International Environment
U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key Agreements Gao ID: GAO-02-960T July 24, 2002The United States is bound by five international environmental agreements related to climate change (Framework Convention), desertification (Desertification Convention), the earth's ozone layer (Montreal Protocol), endangered species (CITES), and North American environmental cooperation (North American Agreement). However, the United States fell short of meeting a commitment or pledge in two areas--providing financial assistance to other nations and timely reporting. Agencies use informal means, such as meetings and informal communications, to track their actions to fulfill commitments under the five agreements. GAO found few studies that evaluated the effectiveness of the U.S. actions. These few studies generally concluded that the actions examined had positive effects.
GAO-02-960T, International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key Agreements
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-960T
entitled 'International Environment: U.S. Actions to Fulfill
Commitments Under Five Key Agreements' which was released on July 24,
2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee
on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected on Wednesday:
July 24, 2002, at 10:30 am:
International Environment:
U.S. Actions to Fulfill Commitments Under Five Key Agreements:
Statement for the Record by John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-02-960T:
Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees:
I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the results of work
we performed for you on the United States‘ actions to fulfill its
commitments under five international environmental agreements. These
agreements, which were identified by your offices, relate to climate
change (Framework Convention), desertification (Desertification
Convention), the earth‘s ozone layer (Montreal Protocol), endangered
species (CITES), and North American environmental cooperation (North
American Agreement).
Because the causes and consequences of climate change and other
environmental problems do not respect national boundaries, the United
States and other nations have entered into numerous international
environmental agreements to address such problems. These agreements
typically provide that the parties will undertake various actions. Some
provisions are specific and measurable (such as having the parties
establish domestic programs to, for example, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, or having them report periodically on their progress), while
others are general and difficult to measure (such as having the parties
coordinate with each other).
Today, as requested, I will discuss three issues concerning
international environmental agreements: (1) the extent of U.S. actions
to fulfill specific commitments under the five agreements, (2) the
processes and methods federal agencies use to track these actions, and
(3) the results of independent evaluations of these actions.
In summary, our work shows the following:
* The United States is generally taking action to meet its specific
commitments under the five agreements. For example, it established
domestic programs, as required by three of the agreements. However, the
United States fell short of meeting a commitment or pledge in two
areas. First, in the area of providing financial assistance to other
nations, the United States provided over $1.4 billion in such
assistance, but it provided less than it pledged for the Framework
Convention (25 percent) and the Montreal Protocol (6 percent). Second,
in the area of reporting, while the United States submitted nearly all
of the 21 reports that it agreed to submit from 1997 through mid-2002,
about half of these reports were submitted from 2 to 8 months late, and
2 were never submitted. Even though many U.S. reports were late, we
determined that other parties‘ reports were also often late and that,
for the most part, the U.S.‘s tardiness had no significant effect.
* Agencies generally use informal means, such as meetings and informal
communications, to track their actions to fulfill commitments under the
five agreements. According to officials at the Department of State and
at other responsible agencies, such informal means are sufficient and
there is no need to establish formal tracking systems. We found no
instance where the United States lost track of a commitment because it
lacked a formal system.
* We found few studies that evaluated the effectiveness of U.S.
actions. These few studies generally concluded that the actions
examined had positive effects. For example, four studies of
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) activities pursuant to the
Framework Convention concluded that they helped to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Background:
Just as nations have established international agreements to deal with
trade, weapons, and other issues, the United States and other nations
have joined together to respond to transboundary environmental
problems. Like other international agreements, environmental agreements
are legal instruments that are negotiated, signed, and adopted by two
or more countries. Developing such agreements involves achieving
voluntary commitments among nations with various levels of industrial
development, technical capabilities, resources, and concerns about
particular environmental problems. Worldwide, hundreds of international
legal instruments are aimed at environmental protection. According to a
Department of State official, the department‘s Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, which is primarily
responsible for environmental and related matters, is involved in more
than 100 bilateral and multilateral agreements in which the United
States is a party or has an interest.
International agreements are intended to accomplish broad goals”such as
controlling the trade in certain endangered or at-risk species and
eliminating the production of certain ozone-depleting chemicals”but
they do not always provide that the parties must achieve specific
objectives within certain time frames. Furthermore, agreements do not
always include mechanisms for monitoring whether the parties are
fulfilling their commitments or for enforcing compliance. [Footnote 1]
To some extent, this arrangement reflects the belief that strict
compliance and enforcement mechanisms would discourage nations from
participating in a treaty. Therefore, the extent of a nation‘s
compliance with international agreements generally depends on peer or
public pressure.
The five agreements we reviewed are summarized below, in chronological
order:
* The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Flora and Fauna (CITES), which is intended to control the international
trade in specified types of plants and animals (ratified by the United
States in 1974);
* The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol), which is intended to reduce the production and
import of certain chemicals that deplete the earth‘s stratospheric
ozone layer (ratified in 1988);
* The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Framework
Convention), the objective of which is to stabilize concentrations of
carbon dioxide and certain other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at
a level that would prevent dangerous human interference with the
climate system (ratified in 1992);
* The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (North
American Agreement), which is intended to establish a framework for
better protecting the continent‘s environment through cooperation and
enforcement of national laws (entered into force in 1994); and;
* The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those
Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification,
Particularly in Africa (Desertification Convention), which is intended
to mitigate desertification and drought through improved land use
practices, increased local participation in land use planning, and
mobilization and coordination of funding assistance (ratified in
2000).
Like many other multilateral treaties, each of these five agreements
created an institution to administer the agreement. These institutions
are often called secretariats. Under CITES and the North American
Agreement, these institutions are independent entities; under the other
three agreements, the institutions are United Nations entities. These
institutions are responsible for such tasks as compiling reports based
on submissions from the parties, administering requests for technical
assistance, and arranging the logistics for meetings of the parties.
Within the U.S. government, the Department of State is the lead agency
for participating in the Framework Convention and Montreal Protocol. In
the former case, the Department of Energy and EPA are the key
implementing agencies domestically; in the latter case, it is EPA. The
Department of the Interior is the key implementing agency domestically
under CITES, and EPA is the key implementing agency for the North
American Agreement. Although no agency has been assigned the lead
responsibility for the Desertification Convention, the Agency for
International Development provides the majority of the funding and
other assistance to nations in support of the Convention; the
Department of State also plays a significant role.
We discussed the facts included in this statement with the Director,
Office of Global Change, and other Department of State officials, as
well as officials from the Agency for International Development, the
Departments of the Interior and Treasury, and the Environmental
Protection Agency. They generally agreed with the information presented
and they provided clarifications, which we included where appropriate.
We performed our work between November 2001 and July 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
The United States Is Taking Many Actions to Fulfill Its Commitments,
but Has Not Provided All the Funds It Pledged:
The United States is, in general, taking actions to fulfill the
specific provisions of the five selected agreements. We identified
three types of provisions”establishing domestic programs, providing
financial assistance to other nations, and reporting” that were found
in two or more agreements (cross-cutting provisions), as well as
agreement-specific provisions.
Establishing Domestic Programs:
Three of the five agreements required the United States to establish
new domestic programs to help fulfill its commitments ”CITES, the
Framework Convention, and the Montreal Protocol. The Desertification
Convention and the North American Agreement required no new programs.
Under CITES, for example, the Department of the Interior‘s Fish and
Wildlife Service created a permit program to review the import, export,
and reexport of parts and products of species listed as threatened with
extinction. It issues about 4,500 such permits annually. Additionally,
in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture‘s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service and Treasury‘s Customs Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service monitors U.S. ports for illegal shipments of listed
species‘ parts and products.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States has developed a wide
array of domestic programs directly related to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. According to a July 2002 report by the Office of Management
and Budget, the United States is spending an estimated $1.2 billion for
such programs in fiscal year 2002. [Footnote 2] This amount primarily
funds Department of Energy and EPA efforts to research, develop, and
deploy renewable energy technologies and energy-efficient products that
help reduce the use of fossil fuels, as well as U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions.
Under the Montreal Protocol, EPA promulgated regulations”initially in
1988 and later revised”for the 16 companies that produced or imported
certain ozone-depleting substances. It established a schedule for them
to phase out their production and net import of these substances,
granting them an initial allowance to produce or import such substances
and reducing the allowance gradually. In addition, EPA established
programs to ensure that certain substances used in refrigerators and
halon fire extinguishers were properly recycled and to develop safe and
effective alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. As of March 2002,
through the efforts of EPA and other federal agencies, 114 individuals
had been convicted of illegal schemes to import ozone-depleting
substances and $67 million in fines and restitution had been imposed.
Providing Financial Assistance to Other Nations:
The United States pledged to provide financial assistance to other
nations under three of the five agreements. In two cases”the Framework
Convention and the Montreal Protocol”the United States pledged to
provide specific amounts of funds, and in both cases it provided less
than it pledged. In the third case”the Desertification Convention”it
did not pledge to provide a specific amount but did provide funds. In
total, the United States provided more than $1.4 billion under these
three agreements.
Under the Framework Convention, the United States committed to provide
an unspecified amount of funds. Separately, the United States later
pledged to provide specific amounts to the Global Environment Facility,
which is the financial mechanism for the Framework Convention.
[Footnote 3] The facility was established to help developing countries
address climate change and other environmental problems. The United
States pledged to provide $860 million to the facility for fiscal years
1995 through 2002. However, through 2002, the Congress had appropriated
$649 million, or $211 million (25 percent) less than the amount
pledged. [Footnote 4] This shortfall resulted because, in some years,
the Congress did not appropriate enough money to meet the pledge.
In addition to providing funds to developing countries through the
facility, the United States supports developing and other countries‘
efforts to address climate change through the Agency for International
Development. In fiscal year 2002, the agency is providing an estimated
$167 million to promote development that minimizes the growth in
greenhouse gas emissions and reduces vulnerability to climate change.
Under the Montreal Protocol, the United States pledged to provide
$363.6 million between 1991 and 2001 for technical assistance and
investment projects aimed at phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals in
developing nations. However, it provided $21.7 million (6 percent) less
than its pledge during that period. According to EPA officials, the
shortfall occurred for several reasons. The United States withheld more
than half the shortfall amount ($11.5 million) because of a prohibition
on U.S. foreign assistance to Iraq, North Korea, and certain other
nations. [Footnote 5] In addition, in some years the Congress
appropriated less than the amount requested or imposed an across-the-
board rescission to EPA‘s appropriation accounts.
Finally, under the Desertification Convention, the United States
committed to provide an unspecified level of financial assistance to
developing countries. When the convention was ratified in 2000, the
United States was already providing financial assistance to countries
experiencing desertification and drought. [Footnote 6] In fiscal year
2001, the first year of U.S. participation, the Agency for
International Development provided $93.8 million in assistance to other
nations, including $53.8 million to African countries, the Convention's
primary focus. These amounts include bilateral and multilateral
assistance designed to mitigate desertification and drought by
improving the capacity of communities and local institutions to use new
technologies and tools to better manage agricultural lands and natural
resource areas.
Reporting:
Although we found that the United States did not promptly submit nearly
half the reports it had agreed to submit, many other parties were also
late in submitting their reports. Moreover, we generally found that
this tardiness had no significant effect on the agreements‘
secretariats or on other parties.
From the beginning of 1997 to the present, the United States agreed to
submit 21 reports on implementation and related issues for the 5
agreements: CITES, 7 (5 annual and 2 biennial); the Desertification
Convention, 1; the Framework Convention, 2; the Montreal Protocol, 5;
and the North American Agreement, 6. Of these 21 reports, 8 were
submitted between 2 and 8 months late, 1 is expected to be submitted
soon and will be at least 3 months late, and 2 were never submitted.
The United States has been late in submitting at least one report
related to four of the five agreements, as shown in table 1.
Table 1. Number of Reports for Each Agreement, by Timeliness:
Agreement: CITES;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: 5;
Submitted late or overdue: [Empty];
Never submitted: 2;
Total: 7.
Agreement: Desertification Convention;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: [Empty];
Submitted late or overdue: 1;
Never submitted: [Empty];
Total: 1.
Agreement: Framework Convention;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: [Empty];
Submitted late or overdue: 2;
Never submitted: [Empty];
Total: 2.
Agreement: Montreal Protocol;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: 4;
Submitted late or overdue: 1;
Never submitted: [Empty];
Total: 5.
Agreement: North American Agreement;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: 1;
Submitted late or overdue: 5;
Never submitted: [Empty];
Total: 6.
Agreement: Total;
Submitted on time or granted an extension: 10;
Submitted late or overdue: 9;
Never submitted: 2;
Total: 21.
For example, under the Framework Convention, both reports were
submitted late”the first by 3 months and the second by 6 months.
Similarly, under the North American Agreement, four of the six reports
were from 3 to 8 months late and one is overdue. Although the agreement
itself does not require the United States to provide such reports,
the parties decided to submit country reports in order to provide the
secretariat with useful information.
Finally, the United States has not submitted two biennial reports on
its implementation of CITES. According to a CITES secretariat official,
most other parties also have not submitted them either. According to
Fish and Wildlife Service officials, the United States has submitted
annual statistical reports and other periodic reports to the
secretariat on certain activities under CITES, which provide much of
the information that would have been included in the biennial reports.
According to agency officials, in most cases, the United States‘
tardiness had no significant effect on the agreements‘ secretariats or
other parties. However, the Secretary of the North American Agreement‘s
governing council said that the late submission of reports by the
United States and other parties delayed the publication of the
secretariat‘s reports. According to the secretariat‘s director of
programs, these reports were less useful because the information was
occasionally old.
Generally, the reports contained the information required under the
respective agreements. For example, the Framework Convention reports
are to include, among other things, detailed information on its
policies and measures to mitigate climate change and its projected
human-caused emissions. We found that both reports included this
information. The Convention also states that each party shall report on
these two matters ’with the aim of returning individually or jointly to
their 1990 levels these anthropogenic [human-caused] emissions of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.“ The 1997 report addressed
this issue by stating, ’the measures listed in this report are not
expected to reduce U.S. emissions below 1990 levels by the year 2000.“
The 2002 report did not address this issue. [Footnote 7] According to
data from the Energy Information Administration, U.S. emissions in 2000
were about 14 percent above the 1990 level.
In addition to these cross-cutting provisions, some of the agreements
include unique commitments. We found that the United States is
generally acting to fulfill such commitments. For example:
* Under the Montreal Protocol, the United States committed to achieving
specific goals and timetables. The Protocol established a series of
deadlines”from 1989 through 2030”for phasing out the production and
import of dozens of chemicals that deplete the ozone layer. According
to EPA data, the United States virtually eliminated the production and
import of nearly all of these chemicals by the end of 1995. [Footnote
8] Under the Framework Convention, the United States did not commit to
achieving a specific goal but did commit to reporting ’with the aim“ of
reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1990 level. The other three
agreements do not specify measurable goals.
* Under the Desertification Convention, parties are required to submit
nominations to the secretariat for inclusion on a roster of independent
experts in disciplines relevant to combating desertification and
mitigating the effects of drought. Maintained by the secretariat, the
roster is used as a central source of experts for technical assistance
and other purposes. The United States established a Web site to receive
applications for membership on the roster. Applications are received by
the Department of State, subjected to an interagency review process,
and then transmitted to the secretariat.
* Under the Framework Convention, the United States committed to
collect data on emissions of certain greenhouse gases. EPA regularly
collects and publishes these data.
Agencies Generally Use Informal Means to Track Actions:
Although the United States has made many commitments under these five
agreements and taken numerous actions to fulfill these commitments, we
did not identify any policy that would require government officials to
formally track all such commitments and actions. Officials at the
Department of State and other agencies told us that they generally use
informal means to track U.S. actions to fulfill its many commitments.
Officials said their interagency coordination begins while an agreement
is being negotiated and continues after ratification because the
agencies frequently interact while preparing for periodic meetings of
the parties. Actions taken under all five agreements are tracked mainly
through periodic meetings of officials from the various implementing
agencies and other communications among these officials. The officials
noted that they may also consider the views of interest groups and
other parties to these agreements.
Officials expressed a preference for informally tracking U.S. actions
for three reasons. First, the current system is effective in helping to
ensure that the United States acts to meet its commitments. They added
that they were unaware of any instance in which the United States had
failed to meet a commitment because it lacked a formal tracking system,
and we did not find any such instance. Second, developing and
maintaining a formal system”such as (1) compiling a comprehensive
database that captures information on all commitments and actions to
fulfill those commitments or (2) requiring periodic progress reports on
these matters”would involve substantial staff and other costs; these
costs would likely exceed the potential benefits of having such a
system.
Finally, most provisions in these international agreements are fairly
broad and”even where the provisions are specific”there are generally
few penalties for a nation‘s failure to fulfill a commitment. Although
two of the five agreements include mechanisms to enforce compliance,
these mechanisms are rarely used. Under CITES, parties can disallow
imports of CITES-listed species parts and products from countries that
are not properly implementing CITES, thus restricting or preventing
trade in such items. Agency officials told us that these sanctions have
never been applied against the United States. Under the North American
Agreement, monetary penalties may be levied if a party is found to have
a persistent pattern of failing to effectively enforce its
environmental laws; however, according to the secretariat‘s director of
programs, these sanctions have never been applied.
In addition to these informal tracking means, under the North American
Agreement, the United States (like the other parties) annually compiles
a detailed list of actions related to the agreement‘s provisions.
According to an EPA official, the detailed reporting format (which
lists actions provision by provision) was established in the early
years of the agreement to make the parties‘ actions transparent and
accessible to each other and to the general public.
The Few Available Program Evaluations Deemed U.S. Actions Effective:
Despite an extensive search, we found few evaluations of the
effectiveness of U.S. actions to meet its commitments under the five
agreements. To identify such studies, we conducted a search of online
information retrieval systems and contacted selected secretariats. We
did not independently verify the methods used in these studies. The few
studies we identified generally concluded that the actions examined had
had positive effects.
We found two evaluations for CITES, four for the Framework Convention,
three for the Montreal Protocol, and none for the other two agreements.
Specifically:
* The two CITES studies, both by academicians, concluded that the
United States has generally fulfilled its obligations by establishing a
sophisticated program for implementing CITES. Nevertheless, according
to one study, the United States has not been able to prevent all
illegal trade in endangered and at-risk species. [Footnote 9]
* The four Framework Convention studies, performed primarily by EPA
contractors, concluded that EPA‘s programs helped reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by spurring the introduction of energy-efficient lighting
technology and encouraging producers to include energy-efficiency
features in computers and other office equipment. [Footnote 10]
* The three Montreal Protocol studies presented varying results. Two
studies”one issued in 1998 by EPA‘s Office of Inspector General and the
other published in the same year by two academicians”found that
production bans under U.S. law led to decreases in ozone-depleting
chemicals. [Footnote 11] The third study, issued in 2000 by the Ozone
Secretariat of the United Nations Environment Program, noted the growth
of illegal trade in ozone-depleting substances in the United States.
[Footnote 12] The report also noted that U.S. authorities responded to
such trade by arresting and sentencing many individuals on counts of
smuggling the substances.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information, please contact John B. Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included
Chase M. Huntley, Karen Keegan, David Marwick, Carol Herrnstadt
Shulman, and Daniel J. Semick.
[End of testimony]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, International Environment:
Literature on the Effectiveness of International Environmental
Agreements, GAO/RCED-99-148 (Washington, D.C.: May 1999).
[2] U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Federal Climate Change
Expenditures: Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002).
[3] The facility was established on a pilot basis in 1991 and was
restructured in 1994. It is funded by the United States and other
countries, and its projects are implemented and overseen by the United
Nations Development Program, United Nations Environmental Program, and
World Bank.
[4] This includes $30 million appropriated in fiscal year 1994 that was
applied to fiscal year 1995.
[5] Federal law prohibits the use of U.S. foreign assistance to
international organizations for programs in Burma, Cuba, Iran, Iraq,
Libya, North Korea, and Syria, as well as to the Palestine Liberation
Organization. 22 U.S.C. §2227(a)(2000). The United States withheld the
share of its funds that would have gone to those entities.
[6] Furthermore, the President's letter transmitting the agreement to
the Senate stated that the United States‘ obligations under the
convention would be met under existing law and ongoing assistance
programs.
[7] According to a Department of State official, the 2002 report did
not address this issue because the ’aim“ set out in the convention
refers only to the year 2000 and does not address emissions levels in
later years.
[8] The use of two other chemicals is to be eliminated in future
years”by 2005, in the one case, and 2030, in the other case.
[9] Michael J. Glennon and Alison L. Stewart, ’The United States:
Taking Environmental Treaties Seriously,“ and Harold K. Jacobson and
Edith Brown Weiss, ’Assessing the Record and Designing Strategies to
Engage Countries,“ in Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with
International Environmental Accords, edited by Edith Brown Weiss and
Harold K. Jacobson (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1998).
[10] Richard Duke and Daniel M. Kammen, ’The Economics of Energy Market
Transformation Programs,“ The Energy Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1999);
Marvin J. Horowitz, ’Economic Indicators of Market Transformation:
Energy Efficient Lighting and EPA‘s Green Lights,“ The Energy Journal,
Vol. 22, No. 4 (2001); Gartner Consulting, Energy Star Consumer
Campaign and Product Labeling, Marketing, and Communications:
Effectiveness Evaluation (Dec. 12, 2001); and Carrie A. Webber et al.,
Savings Estimates for the Energy Star Voluntary labeling Program”2001
Status Report, Feb. 15, 2002.
[11] EPA, Office of Inspector General, The Effectiveness and Efficiency
of EPA‘s Air Program, Feb. 27, 1998; and Jacobson and Weiss, op. cit.
[12] United Nations Environment Program, Ozone Secretariat, Actions on
Ozone, June 2000.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
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. General Accounting 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
