Federal Farm Programs
USDA Needs to Strengthen Management Controls to Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals Gao ID: GAO-07-1137T July 24, 2007Farmers receive about $20 billion annually in federal farm program payments, which go to individuals and "entities," including corporations, partnerships, and estates. Under certain conditions, estates may receive payments for the first 2 years after an individual's death. For later years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must determine that the estate is not being kept open primarily to receive farm program payments. This testimony is based on GAO's report, Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals (GAO-07-818, July 9, 2007). GAO discusses the extent to which USDA (1) follows its regulations that are intended to provide reasonable assurance that farm program payments go only to eligible estates and (2) makes improper payments to deceased individuals.
USDA has made farm program payments to estates more than 2 years after recipients died, without determining, as its regulations require, whether the estates were kept open to receive these payments. As a result, USDA cannot be assured that farm payments are not going to estates kept open primarily to obtain these payments. From 1999 through 2005, USDA did not conduct any of the required eligibility determinations for 73, or 40 percent, of the 181 estates GAO reviewed. Sixteen of these 73 estates had each received more than $200,000 in farm payments, and 4 had each received more than $500,000. Only 39 of the 181 estates received all annual determinations as required. Even when FSA conducted determinations, we found shortcomings. For example, some USDA field offices approved groups of estates for payments without reviewing each estate individually or without a documented explanation for keeping the estate open. USDA also cannot be assured that it is not making improper payments to deceased individuals. For 1999 through 2005, USDA paid $1.1 billion in farm payments in the names of 172,801 deceased individuals (either as an individual recipient or as a member of an entity). Of this total, 40 percent went to those who had been dead for 3 or more years, and 19 percent to those dead for 7 or more years. Most of these payments were made to deceased individuals indirectly (i.e., as members of farming entities). For example, over one-half of the $1.1 billion in payments went through entities from 1999 through 2005. In one case, USDA paid a member of an entity--deceased since 1995--over $400,000 in payments for 1999 through 2005. USDA relies on a farming operation's self-certification that the information it provides USDA is accurate; operations are also required to notify USDA of any changes, such as the death of a member. Such notification would provide USDA with current information to determine the eligibility of the operation to receive payments. The complex nature of some farming operations--such as entities embedded within other entities--can make it difficult for USDA to avoid making payments to deceased individuals.
GAO-07-1137T, Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Management Controls to Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1137T
entitled 'Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Management
Controls to Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased
Individuals' which was released on July 24, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Finance,
U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, July 24, 2007:
Federal Farm Programs:
USDA Needs to Strengthen Management Controls to Prevent Improper
Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals:
Statement of Lisa Shames, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-07-1137T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1137T, a testimony before the Committee on
Finance, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
Farmers receive about $20 billion annually in federal farm program
payments, which go to individuals and ’entities,“ including
corporations, partnerships, and estates. Under certain conditions,
estates may receive payments for the first 2 years after an
individual‘s death. For later years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) must determine that the estate is not being kept open primarily
to receive farm program payments.
This testimony is based on GAO‘s report, Federal Farm Programs: USDA
Needs to Strengthen Controls to Prevent Improper Payments to Estates
and Deceased Individuals (GAO-07-818, July 9, 2007). GAO discusses the
extent to which USDA (1) follows its regulations that are intended to
provide reasonable assurance that farm program payments go only to
eligible estates and (2) makes improper payments to deceased
individuals.
What GAO Found:
USDA has made farm program payments to estates more than 2 years after
recipients died, without determining, as its regulations require,
whether the estates were kept open to receive these payments. As a
result, USDA cannot be assured that farm payments are not going to
estates kept open primarily to obtain these payments. From 1999 through
2005, USDA did not conduct any of the required eligibility
determinations for 73, or 40 percent, of the 181 estates GAO reviewed.
Sixteen of these 73 estates had each received more than $200,000 in
farm payments, and 4 had each received more than $500,000. Only 39 of
the 181 estates received all annual determinations as required. Even
when FSA conducted determinations, we found shortcomings. For example,
some USDA field offices approved groups of estates for payments without
reviewing each estate individually or without a documented explanation
for keeping the estate open.
USDA also cannot be assured that it is not making improper payments to
deceased individuals. For 1999 through 2005, USDA paid $1.1 billion in
farm payments in the names of 172,801 deceased individuals (either as
an individual recipient or as a member of an entity). Of this total, 40
percent went to those who had been dead for 3 or more years, and 19
percent to those dead for 7 or more years. Most of these payments were
made to deceased individuals indirectly (i.e., as members of farming
entities). For example, over one-half of the $1.1 billion in payments
went through entities from 1999 through 2005. In one case, USDA paid a
member of an entity”deceased since 1995”over $400,000 in payments for
1999 through 2005. USDA relies on a farming operation‘s self-
certification that the information it provides USDA is accurate;
operations are also required to notify USDA of any changes, such as the
death of a member. Such notification would provide USDA with current
information to determine the eligibility of the operation to receive
payments. The complex nature of some farming operations”such as
entities embedded within other entities”can make it difficult for USDA
to avoid making payments to deceased individuals.
Figure: Number of Deceased Individuals Receiving Farm Payments through
Entities, 1999-2005:
[See PDF for Images]
Source: GAO's analysis of USDA's data.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommended that USDA conduct all required annual estate
eligibility determinations, implement management controls to verify
that an individual receiving program payments has not died, and in
cases of improper payments, recover the appropriate amounts. USDA
agreed with these recommendations and has begun actions to implement
them, such as directing its field offices to review the eligibility of
all estates open for more than 2 years.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1137T].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Lisa Shames at (202) 512-
3841 or shamesl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) actions to prevent improper payments to estates
and deceased individuals. My testimony today is based on our report
just released on this subject, which was requested by the Ranking
Member of the Senate Committee on Finance.[Footnote 1] Farmers receive
about $20 billion annually in federal farm program payments for crop
subsidies, conservation practices, and disasters. The magnitude of
these payments, along with our work showing that USDA's enforcement of
support program rules is not always effective, is why we observed in
November 2006, that USDA needs to provide better oversight of farm
program payments.[Footnote 2] Without better oversight to ensure that
farm program funds are spent as economically, efficiently, and
effectively as possible, we pointed out, USDA has little assurance that
these funds benefit the agricultural sector as intended.
Currently, farm program payments go to 1.7 million recipients, both
individuals and "entities," including corporations, partnerships, and
estates. The Agricultural Reconciliation Act of 1987 (1987 Act) limits
payments to individuals and entities that are "actively engaged in
farming." We reported in 2004 that because USDA's regulations ensuring
that recipients are actively engaged in farming do not specify
measurable standards, they allow individuals with limited involvement
in farming to qualify for farm program payments.[Footnote 3]
Individuals may receive farm program payments indirectly through as
many as three entities.[Footnote 4]
From 1999 through 2005, USDA, through its Farm Service Agency (FSA),
made 124 million farm program payments totaling about $130 billion.
Over $200 million of this amount went to nearly 42,000 estates. Under
certain conditions, estates may receive payments for the first 2 years
after an individual's death. For later years, FSA must determine that
the estate is not being kept open primarily to receive farm program
payments.
Today, I would like to discuss the two key findings in our report.
First, FSA made farm program payments to estates more than 2 years
after recipients had died without determining whether the estates were
being kept open primarily for the purpose of receiving these payments,
as its regulations require. As a result, FSA cannot be assured that
farm program payments made to these estates are proper. According to
FSA field officials, many eligibility determinations were either not
done or not done thoroughly, in part because of a lack of sufficient
personnel and time, as well as competing priorities for carrying out
farm programs.
Second, we found that FSA unknowingly paid $1.1 billion in farm program
payments in the names of 172,801 deceased individuals (either as an
individual or as a member of an entity) from 1999 through 2005. FSA
cannot be assured that the farm payments it made are proper because it
does not have management controls, such as computer matching, to verify
that it is not making payments to deceased individuals. Instead, FSA
relies on self-certifications by farming operations that the
information provided is accurate and that the operations will inform
FSA of any changes, including the death of an operation's member.
We have referred the cases of improper payments we identified to USDA's
Office of Inspector General for further investigation. USDA agreed with
our recommendations for improving USDA's ability to prevent improper
payments to estates and deceased individuals and already has begun to
take actions to implement them. In particular, USDA has directed its
field offices to review the eligibility of all estates that have been
open for more than 2 years and requested 2007 farm program payments.
We conducted our review from June 2006 through May 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. To perform our
work, we reviewed a nonrandom sample of estates based, in part, on the
amount of payments an estate received. We also compared the payment
recipients in USDA's databases with individuals that the Social
Security Administration has identified as deceased in its Death Master
File.
FSA Does Not Systematically Determine the Eligibility of Estates for
Farm Program Payments and Cannot Be Assured That Payments Are Proper:
While many estates are kept open for legitimate reasons, we found that
FSA field offices do not systematically determine the eligibility of
all estates kept open for more than 2 years, as regulations require,
and when they do conduct eligibility determinations, the quality of the
determinations varies. Without performing annual determinations, an
essential management control, FSA cannot identify estates being kept
open primarily to receive these payments and be assured that the
payments are proper.
Generally, under the 1987 Act, once a person dies, farm program
payments may continue to that person's estate under certain conditions.
For most farm program payments, USDA regulations allow an estate to
receive payments for the first 2 years after the death of the
individual if the estate meets certain eligibility requirements for
active engagement in farming. Following these 2 years, the estate can
continue to receive program payments if it meets the active engagement
in farming requirement and the local field office determines that the
estate is not being kept open primarily to continue receiving program
payments. Estates are commonly kept open for longer than 2 years
because of, among other things, asset distribution and probate
complications, and tax and debt obligations. However, FSA must annually
determine that the estate is still active and that obtaining farm
program payments is not the primary reason it remains open.
Our review of FSA case file documents found the following.
First, we found FSA did not consistently make the required annual
determinations. Only 39 of the 181 estates we reviewed received annual
eligibility determinations for each year they were kept open beyond the
initial 2 years FSA automatically allows, although we found
shortcomings with these determinations, as discussed below. In
addition, 69 of the 181 estates had at least one annual determination
between 1999 and 2005, but not with the frequency required. Indeed, the
longer an estate was kept open, the less likely it was to receive all
required determinations. For example, only 2 of the 36 estates
requiring a determination every year over the 7-year period, 1999
through 2005, received all seven required determinations.
FSA did not conduct any program eligibility determinations for 73, or
40 percent, of the 181 estates that required a determination from 1999
through 2005. Because FSA did not conduct the required determinations,
the extent to which these estates remained open for reasons other than
for obtaining program payments is not known. Sixteen of these 73
estates received more than $200,000 in farm program payments and 4
received more than $500,000 during this period. In addition, 22 of the
73 estates had received no eligibility determinations during the 7-year
period we reviewed, and these estates had been open and receiving
payments for more than 10 years. In one case, we found that the estate
has been open since 1973.
The following estates received farm program payments but did not
receive FSA eligibility determinations for the period we reviewed:
* A North Dakota estate received farm program payments totaling
$741,000 from 1999 through 2003.
* An Alabama estate--opened since 1981--received payments totaling
$567,000 from 1999 through 2005.
* Two estates in Georgia--opened since 1989 and 1996, respectively--
received payments totaling more than $330,000 each, from 1999 through
2005.
* A New Mexico estate, open since 1991, received $320,000 from 1999
through 2005.
Second, even when FSA conducted at least one eligibility determination,
we found shortcomings. FSA sometimes approved eligibility for payments
when the estate had provided insufficient information--that is, either
no information or vague information. For example, in 20 of the 108 that
received at least one eligibility determination, the minutes of FSA
county committee meetings indicated approval of eligibility for
payments to these estates, but the associated files did not contain any
documents that explained why the estate remained active. FSA also
approved eligibility on the basis of insufficient explanations for
keeping the estate open. In five cases, executors explained that they
did not want to close the estate but did not explain why. In a sixth
case, documentation stated that the estate was remaining active upon
the advice of its lawyers and accountants, but did not explain why.
Some FSA field offices approved program payments to groups of estates
kept open after 2 years without any apparent determination. In one case
in Georgia, minutes of an FSA county committee meeting listed 107
estates as eligible for payments by stating that the county committee
approved all estates open over 2 years. Two of the estates on this list
of 107 were part of the sample that we reviewed in detail. In addition,
another 10 estates in our sample, from nine different FSA field
offices, were also approved for payments without any indication that
even a cursory determination had been conducted.
Third, the extent to which FSA field offices make eligibility
determinations varies from state to state, which suggests that FSA is
not consistently implementing its eligibility rules. Overall, FSA field
offices in 16 of the 26 states we reviewed made less than one-half of
the required determinations of their estates from 1999 to 2005. The
percentage of estates reviewed by FSA ranged from 0 to 100 percent in
the states we reviewed.
Eligibility determinations could also uncover other problems. Under the
three-entity rule, individuals receiving program payments may not hold
a substantial beneficial interest in more than two entities also
receiving payments. However, because a beneficiary of an Arkansas
estate we reviewed received farm program payments through the estate in
2005, as well as through three other entities, the beneficiary was able
to receive payments beyond what the three-entity rule would have
allowed. FSA was unaware of this situation until we brought it to
officials' attention, and FSA has begun taking steps to recover any
improper payments. Had FSA conducted any eligibility determinations for
this estate during the period, it might have determined that the estate
was not eligible for these payments, preventing the beneficiary from
receiving what amounted to a payment through a fourth entity.
We informed FSA of the problems we uncovered during the course of our
review. According to FSA field officials, a lack of sufficient
personnel and time, and competing priorities for carrying out farm
programs explain, in part, why many determinations were either not
conducted or not conducted thoroughly. Nevertheless, officials told us
that they would investigate these cases for potential receipt of
improper payments and would start collection proceedings if they found
improper payments.
Without Appropriate Management Controls, FSA Cannot Be Assured That It
Is Not Making Payments to Deceased Individuals:
FSA cannot be assured that millions of dollars in farm program payments
it made to thousands of deceased individuals from fiscal years 1999
through 2005 were proper because it does not have appropriate
management controls, such as computer matching, to verify that it is
not making payments to deceased individuals. In particular, FSA is not
matching recipients listed in its payment databases with individuals
listed as deceased in the Social Security Administration's Death Master
File. In addition, complex farming operations, such as corporations or
general partnerships with embedded entities, make it difficult for FSA
to prevent improper payments to deceased individuals.
FSA Made Millions of Dollars in Farm Program Payments to Deceased
Individuals from Fiscal Years 1999 through 2005:
FSA paid $1.1 billion in farm program payments in the names of 172,801
deceased individuals--either as individuals or as members of entities,
from fiscal years 1999 through 2005, according to our matching of FSA's
payment databases with the Social Security Administration's Death
Master File. Of the $1.1 billion in farm payments, 40 percent went to
individuals who had been dead for 3 or more years, and 19 percent went
to individuals who had been dead for 7 or more years. Figure 1 shows
the number of years in which FSA made farm program payments after an
individual had died and the value of those payments.
Figure 1: Number of Years and Value of Farm Program Payments Made after
Individuals' Deaths, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2005:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO's analysis of FSA's and Social Security Administration's
data.
Note: Farm program payments made through entities are based on program
year data.
[A] Includes payments made 1 day after death to 1 year after death.
[End of figure]
We identified several instances in which FSA's lack of management
controls resulted in improper payments to deceased individuals. For
example, FSA provided more than $400,000 in farm program payments from
1999 through 2005 to an Illinois farming operation on the basis of the
ownership interest of an individual who had died in 1995.[Footnote 5]
According to FSA's records, the farming operation consisted of about
1,900 cropland acres producing mostly corn and soybeans. It was
organized as a corporation with four shareholders, with the deceased
individual owning a 40.3-percent interest in the entity. Nonetheless,
we found that the deceased individual had resided in Florida. Another
member of this farming operation, who resided in Illinois and had
signature authority for the operation, updated the operating plan most
recently in 2004 but failed to notify FSA of the individual's death.
The farming operation therefore continued to qualify for farm program
payments on behalf of the deceased individual. As noted earlier, FSA
requires farming operations to certify that they will notify FSA of any
change in their operation and to provide true and correct information.
According to USDA regulations, failure to do so may result in
forfeiture of payments and an assessment of a penalty. FSA recognized
this problem in December 2006 when the children of the deceased
individual contacted the FSA field office to obtain signature authority
for the operation. FSA has begun proceedings to collect the improper
payments.
USDA recognizes that its farm programs have management control
weaknesses, making them vulnerable to significant improper payments. In
its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report to the Office of
Management and Budget, USDA reported that poor management controls led
to improper payments to some farmers, in part because of incorrect or
missing paperwork.[Footnote 6] In addition, as part of its reporting of
improper payments information, USDA identified six FSA programs
susceptible to significant risk of improper payments with estimated
improper payments totaling over $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2006, as
shown in table 1.
Table 1: USDA Estimates of Improper Payments, Fiscal Year 2006:
Dollars in millions.
Program: Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments Program;
Estimated improper payments: $424;
Percent error rate: 4.96.
Program: Conservation Reserve Program;
Estimated improper payments: 64;
Percent error rate: 3.53.
Program: Disaster assistance programs[A];
Estimated improper payments: 291;
Percent error rate: 12.30.
Program: Noninsured Assistance Program[B];
Estimated improper payments: 25;
Percent error rate: 22.94.
Program: Loan deficiency payments provided under the Marketing
Assistance Loan Program;
Estimated improper payments: 443;
Percent error rate: 9.25.
Program: Other benefits provided under the Marketing Assistance Loan
Program;
Estimated improper payments: 1,611;
Percent error rate: 20.26.
Total/average;
Estimated improper payments: $2,858;
Percent error rate: 11.17.
Source: USDA's FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report.
Note: USDA's estimates include improper payments made to deceased
individuals but USDA does not separate these payments from other
improper payments.
[A] Disaster assistance payments are direct federal payments to crop
producers when either planting is prevented or crop yields are
abnormally low because of adverse weather and related conditions.
[B] The Noninsured Assistance Program provides financial assistance to
producers of non-insured crops when low yields, loss of inventory, or
prevented planting occur due to natural disasters. Assistance is
limited to crops not eligible for coverage under the federal crop
insurance program.
[End of table]
Complex Farming Operations Raise the Potential for Improper Payments to
Deceased Individuals:
Farm program payments made to deceased individuals indirectly--that is,
as members of farming entities--represent a disproportionately high
share of post-death payments. Specifically, payments to deceased
individuals through entities accounted for $648 million--or 58 percent
of the $1.1 billion in payments made to all deceased individuals from
1999 through 2005. In contrast, payments to all individuals through
entities accounted for $35.6 billion--or 27 percent of the $130 billion
in farm program payments FSA provided from 1999 through 2005.
The complex nature of some types of farming entities, in particular,
corporations and general partnerships, increases the potential for
improper payments. For example, a significant portion of farm program
payments went to deceased individuals who were members of corporations
and general partnerships. Deceased individuals identified as members of
corporations and general partnerships received nearly three-quarters of
the $648 million that went to deceased individuals in all entities. The
remaining one-quarter of payments went to deceased individuals of other
types of entities, including estates, joint ventures, limited
partnerships, and trusts. With regard to the number of deceased
individuals who received farm program payments through entities, they
were most often members of corporations and general partnerships.
Specifically, of the 39,834 deceased individuals who received farm
program payments through entities, about 57 percent were listed in
FSA's databases as members of corporations or general partnerships.
Furthermore, of the 172,801 deceased individuals identified as
receiving farm program payments, 5,081 received more than one payment
because (1) they were a member of more than one entity, or (2) they
received payments as an individual and were a member of one or more
entities.
According to FSA field officials, complex farming operations, such as
corporations and general partnerships with embedded entities, make it
difficult for FSA to prevent making improper payments to deceased
individuals. In particular, in many large farming operations, one
individual often holds signature authority for the entire farming
operation, which may include multiple members or entities. This
individual may be the only contact FSA has with the operation;
therefore, FSA cannot always know that each member of the operation is
represented accurately to FSA by the signing individual for two key
reasons. First, it relies on the farming operation to self-certify that
the information provided is accurate and that the operation will inform
FSA of any operating plan changes, which would include the death of an
operation's member. Such notification would provide USDA with current
information to determine the eligibility of the operation to receive
the payments. Second, FSA has no management controls, such as computer
matching of its payment databases with the Social Security
Administration's Death Master File, to verify that an ongoing farming
operation has failed to report the death of a member.
Conclusions:
FSA has a formidable task--ensuring that billions of dollars in program
payments are made only to estates and individuals that are eligible to
receive them. The shortcomings we have identified underscore the need
for improved oversight of federal farm programs. Such oversight can
help to ensure that program funds are spent as economically,
efficiently, and effectively as possible, and that they benefit those
engaged in farming as intended.
In our report, we recommended that USDA conduct all required annual
estate eligibility determinations, implement management controls to
verify that an individual receiving program payments has not died, and
determine if improper payments have been made to deceased individuals
or to entities that failed to disclose the death of a member, and if
so, recover the appropriate amounts. USDA agreed with these
recommendations and has already begun actions to implement them.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee
may have.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Lisa Shames, Director,
Natural Resources and Environment, (202) 512-3841 or shamesl@gao.gov.
Key contributors to this testimony were James R. Jones, Jr., Assistant
Director; Thomas M. Cook; and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Federal Farm Programs: USDA Needs to Strengthen Controls to
Prevent Improper Payments to Estates and Deceased Individuals, GAO-07-
818 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2007).
[2] GAO, Suggested Areas for Oversight for the 110th Congress, GAO-07-
235R (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006).
[3] GAO, Farm Program Payments: USDA Needs to Strengthen Regulations
and Oversight to Better Ensure Recipients Do Not Circumvent Payment
Limitations, GAO-04-407 (Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2004). We
recommended that USDA strengthen its regulations for active engagement
in farming.
[4] Under the "three-entity rule," a person--an individual or entity--
can receive program payments through no more than three entities in
which the person holds a substantial beneficial interest. A person can
receive payments (1) as an individual and as a member of no more than
two entities or (2) through three entities and not as an individual.
FSA defines a substantial beneficial interest as 10 percent or more.
[5] In addition, before the period of our review the operation received
farm program payments on behalf of the deceased individual from 1995
through 1998.
[6] See U.S. Department of Agriculture, FY 2006 Performance and
Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2006).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site.
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon,
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
