements Under Way but Serious Financial
           Systems Problems Persist. [116]GAO-06-970 . Washington, D.C.:
           September 26, 2006.

           Department of Defense: Sustained Leadership Is Critical to
           Effective Financial and Business Management Transformation.
           [117]GAO-06-1006T . Washington, D.C.: August 3, 2006.

           Defense Working Capital Fund: Military Services Did Not Calculate
           and Report Carryover Amounts Correctly. [118]GAO-06-530 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2006.

           Military Pay: Hundreds of Battle-Injured GWOT Soldiers Have
           Struggled to Resolve Military Debts. [119]GAO-06-494 . Washington,
           D.C.: April 27, 2006.

           Environmental Liabilities: Long-Term Fiscal Planning Hampered by
           Control Weaknesses and Uncertainties in the Federal Government's
           Estimates. [120]GAO-06-427 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.

           Fiscal Year 2005 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained
           Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to
           Addressing Our Nation's Financial Condition and Long-Term Fiscal
           Imbalance. [121]GAO-06-406T . Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2006.

           DOD Business Transformation: Defense Travel System Continues to
           Face Implementation Challenges. [122]GAO-06-18 . Washington, D.C.:
           January 18, 2006.

           Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the Reliability of
           Cost Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control Costs.
           [123]GAO-05-882 . Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2005.

           Army Corps of Engineers: Improved Planning and Financial
           Management Should Replace Reliance on Reprogramming Actions to
           Manage Project Funds. [124]GAO-05-946 . Washington, D.C.:
           September 16, 2005.

           DOD Problem Disbursements: Long-standing Accounting Weaknesses
           Result in Inaccurate Records and Substantial Write-offs.
           [125]GAO-05-521 . Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Supply Chain Management

           DOD's High-Risk Areas: Progress Made Implementing Supply Chain
           Management Recommendations, but Full Extent of Improvement
           Unknown. [126]GAO-07-234 . Washington, D.C.: January 17, 2007.

           DOD's High-Risk Areas: Challenges Remain to Achieving and
           Demonstrating Progress in Supply Chain Management.
           [127]GAO-06-983T. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006.

           Defense Logistics: Lack of a Synchronized Approach between the
           Marine Corps and Army Affected the Timely Production and
           Installation of Marine Corps Truck Armor.  GAO-06-274. Washington,
           D.C.: June 22, 2006.

           Defense Management: Attention Is Needed to Improve Oversight of
           DLA Prime Vendor Program. [128]GAO-06-739R. Washington, D.C.: June
           19, 2006.

           Defense Inventory: Actions Needed to Improve Inventory Retention
           Management.  GAO-06-512. Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2006.

           Defense Logistics: Several Factors Limited the Production and
           Installation of Army Truck Armor during Current Wartime
           Operations.  GAO-06-160. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2006.

           DOD's High-Risk Areas: High-Level Commitment and Oversight Needed
           for DOD Supply Chain Plan to Succeed. [129]GAO-06-113T.
           Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2005.

           Defense Logistics: Better Strategic Planning Can Help Ensure DOD's
           Successful Implementation of Passive Radio Frequency
           Identification. [130]GAO-05-345. Washington, D.C.: September 12,
           2005.

           Defense Logistics: DOD Has Begun to Improve Supply Distribution
           Operations, but Further Actions Are Needed to Sustain These
           Efforts. [131]GAO-05-775. Washington, D.C.: August 11, 2005.

           Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of
           Critical Items during Current and Future Operations.
           [132]GAO-05-275. Washington, D.C.: April 8, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Weapon Systems Acquisition

           Defense Acquisitions: Actions Needed to Get Better Results on
           Weapon Systems Investments. [133]GAO-06-585T . Washington, D.C.:
           April 5, 2006.

           Best Practices

           Best Practices: Stronger Practices Needed to Improve DOD
           Technology Transition Processes. [134]GAO-06-883 . Washington,
           D.C.: September 14, 2006.

           Defense Acquisitions: Major Weapon Systems Continue to Experience
           Cost and Schedule Problems under DOD's Revised Policy.
           [135]GAO-06-368 . Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2006.

           Space Acquisitions: Improvements Needed in Space Systems
           Acquisitions and Keys to Achieving Them. [136]GAO-06-626T .
           Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006.

           Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Major Weapon
           Programs. [137]GAO-06-391 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.

           Best Practices: Better Support of Weapon System Program Managers
           Needed to Improve Outcomes. [138]GAO-06-110 . Washington, D.C.:
           November 30, 2005.

           Weapon System Reviews

           Defense Acquisitions: Restructured JTRS Program Reduces Risk, but
           Significant Challenges Remain. [139]GAO-06-955 . Washington, D.C.:
           September 11, 2006.

           Tactical Aircraft: Questions Concerning the F-22A's Business Case.
           [140]GAO-06-991T . Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006.

           Space Acquisitions: DOD Needs Additional Knowledge as It Embarks
           on a New Approach for Transformational Satellite Communications
           System. [141]GAO-06-537 . Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2006.

           Electronic Warfare: Option of Upgrading Additional EA-6Bs Could
           Reduce Risk in Development of EA-18G. [142]GAO-06-446 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2006.

           Joint Strike Fighter: DOD Plans to Enter Production before Testing
           Demonstrates Acceptable Performance. [143]GAO-06-356 . Washington,
           D.C.: March 15, 2006.

           Defense Acquisitions: Missile Defense Agency Fields Initial
           Capability but Falls Short of Original Goals. [144]GAO-06-327 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2006.

           Defense Acquisitions: Improved Business Case Is Needed for Future
           Combat System's Successful Outcome. [145]GAO-06-367 . Washington,
           D.C.: March 14, 2006.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Progress and Challenges
           Associated with the Transformation of the National Airspace
           System. [146]GAO-07-25 . Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Federal Aviation Administration Air Traffic Control Modernization

           National Airspace System Modernization: Observations on Potential
           Funding Options for FAA and the Next Generation Airspace System.
           [147]GAO-06-1114T . Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of
           Progress and Challenges Associated with the Transformation of the
           National Airspace System. [148]GAO-06-915T . Washington, D.C.:
           July 25, 2006.

           Air Traffic Control Modernization: Status of the Current Program
           and Planning for the Next Generation Air Transportation System.
           [149]GAO-06-653T . Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2006.

           Air Traffic Control: Status of the Current Modernization Program
           and Planning for the Next Generation System. [150]GAO-06-738T .
           Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2006.

           Next Generation Air Transportation System: Preliminary Analysis of
           the Joint Planning and Development Office's Planning, Progress,
           and Challenges. [151]GAO-06-574T . Washington, D.C.: March 29,
           2006.

           National Airspace System: Transformation Will Require Cultural
           Change, Balanced Funding Priorities, and Use of All Available
           Management Tools. [152]GAO-06-154 . Washington, D.C.: October 14,
           2005.

           Air Traffic Operations: The Federal Aviation Administration Needs
           to Address Major Air Traffic Operating Cost Control Changes.
           [153]GAO-05-724 . Washington, D.C.: June 23, 2005.

           National Airspace System: FAA Has Made Progress but Continues to
           Face Challenges in Acquiring Major Air Traffic Control Systems.
           [154]GAO-05-331 . Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2005.

           Federal Aviation Administration: Stronger Architecture Program
           Needed to Guide Systems Modernization Efforts. [155]GAO-05-266 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Financing the Nationï¿½s Transportation System

           Intercity Passenger Rail: National Policy and Strategies Needed to
           Maximize Public Benefits from Federal Expenditures. [156]GAO-07-15
           . Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2006.

           Freight Railroads: Industry Health Has Improved, but Concerns
           about Competition and Capacity Should be Addressed. [157]GAO-07-94
           . Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2006.

           Aviation Finance: Observations on Potential FAA Funding Options.
           [158]GAO-06-973 . Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2006.

           National Airspace System Modernization: Observations on Potential
           Funding Options for FAA and the Next Generation Airspace System.
           [159]GAO-06-1114T . Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2006.

           Highway Finance: States' Expanding Use of Tolling Illustrates
           Diverse Challenges and Strategies. [160]GAO-06-554 . Washington,
           D.C.: June 28, 2006.

           Highway Trust Fund: Overview of Highway Trust Fund Estimates.
           [161]GAO-06-572T . Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.

           Freight Transportation: Short Sea Shipping Option Shows Importance
           of Systematic Approach to Public Investment Decisions.
           [162]GAO-05-768 . Washington, D.C.: July 29, 2005.

           Highlights of an Expert Panel: The Benefits and Costs of Highway
           and Transit Investments. [163]GAO-05-423SP . Washington, D.C.: May
           6, 2005.

           Highway And Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information
           on Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for
           Results. [164]GAO-05-172 . Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2005.

           Federal-Aid Highways: Trends, Effect on State Spending, and
           Options for Future Program Design. [165]GAO-04-802 . Washington,
           D.C.: August 31, 2004.

           Surface Transportation: Many Factors Affect Investment Decisions.
           [166]GAO-04-744 . Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to
			  U.S. National Security Interests

           Export Controls: Challenges Exist in Enforcement of an Inherently
           Complex System. [167]GAO-07-265 . Washington, D.C.: December 20,
           2006.

           Defense Technologies: DOD's Critical Technologies Lists Rarely
           Inform Export Control and Other Policy Decisions. [168]GAO-06-793
           . Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2006.

           DOD Excess Property: Control Breakdowns Present Significant
           Security Risk and Continuing Waste and Inefficiency. [169]
           GAO-06-943 . Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006.

           President's Justification of the High Performance Computer Control
           Threshold Does Not Fully Address National Defense Authorization
           Act of 1998 Requirements. [170]GAO-06-754R . Washington, D.C.:
           June 30, 2006.

           Export Controls: Improvements to Commerce's Dual-Use System Needed
           to Ensure Protection of U.S. Interests in the Post-9/11
           Environment. [171]GAO-06-638 . Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2006.

           Defense Trade: Enhancements to the Implementation of Exon-Florio
           Could Strengthen the Law's Effectiveness. [172]GAO-05-686 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2005.

           Industrial Security: DOD Cannot Ensure Its Oversight of
           Contractors under Foreign Influence Is Sufficient. [173]GAO-05-681
           . Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2005.

           Defense Trade: Arms Export Control Vulnerabilities and
           Inefficiencies in the Post-9/11 Security Environment.
           [174]GAO-05-468R . Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2005.

           Defense Trade: Arms Export Control System in the Post-9/11
           Environment. [175]GAO-05-234 . Washington, D.C.: February 16,
           2005.

           Defense Acquisitions: DOD Needs to Better Support Program
           Managers' Implementation of Anti-Tamper Protection.
           [176]GAO-04-302 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004.

           Defense Trade: Better Information Needed to Support Decisions
           Affecting Proposed Weapons Transfers. [177]GAO-03-694 .
           Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2003.

           Export Controls: Clarification of Jurisdiction for Missile
           Technology Items Needed. [178]GAO-02-120 . Washington, D.C.:           
			  October 9, 2001.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety

           Homeland Security: Management and Coordination Problems Increase
           the Vulnerability of U.S. Agriculture to Foreign Pests and
           Disease. [179]GAO-06-644 . Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2006.

           Oversight of Food Safety Activities: Federal Agencies Should
           Pursue Opportunities to Reduce Overlap and Better Leverage
           Resources. [180]GAO-05-213 . Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2005.

           Food Safety: Experiences of Seven Countries in Consolidating Their
           Food Safety Systems. [181]GAO-05-212 . Washington, D.C.: February
           22, 2005.

           Food Safety: USDA and FDA Need to Better Ensure Prompt and
           Complete Recalls of Potentially Unsafe Food. [182]GAO-05-51 .
           Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2004.

           Antibiotic Resistance: Federal Agencies Need to Better Focus
           Efforts to Address Risk to Humans from Antibiotic Use in Animals.
           [183]GAO-04-490 . Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2004.

           School Meal Program: Few Instances of Foodborne Outbreaks
           Reported, but Opportunities Exist to Enhance Outbreak Data and
           Food Safety Practices. [184]GAO-03-530 . Washington, D.C.: May 9,
           2003.

           Food-Processing Security: Voluntary Efforts Are Under Way, but
           Federal Agencies Cannot Fully Assess Their Implementation.
           [185]GAO-03-342 . Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.

           Meat and Poultry: Better USDA Oversight and Enforcement of Safety
           Rules Needed to Reduce Risk of Foodborne Illnesses.
           [186]GAO-02-902 . Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.

           Genetically Modified Foods: Experts View Regimen of Safety Tests
           as Adequate, but FDA's Evaluation Process Could Be Enhanced.
           [187]GAO-02-566 . Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2002.

           Food Safety: Improvements Needed in Overseeing the Safety of
           Dietary Supplements and "Functional Foods." [188]GAO/RCED-00-156 .
           Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2000.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Defense Contract Management

           Defense Acquisitions: Tailored Approach Needed to Improve Service
           Acquisition Outcomes. [189]GAO-07-20 . Washington, D.C.: November
           9, 2006.

           DOD Contracting: Efforts Needed to Address Commercial Air Force
           Acquisition Risk. [190]GAO-06-995 . Washington, D.C.: September
           29, 2006.

           Rebuilding Iraq: Continued Progress Requires Overcoming Contract
           Management Challenges. [191]GAO-06-1130T . Washington, D.C.:
           September 28, 2006.

           Iraq Contract Costs: DOD Consideration of Defense Contract Audit
           Agency's Findings. [192]GAO-06-1132 . Washington, D.C.: September
           25, 2006.

           Contract Management: Service Contract Approach to Aircraft
           Simulator Training Has Room for Improvement. [193]GAO-06-830 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2006.

           DOD Acquisitions: Contracting for Better Outcomes.
           [194]GAO-06-800T . Washington, D.C.: September 7, 2006.

           Contract Management: DOD Vulnerabilities to Contracting Fraud,
           Waste, and Abuse. [195]GAO-06-838R . Washington, D.C.: July 7,
           2006.

           Defense Management: Attention Is Needed to Improve Oversight of
           DLA Prime Vendor Program. [196]GAO-06-739R . Washington, D.C.:
           June 19, 2006.

           Hurricane Katrina: Army Corps of Engineers Contract for
           Mississippi Classrooms. [197]GAO-06-454 . Washington, D.C.: May 1,
           2006.

           Contract Security Guards: Army's Guard Program Requires Greater
           Oversight and Reassessment of Acquisition Approach.
           [198]GAO-06-284 . Washington, D.C.: April 3, 2006.

           Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Paid Billions in Award and Incentive
           Fees Regardless of Acquisition Outcomes. [199]GAO-06-66 .
           Washington, D.C.: December 19, 2005.

           Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Surveillance on
           Department of Defense Service Contracts. [200]GAO-05-274 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Department of Energy Contract Management

           Nuclear Cleanup of Rocky Flats: DOE Can Use Lessons Learned to
           Improve Oversight of Other Sites' Cleanup Activities.
           [201]GAO-06-352 . Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2006.

           DOE Contracting: Better Performance Measures and Management Needed
           to Address Delays in Awarding Contracts. [202]GAO-06-722 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006.

           DOE Contracting: Improved Program Management Could Help Achieve
           Small Business Goal. [203]GAO-06-501 . Washington, D.C.: April 7,
           2006.

           Hanford Waste Treatment Plant: Contractor and DOE Management
           Problems Have Led to Higher Costs, Construction Delays, and Safety
           Concerns. [204]GAO-06-602T . Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006.

           Yucca Mountain: Quality Assurance at DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste
           Repository Needs Increased Management Attention. [205]GAO-06-313 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2006.

           Stand-Down of Los Alamos National Laboratory: Total Costs
           Uncertain; Almost All Mission-Critical Programs Were Affected but
           Have Recovered. [206]GAO-06-83 . Washington, D.C.: November 18,
           2005.

           Department of Energy: Improved Guidance, Oversight, and Planning
           Are Needed to Better Identify Cost-Saving Alternatives for
           Managing Low-Level Radioactive Waste. [207]GAO-06-94 . Washington,
           D.C.: October 31, 2005.

           Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist for Reducing
           Laboratory Contractors' Support Costs. [208]GAO-05-897 .
           Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005.

           Department of Energy: Improved Oversight Could Better Ensure
           Opportunities for Small Business Subcontracting. [209]GAO-05-459 .
           Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2005.

           Department of Energy: Further Actions Are Needed to Strengthen
           Contract Management for Major Projects. [210]GAO-05-123 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 18, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Mational Aeronautics and Space Administration Contract
			  Management

           NASA: Sound Management and Oversight Key to Addressing Crew
           Exploration Vehicle Project Risks. [211]GAO-06-1127T . September
           28, 2006.

           Enterprise Architecture: Leadership Remains Key to Establishing
           and Leveraging Architectures for Organizational Transformation.
           [212]GAO-06-831 . Washington, D.C.: August 14, 2006.

           NASA: Long-Term Commitment to and Investment in Space Exploration
           Program Requires More Knowledge. [213]GAO-06-817R . Washington,
           D.C.: July 17, 2006.

           NASA's James Webb Space Telescope: Knowledge-Based Acquisition
           Approach Key to Addressing Program Challenges. [214]GAO-06-634 .
           Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2006.

           Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to Address
           Key Causes of Modernization Failures. GAO-06-184. Washington,
           D.C.: March 15, 2006.

           NASA: Implementing a Knowledge-Based Acquisition Framework Could
           Lead to Better Investment Decisions and Project Outcomes.
           [215]GAO-06-218 . Washington, D.C.: December 21, 2005.

           NASA: Long-standing Financial Management Challenges Threaten the
           Agency's Ability to Manage Its Programs. [216]GAO-06-216T .
           Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2005.

           Business Modernization: Some Progress Made toward Implementing GAO
           Recommendations Related to NASA's Integrated Financial Management
           Program. [217]GAO-05-799R . Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Management of Interagency Contracting

           Interagency Contracting: Improved Guidance, Planning, and
           Oversight Would Enable the Department of Homeland Security to
           Address Risks. [218]GAO-06-996 . Washington, D.C.: September 27,
           2006.

           Homeland Security: Contract Management and Oversight for Visitor
           and Immigrant Status Program Need to Be Strengthened.
           [219]GAO-06-404 . Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2006.

           Department of Energy, Office of Worker Advocacy: Deficient
           Controls Led to Millions of Dollars in Improper and Questionable
           Payments to Contractors. [220]GAO-06-547 . Washington, D.C.: May
           31, 2006.

           Federal Bureau of Investigation: Weak Controls over Trilogy
           Project Led to Payment of Questionable Contractor Costs and
           Missing Assets. [221]GAO-06-306 . Washington, D.C.: February 28,
           2006.

           U.S. Office of Special Counsel: Selected Contracting and Human
           Capital Issues. [222]GAO-06-16 . Washington, D.C.: November 17,
           2005.

           Improvements Needed to the Federal Procurement Data System--Next
           Generation. [223]GAO-05-960R . Washington, D.C.: September 27,
           2005.

           Interagency Contracting: Franchise Funds Provide Convenience, but
           Value to DOD Is Not Demonstrated. [224]GAO-05-456 . Washington,
           D.C.: July 29, 2005.

           Interagency Contracting: Problems with DOD's and Interior's Orders
           to Support Military Operations. [225]GAO-05-201 . Washington,
           D.C.: April 29, 2005.

           Homeland Security: Successes and Challenges in DHS's Efforts to
           Create an Effective Acquisition Organization. [226]GAO-05-179 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2005.

           Contract Management: Opportunities to Improve Pricing of GSA
           Multiple Award Schedules Contracts. [227]GAO-05-229 . February 11,
           2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Enforcement of Tax Laws

           Tax Debt Collection: IRS Needs to Complete Steps to Help Ensure
           Contracting Out Achieves Desired Results and Best Use of Federal
           Resources. [228]GAO-06-1065 . Washington, D.C.: September 29,
           2006.

           Business Tax Reform: Simplification and Increased Uniformity of
           Taxation Would Yield Benefits. [229]GAO-06-1113T . Washington,
           D.C.: September 20, 2006.

           Individual Income Tax Policy: Streamlining, Simplification, and
           Additional Reforms Are Desirable. [230]GAO-06-1028T . Washington,
           D.C.: August 3, 2006.

           Tax Compliance: Opportunities Exist to Reduce the Tax Gap Using a
           Variety of Approaches. [231]GAO-06-1000T . Washington, D.C.: July
           26, 2006.

           Capital Gains Tax Gap: Requiring Brokers to Report Securities Cost
           Basis Would Improve Compliance if Related Challenges Are
           Addressed. [232]GAO-06-603 . Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2006.

           Tax Compliance: Challenges to Corporate Tax Enforcement and
           Options to Improve Securities Basis Reporting. [233]GAO-06-851T .
           Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2006.

           Business Systems Modernization: IRS Needs to Complete Recent
           Efforts to Develop Policies and Procedures to Guide Requirements
           Development and Management. [234]GAO-06-310 . Washington, D.C.:
           March 20, 2006.

           Financial Management: Thousands of GSA Contractors Abuse the
           Federal Tax System. [235]GAO-06-492T . Washington, D.C.: March 14,
           2006.

           Tax Gap: Making Significant Progress in Improving Tax Compliance
           Rests on Enhancing Current IRS Techniques and Adopting New
           Legislative Actions. [236]GAO-06-453T . Washington, D.C.: February
           15, 2006.

           Tax Gap: Multiple Strategies, Better Compliance Data, and
           Long-Term Goals Are Needed to Improve Taxpayer Compliance.
           [237]GAO-06-208T . Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2005.

           Financial Management: Thousands of Civilian Agency Contractors
           Abuse the Federal Tax System with Little Consequence.
           [238]GAO-05-637 . Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Internal Revenue Service Business Systems Modernization

           Financial Audit: IRS's Fiscal Years 2006 and 2005 Financial
           Statements. [239]GAO-07-136 . Washington, D.C.: November, 9, 2006.

           Internal Revenue Service: Status of Recommendations from Financial
           Audits and Related Management Reports. [240]GAO-06-560 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2006.

           Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS's Internal Controls.
           [241]GAO-06-543R . Washington, D.C.: May 12, 2006.

           Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the Interim Results of the
           2006 Filing Season and Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.
           [242]GAO-06-499T . Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2006.

           Internal Revenue Service: Assessment of the Interim Results of the
           2006 Filing Season and Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Request.
           [243]GAO-06-615T . Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006.

           Business Systems Modernization: IRS Needs to Complete Recent
           Efforts to Develop Policies and Procedures to Guide Requirements
           Development and Management. [244]GAO-06-310 . Washington, D.C.:
           March 20, 2006.

           Business Systems Modernization: Internal Revenue Service's Fiscal
           Year 2006 Expenditure Plan. [245]GAO-06-360 . Washington, D.C.:
           February 21, 2006.

           Financial Audit: IRS's Fiscal Years 2005 and 2004 Financial
           Statements. [246]GAO-06-137 . Washington, D.C.: November 10, 2005.

           Business Systems Modernization: Internal Revenue Service's Fiscal
           Year 2005 Expenditure Plan. [247]GAO-05-774 . Washington, D.C.:
           July 22, 2005.

           IRS Modernization: Continued Progress Requires Addressing Resource
           Management Challenges [248]. GAO-05-707T . Washington, D.C.: May
           19, 2005.

           Internal Revenue Service: Status of Recommendations from Financial
           Audits and Related Management Reports. [249]GAO-05-393 .
           Washington, D.C.: April 29, 2005.

           Management Report: Improvements Needed in IRS's Internal Controls.
           [250]GAO-05-247R . Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2005.

           Management Report: Review of Controls over Safeguarding Taxpayer
           Receipts and Information at the Brookhaven Service Center Campus.
           [251]GAO-05-319R . March 10, 2005.

           Opportunities to Improve Timeliness of IRS Lien Releases.
           [252]GAO-05-26R . Washington, D.C.: January 10, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Modernizing Federal Disability Programs

           Social Security Disability Programs: Clearer Guidance Could Help
           SSA Apply the Medical Improvement Standard More Consistently.
           [253]GAO-07-8 . Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2006.

           Social Security Administration: Agency Is Positioning Itself to
           Implement Its New Disability Determination Process, but Key Facets
           Are Still in Development. [254]GAO-06-779T . Washington, D.C.:
           June 15, 2006.

           Veterans' Disability Benefits: VA Should Improve Its Management of
           Individual Unemployability Benefits by Strengthening Criteria,
           Guidance, and Procedures. [255]GAO-06-309 . Washington, D.C.: May
           30, 2006.

           Social Security Administration: Administrative Review Process for
           Adjudicating Initial Disability Claims. [256]GAO-06-640R .
           Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2006.

           VA Disability Benefits: Routine Monitoring of Disability Decisions
           Could Improve Consistency. [257]GAO-06-120T . Washington, D.C.:
           October 20, 2005.

           Computer-Based Patient Records: VA and DOD Made Progress, but Much
           Work Remains to Fully Share Medical Information. [258]GAO-05-1051T
           . Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2005.

           Federal Disability Assistance: Wide Array of Programs Needs to Be
           Examined in Light of 21st Century Challenges. [259]GAO-05-626 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 2, 2005.

           Veterans' Disability Benefits: Claims Processing Problems Persist
           and Major Performance Improvements May Be Difficult.
           [260]GAO-05-749T . Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2005.

           VA Disability Benefits and Health Care: Providing Certain Services
           to the Seriously Injured Poses Challenges. [261]GAO-05-444T .
           Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2005.

           Social Security Administration: Better Planning Could Make the
           Ticket Program More Effective. [262]GAO-05-248 . Washington, D.C.:
           March 2, 2005.

           Vocational Rehabilitation: More VA and DOD Collaboration Needed to
           Expedite Services for Seriously Injured Servicemembers.
           [263]GAO-05-167 . Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Pension
			  Insurance Program

           Private Pensions: Opportunities Exist to Further Improve the
           Transparency of PBGC's Financial Disclosures. [264]GAO-06-429 .
           Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2006.

           Private Pensions: Information on Cash Balance Pension Plans.
           [265]GAO-06-42 . Washington, D.C.: November 3, 2005.

           Private Pensions: Questions Concerning the Pension Benefit
           Guaranty Corporation's Practices Regarding Single-Employer
           Probable Claims. [266]GAO-05-991R . Washington, D.C.: September 9,
           2005.

           Private Pensions: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and
           Long-Term Budgetary Challenges. [267]GAO-05-772T . Washington,
           D.C.: June 9, 2005.

           Private Pensions: Revision of Defined Benefit Pension Plan Funding
           Rules Is an Essential Component of Comprehensive Pension Reform.
           [268]GAO-05-794T . Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2005.

           Private Pensions: Government Actions Could Improve the Timeliness
           and Content of Form 5500 Pension Information. [269]GAO-05-491 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2005.

           Highlights of a GAO Forum: The Future of the Defined Benefit
           System and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
           [270]GAO-05-578SP . Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2005.

           Private Pensions: Recent Experiences of Large Defined Benefit
           Plans Illustrate Weaknesses in Funding Rules. [271]GAO-05-294 .
           Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2005.

           Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Structural Problems Limit
           Agency's Ability to Protect Itself from Risk. [272]GAO-05-360T .
           Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Medicare Program

           Information Security: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
           Needs to Improve Controls over Key Communication Network.
           [273]GAO-06-750 . Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2006.

           Medicare: CMS's Proposed Approach to Set Hospital Inpatient
           Payments Appears Promising. [274]GAO-06-880 . Washington, D.C.:
           July 28, 2006.

           Medicare Physician Payments: Trends in Service Utilization,
           Spending, and Fees Prompt Consideration of Alternative Payment
           Approaches. [275]GAO-06-1008T . Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2006.

           Medicare Part B Drugs: CMS Data Source for Setting Payments Is
           Practical but Concerns Remain. [276]GAO-06-971T . Washington,
           D.C.: July 13, 2006.

           Medicare Part D: Prescription Drug Plan Sponsor Call Center
           Responses Were Prompt, but Not Consistently Accurate and Complete.
           [277]GAO-06-710 . Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2006.

           Clinical Lab Quality: CMS and Survey Organization Oversight Should
           Be Strengthened. [278]GAO-06-416 . Washington, D.C.: June 16,
           2006.

           Medicare: Communications to Beneficiaries on the Prescription Drug
           Benefit Could Be Improved. [279]GAO-06-654 . Washington, D.C.: May
           3, 2006.

           Nursing Homes: Despite Increased Oversight, Challenges Remain in
           Ensuring High-Quality Care and Resident Safety. [280]GAO-06-117 .
           Washington, D.C.: December 28, 2005.

           Medicare: Contingency Plans to Address Potential Problems with the
           Transition of Dual-Eligible Beneficiaries from Medicaid to
           Medicare Drug Coverage. [281]GAO-06-278R . Washington, D.C.:
           December 16, 2005.

           Information Technology: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
           Needs to Establish Critical Investment Management Capabilities.
           [282]GAO-06-12 . October 28, 2005.

           Medicare: More Effective Screening and Stronger Enrollment
           Standards Needed for Medical Equipment Suppliers. [283]GAO-05-656
           . Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2005.

           Medicare Contracting Reform: CMS's Plan Has Gaps and Its
           Anticipated Savings Are Uncertain. [284]GAO-05-873 . Washington,
           D.C.: August 17, 2005.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  Medicaid Program

           Medicaid Third-Party Liability: Federal Guidance Needed to Help
           States Address Continuing Problems. [285]GAO-06-862 . Washington,
           D.C.: September 15, 2006.

           Medicaid Financial Management: Steps Taken to Improve Federal
           Oversight but Other Actions Needed to Sustain Efforts. 
           [286]GAO-06-705 . Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2006.

           Medicaid Integrity: Implementation of New Program Provides
           Opportunities for Federal Leadership to Combat Fraud, Waste, and
           Abuse. [287]GAO-06-578T . Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2006.

           Medicaid Financing: States' Use of Contingency-Fee Consultants to
           Maximize Federal Reimbursements Highlights Need for Improved
           Federal Oversight. [288]GAO-05-748 . Washington, D.C.: June 28,
           2005.

           Medicaid: States' Efforts to Maximize Federal Reimbursements
           Highlight Need for Improved Federal Oversight.  [289]GAO-05-836T .
           Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2005.

           Medicaid Waivers: HHS Approvals of Pharmacy Plus Demonstrations
           Continue to Raise Cost and Oversight Concerns. [290]GAO-04-480 .
           Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2004.

           Medicaid and SCHIP: Recent HHS Approvals of Demonstration Waiver
           Projects Raise Concerns. [291]GAO-02-817 . Washington, D.C.: July
           12, 2002.
			  
			  Related Products
			  
			  National Flood Insurance Program

           GAO's High-Risk Program. [292]GAO-06-497T . Washington, D.C.:
           March 15, 2006.

           Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges for the National
           Flood Insurance Program. [293]GAO-06-335T . Washington, D.C.:
           January 25, 2006.

           Federal Emergency Management Agency: Improvements Needed to
           Enhance Oversight and Management of the National Flood Insurance
           Program. [294]GAO-06-119 . Washington, D.C.: October 18, 2005.

           Federal Emergency Management Agency: Oversight and Management of
           the National Flood Insurance Program. [295]GAO-06-183T .
           Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2005.

           Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges Facing the
           National Flood Insurance Program. [296]GAO-06-174T . Washington,
           D.C.: October 18, 2005.

           Flood Map Modernization: Federal Emergency Management Agency's
           Implementation of a National Strategy. [297]GAO-05-894T .
           Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2005.

           National Flood Insurance Program: Oversight of Policy Issuance and
           Claims. [298]GAO-05-532T . Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2005.

           Flood Map Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but
           Challenges Remain. [299]GAO-04-417 . Washington, D.C.: March 31,
           2004.

           National Flood Insurance Program: Actions to Address Repetitive
           Loss Properties. [300]GAO-04-401T . Washington, D.C.: March 25,
           2004.
			  
			  GAOï¿½s 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 GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( [301]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 [302]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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: [303]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [304][email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454
           or (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [305][email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [306][email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548

(450513)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?[325]GAO-07-310 .

To view the full product, click on the link above. For more information,
contact George H. Stalcup at (202) 512-9490 or [email protected].

Highlights of [326]GAO-07-310 , a report to Congress on GAO's High-Risk
Series

January 2007

HIGH-RISK SERIES

An Update

GAO's audits and evaluations identify federal programs and operations
that, in some cases, are high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In recent years, GAO also has
identified high-risk areas to focus on the need for broad-based
transformations to address major economy, efficiency, or effectiveness
challenges. Since 1990, GAO has periodically reported on government
operations it has designated as high risk. In this 2007 update for the
110th Congress, GAO presents the status of high-risk areas identified in
2005 and new high-risk areas warranting attention by Congress and the
executive branch. Lasting solutions to high-risk problems offer the
potential to save billions of dollars, dramatically improve service to the
public, strengthen confidence and trust in the performance and
accountability of the U.S. government, and ensure the ability of
government to deliver on its promises.

This report contains GAO's views on what remains to be done to bring about
lasting solutions for each high-risk area. Perseverance by the executive
branch in implementing GAO's recommended solutions and continued oversight
and action by Congress are both essential to achieving and sustaining
progress.

In its January 2005 update, GAO identified 25 high-risk areas and, in
March 2006, added a 26th area. Since 2005, progress has been made in all
areas, although the extent varies by area. Both the executive branch and
Congress have shown a continuing commitment to addressing high-risk
challenges and taken steps to help correct several of their root causes.
High-risk areas were also among the suggested areas for oversight for the
110th Congress that GAO recently provided to congressional leadership.
Sufficient progress has been made to remove the high-risk designation from
two areas: U.S. Postal Service transformation efforts and long-term
outlook and HUD single-family mortgage insurance and rental housing
assistance programs. Other areas made significant progress, but not enough
to be removed from the list this cycle. Continued attention from the
executive branch and Congress is needed to make additional progress in
other high-risk areas.

This year, GAO is designating three new high-risk areas. The first new
area--critical to the nation's economic development--involves
transportation financing and capacity. Revenues to support federal
transportation trust funds are eroding at a time when investment is needed
to expand capacity to address congestion caused by increasing passenger
and freight travel. Given these problems, Congress and, for some issues,
the Department of Transportation should reassess the federal role, revenue
increase mechanisms, and funding allocations to better position the
federal government to address financing and capacity challenges.

The second area involves effective protection of technologies critical to
U.S. national security. Technologies that underpin U.S. economic and
military strength continue to be targets for theft, espionage, reverse
engineering, and illegal export. Government programs established decades
ago to protect critical technologies are ill-equipped to weigh competing
U.S. interests as the security environment and technological innovation
continue to evolve in the 21st century. Accordingly, we are designating
the effective identification and protection of critical technologies as a
governmentwide high-risk area that warrants a strategic re-examination of
existing programs to identify needed changes and ensure the advancement of
U.S. interests.

The third area being designated as high risk involves federal oversight of
food safety because of risks to the economy and to public health and
safety. Agriculture, as the largest industry and employer in the United
States, generates more than $1 trillion in economic activity annually. Any
food contamination could undermine consumer confidence in the government's
ability to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply, as well as cause
severe economic consequences. The current fragmented federal system has
caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient
use of resources. GAO has recommended that Congress consider a fundamental
re-examination of the system and other improvements to help ensure the
rapid detection of and response to any accidental or deliberate
contamination of food before public health and safety is compromised.

GAO's 2007 High-Risk List

2007 High-Risk Areas                                                       
Addressing Challenges In Broad-Based Transformations                       
o Strategic Human Capital Management^a                                     
o Managing Federal Real Property^a                                         
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 Transformation^a                                
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                                              
o DOD Weapon Systems Acquisition                                           
o FAA Air Traffic Control Modernization                                    
o Financing the Nation's Transportation System ^a (New)                    
o Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S.       
National Security Interests^a (New)                                        
o Transforming Federal Oversight of Food Safety ^a (New)                   
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 Laws^a                                                
o IRS Business Systems Modernization                                       
Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs                
o Modernizing Federal Disability Programs^a                                
o Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Pension Insurance   
Program                                                                    
o Medicare Program^a                                                       
o Medicaid Program^a                                                       
o National Flood Insurance Program^a                                       

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.

References

Visible links
  12.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-207
  13.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-159SP
  14.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-13
  15.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-390
  16.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-875
  17.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-435
  18.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-224
  19.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-839EUR
  20.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-157EUR
  21.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-90
  22.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1125T
  23.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-861T
  24.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-708
  25.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-324
  26.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-227T
  27.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1048T
  28.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-730
  29.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-616T
  30.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-391T
  31.http://www.gao.gov/
  32.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06913r.pdf
  33.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06641.pdf
  34.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06511.pdf
  35.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06613.pdf
  36.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06612.pdf
  37.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06248t.pdf
  38.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06136t.pdf
  39.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05429.pdf
  40.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05785.pdf
  41.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05848t.pdf
  42.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05369.pdf
  43.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05261.pdf
  44.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-659
  45.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-897T
  46.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-672
  47.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-328
  48.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-385
  49.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-527T
  50.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-267
  51.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-712
  52.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-434
  53.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-383
  54.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-231
  55.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-362
  56.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-869
  57.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1012T
  58.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-598T
  59.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-553T
  60.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-618
  61.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-91
  62.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-888
  63.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-300
  64.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-139
  65.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-83
  66.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-39
  67.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1031
  68.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1087T
  69.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-933T
  70.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-785
  71.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-706
  72.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-383
  73.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-385
  74.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-229T
  75.http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d061083CG.pdf
  76.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1006T
  77.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-658
  78.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-497T
  79.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-13
  80.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-234T
  81.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-830T
  82.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-723T
  83.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-629T
  84.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-520T
  85.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1006T
  86.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-06-658
  87.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-18
  88.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-06-171
  89.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-06-215
  90.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-06-219
  91.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-06-234T
  92.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-05-702
  93.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-441
  94.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-05-723T
  95.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?gao-05-189
  96.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1070
  97.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-693R
  98.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-748T
  99.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-747T
 100.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-323R
 101.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-233T
 102.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-988R
 103.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-842T
 104.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-852
 105.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-914
 106.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-913R
 107.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-736R
 108.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-438
 109.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-193
 110.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-905
 111.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-785
 112.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-556
 113.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-534
 114.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-433
 115.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-980
 116.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-970
 117.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1006T
 118.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-530
 119.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-494
 120.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-427
 121.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-406T
 122.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-18
 123.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-882
 124.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-946
 125.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-521
 126.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-234
 127.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-983t
 128.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-739R
 129.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-113T
 130.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-345
 131.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-775
 132.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-275
 133.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-585T
 134.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-883
 135.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-368
 136.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-626T
 137.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-391
 138.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-110
 139.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-955
 140.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-991T
 141.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-537
 142.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-446
 143.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-356
 144.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-327
 145.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-367
 146.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-25
 147.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1114T
 148.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-915T
 149.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-653T
 150.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-738T
 151.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-574T
 152.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-154
 153.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-724
 154.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-331
 155.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-266
 156.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-15
 157.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-94
 158.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-973
 159.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1114T
 160.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-554
 161.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-572T
 162.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-768
 163.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-423SP
 164.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-172
 165.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-802
 166.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-744
 167.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-265
 168.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-793
 169.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-943
 170.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-754R
 171.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-638
 172.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-686
 173.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-681
 174.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-468R
 175.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-234
 176.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-302
 177.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-694
 178.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-120
 179.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-644
 180.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-213
 181.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-212
 182.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
 183.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-490
 184.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-530
 185.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-342
 186.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-902
 187.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-566
 188.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-156
 189.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-20
 190.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-995
 191.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1130T
 192.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1132
 193.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-830
 194.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-800T
 195.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-838R
 196.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-739R
 197.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-454
 198.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-284
 199.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-66
 200.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-274
 201.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-352
 202.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-722
 203.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-501
 204.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-602T
 205.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-313
 206.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-83
 207.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-94
 208.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-897
 209.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-459
 210.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-123
 211.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1127T
 212.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-831
 213.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-817R
 214.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-634
 215.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-218
 216.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-216T
 217.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-799R
 218.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-996
 219.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-404
 220.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-547
 221.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-306
 222.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-16
 223.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-960R
 224.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-456
 225.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-201
 226.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-179
 227.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-229
 228.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1065
 229.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061113t.pdf
 230.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061028t.pdf
 231.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d061000t.pdf
 232.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06603.pdf
 233.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06851t.pdf
 234.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06310.pdf
 235.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06492t.pdf
 236.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06453t.pdf
 237.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06208t.pdf
 238.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05637.pdf
 239.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-136
 240.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-560
 241.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-543R
 242.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-499T
 243.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06615t.pdf
 244.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-310
 245.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-360
 246.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-137
 247.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-774
 248.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-707T
 249.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-393
 250.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-247R
 251.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-319R
 252.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-26R
 253.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-8
 254.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-779T
 255.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-309
 256.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-640R
 257.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-120T
 258.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1051T
 259.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-626
 260.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-749T
 261.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-444T
 262.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-248
 263.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-167
 264.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06429.pdf
 265.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0642.pdf
 266.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05991r.pdf
 267.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05772t.pdf
 268.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05794t.pdf
 269.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05491.pdf
 270.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05578sp.pdf
 271.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05294.pdf
 272.http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05360t.pdf
 273.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-750
 274.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-880
 275.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1008T
 276.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-971T
 277.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-710
 278.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-416
 279.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-654
 280.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-117
 281.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-278R
 282.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-12
 283.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-656
 284.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-873
 285.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-862
 286.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-705
 287.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-578T
 288.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-748
 289.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-836T
 290.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-480
 291.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-817
 292.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-497T
 293.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-335T
 294.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-119
 295.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-183T
 296.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-174T
 297.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-894T
 298.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-532T
 299.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-417
 300.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-401T
 301.http://www.gao.gov/
 302.http://www.gao.gov/
 303.http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
 304. [email protected]
 305. [email protected]
 306. [email protected]
 307.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-120
 308.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-638
 309.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-686
 310.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-302
 311.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-234
 312.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-468R
 313.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-638
 314.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-468R
 315.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-681
 316.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-325SP
 317.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-549T
 318.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-213
 319.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-51
 320.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-214
 321.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-204
 322.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-246
 323.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-549T
 324.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-47T
 325.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
 326.http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
*** End of document. ***