This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-543
entitled 'Border Security: Opportunities to Increase Coordination of
Air and Marine Assets' which was released on September 12, 2005.
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.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2005:
Border Security:
Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets:
GAO-05-543:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-543, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, House
Committee on Government Reform:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Three agencies of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have
primary responsibility for securing the nation’s borders—the U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE). Together, they enforce security across 7,500
miles of land border between the United States and Mexico and Canada,
and protect more than 361 seaports and 95,000 miles of coastline. To
fulfill their missions, these agencies deploy a variety of valuable air
and marine assets.
In this report, GAO analyzed (1) what efforts DHS has undertaken to
facilitate coordination of the air and marine assets of the three
agencies and (2) how the agencies’ local air and marine units have, in
selected areas, coordinated the use of assets and what challenges they
faced.
What GAO Found:
DHS established departmental councils that have identified
opportunities to achieve cost savings or cost efficiencies involving
the department’s air and marine assets—airplanes, helicopters, and
boats. Specifically, the aviation council issued a plan that provides a
framework for increasing coordination and collaboration across agencies
in the operation and support of aviation assets and resources. For
example, the plan identifies opportunities to improve the tracking of
aviation assets, develop standardized training programs across
agencies, and consolidate maintenance programs and facilities. An
additional plan outlines a broad-based approach for effectively
employing the department’s aviation assets. The boats council helped
CBP take advantage of large-volume discounts to purchase six boats
through an existing USCG contract, saving an estimated $300,000. DHS
officials said they are also developing a plan for merging the assets
and personnel of the Air and Marine Operations division of ICE with
CBP. This effort is intended to enable DHS to maximize the use of its
aircraft and pilots and gain potential efficiencies in maintenance,
acquisition, and training. DHS expects to finish planning how this
effort will be accomplished by September 30, 2005.
The agencies at the four locations GAO visited had undertaken efforts
to coordinate assets and related training on an ad hoc basis because of
the willingness of local commanders to cooperate with each other. For
example, in South Florida, the three agencies jointly developed weekly
air and marine schedules for the aircraft and boats they deploy to
increase coverage in the area and reduce duplication of patrols. In
Bellingham, Washington, USCG provided training to CBP staff, enabling
CBP boat operators to supplement USCG crew. Officials at all locations
noted that challenges affect the extent to which such coordination can
reasonably occur. For example, some assets are not shared because
agencies’ needs differ. Headquarter officials also cited potential
legal issues that could limit efforts to coordinate the use of assets
among agencies, such as prohibition of the diversion of USCG assets to
any other organization or entity of DHS. Local unit officials stated
that DHS needed to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies in conducting their homeland security missions to ensure that
DHS’s air and marine assets are used in an efficient and coordinated
manner that optimizes use of DHS’s resources.
Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of DHS provide guidance that
clarifies the roles and responsibilities of USCG and CBP in their
homeland security missions, as well as how asset use should be
coordinated, and determine if there are statutory limits on USCG’s
ability to coordinate assets with other agencies and whether they
should be revised. DHS reviewed a draft of this report and generally
concurred with our recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-543.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul Jones at (202) 512-
8777 or jonespl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and Marine
Assets:
Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite Challenges
to Their Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security Responsibilities:
Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets:
Figure 3: Selected DHS Marine Assets:
Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets:
Abbreviations:
ALMIS: Aviation Logistics Management Information System:
AMO: Air and Marine Operations:
BTS: Border and Transportation Security:
CBP: Customs and Border Protection:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
OBP: Office of Border Patrol:
TSA: Transportation Security Administration:
USCG: United States Coast Guard:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 12, 2005:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created by Congress to
strengthen the federal government's efforts to protect the United
States from future attacks. DHS brought together 22 separate federal
agencies with law enforcement, immigration, and security-related
missions with the goal of creating a unified department capable of
detecting, preventing, preparing for, and responding to terrorist
attacks on U.S. soil. We designated DHS's transformation as a high-risk
area in 2003, based on the enormous challenges of transforming 22
agencies into one department and the serious consequences of failing to
effectively address its management challenges and program risks could
have for our national security. DHS continues to face daunting
challenges as officials undertake to integrate and transform these
separate federal agencies.[Footnote 1] One key challenge is ensuring
that the agencies responsible for securing the nation's air, land, and
sea borders--the nation's first line of defense against terrorism--can
successfully carry out their border security missions on a daily basis.
Part of meeting this challenge is to move toward integration of widely
deployed air and marine assets, as well as personnel managed by these
agencies.
At the time DHS was created, three agencies within the department had
primary responsibility for border security--the United States Coast
Guard (USCG), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).[Footnote 2] These agencies were charged with
enforcing border security across over 7,500 miles of U.S. land borders
with Canada and Mexico and protecting more than 361 seaports and 95,000
miles of coastline. To fulfill their missions, these agencies deployed
an array of valuable assets. At the time of our review, this included
approximately 500 aircraft and 1,900 boats. On July 13, 2005, the
Secretary of DHS announced a reorganization that would combine the air
assets from CBP's two aviation programs--one within Air and Marine
Operations (AMO) and the other within the Office of Border Patrol
(OBP)--into one called CBP Air. This action followed the October 2004
announcement that ICE's air and marine assets were being moved to CBP.
Because these actions took place after we had essentially completed our
field work, and CBP Air was created after we provided our draft report
to DHS for comments, we refer to the agencies that existed at the time
we did our review.
You expressed interest in learning how DHS is facilitating the
coordination or sharing of these air and marine assets in an efficient
and cost-effective manner, so that the border security agencies are
able to fulfill their missions in their local and regional areas of
operation while addressing DHS's broader objective of unifying border
security. This report examines (1) efforts DHS has undertaken to
facilitate coordination of the air and marine assets of USCG, CBP, and
ICE and (2) how these agencies' local air and marine units, in selected
geographic areas, have coordinated the use of their assets, and
challenges they face. In this report, "asset coordination" refers to
the shared use of assets among agencies, as well as coordination and
collaboration in the acquisition, maintenance, training, and operation
of air and marine assets.
To address these issues, we reviewed laws and regulations, DHS policies
and management directives, and other relevant documents. We also
interviewed officials at DHS headquarters, including officials of the
three agencies--USCG, CBP, and ICE--who were responsible for the
management of the law enforcement programs and air and marine assets
used under these programs. We interviewed local DHS agency officials
and reviewed documents during site visits to Miami, Florida; San Diego,
California; Bellingham and Blaine, Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. We
selected these locations because each one included at least two of the
three agencies with air or marine assets in close geographic proximity,
they illustrated operations at both the northern and southern U.S.
borders, and the agencies used an array of air and marine assets under
varying operational conditions. We performed our work from June 2004
through July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
DHS has taken steps to identify shared opportunities to achieve cost
savings and operational efficiencies involving the department's air and
marine assets--airplanes, helicopters, and boats. Specifically, DHS
formed departmental aviation and boats councils that are responsible
for identifying options to maximize the efficient use of DHS's air and
marine assets in areas such as operations, resources, asset procurement
and maintenance, and the training of aviation and marine personnel, and
making recommendations to DHS management on what actions should be
taken to achieve these efficiencies. The aviation council recently
issued a plan to senior DHS management that provides a framework for
increasing coordination and collaboration across agencies in the
operation and support of aviation assets and resources. For example,
the plan identifies opportunities to improve the tracking of aviation
assets, develop standardized training programs across agencies, and
consolidate maintenance programs and facilities. In addition, the
aviation council issued a concept of operations plan to DHS senior
management that outlines a broad-based approach for how the department
could more effectively employ its aviation assets. The boats council
also recently issued a plan to senior DHS management that identified
opportunities to realize cost savings through joint purchases and
shared training and maintenance activities for marine craft under 65
feet. For example, before the plan was issued CBP took advantage of
large-volume discounts to purchase six boats through an existing USCG
contract, saving an estimated $300,000. The boats council's plan also
identifies other areas to study where operational efficiencies and
possible cost savings may be achieved. Although the boats council did
not develop a concept of operations plan, such as the one issued for
aviation assets, DHS has tasked a newly chartered committee with
responsibility for developing a concept of operations plan for the DHS
boat community. The new committee has recommended that DHS agencies
with boat programs request funding in their fiscal year 2007 budgets to
conduct a baseline study similar to that conducted on aviation assets.
No time frames have been set for completion of the plan or baseline
study. DHS officials said that they are also developing an integration
plan for merging the assets and personnel of the Air and Marine
Operations division of ICE with CBP. This effort, initiated in October
2004, is intended to realign and streamline agency resources, allowing
DHS to maximize the use of its aircraft and pilots, as well as gain
potential efficiencies in support areas, such as maintenance,
acquisition, and training. DHS expects to finish planning how this
effort will be accomplished by September 2005. According to DHS, once
the merger has been completed, the department will assess its impact on
agency wide asset use and coordination.
The USCG, CBP, and ICE local units at the locations we visited had
undertaken efforts to coordinate assets and related training on an ad
hoc basis. In South Florida, the three local units jointly developed
weekly air and marine schedules for the aircraft and boats they deploy
collectively, in an effort to increase law enforcement coverage in the
area and reduce duplication of patrol efforts. In Bellingham,
Washington, USCG provided training to CBP staff, enabling the CBP boat
operators to supplement USCG crew when possible. In San Diego, some
units share a marine operations center, which facilitates intelligence
sharing. Local unit officials from all the locations we visited stated
that coordination was mutually beneficial and supported their ability
to accomplish their border security missions, though neither they nor
DHS formally tracks or evaluates these efforts. Local unit officials
credited local commanders with a willingness to cooperate and noted
that several logistical challenges affect the extent to which such
coordination can occur. For example, some agencies' asset needs differ-
-ICE may need fast fixed wing aircraft to chase suspects over long
distances, while CBP may need lower-speed helicopters to track illegal
immigrants. In addition, air and marine assets may not be available for
coordinated missions or sharing because they must be held ready to
respond to emergencies and because personnel in one agency may not be
trained to operate the assets used by another agency. Local unit
officials from each agency stated that clarification of their
respective homeland security roles and responsibilities would enhance
the efficient operational use of air and marine assets. Headquarters
officials also cited potential legal issues that could limit efforts to
coordinate the use of assets among agencies. For example, USCG
officials cite a provision in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which
established DHS, that prohibited the diversion of USCG assets to any
other organization or entity of DHS, except for details or assignments
that do not reduce the USCG's capability to perform its
missions.[Footnote 3]
To help ensure more efficient operational use of DHS's air and marine
assets, we are recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security
provide guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the
agencies employing air and marine assets for their homeland security
mission, as well as how asset use should be coordinated, and determine
whether the Homeland Security Act of 2002 limits the ability of USCG to
coordinate assets with other agencies, and if so, evaluate the merits,
including the costs and benefits of proposing a change in the law to
Congress.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review. DHS, in its
written comments, generally concurred with the report's
recommendations. DHS stated that the organizational changes and policy-
related initiatives announced in July 2005 will help address
coordination of operations and the recommendations in this report. The
full text of DHS's comments is included in appendix I. USCG and CBP
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 consolidated most federal agencies
charged with providing homeland security, including securing our
nation's borders, within the newly formed DHS.[Footnote 4] The
department was created to improve coordination, communication, and
information sharing among the multiple federal agencies responsible for
protecting the homeland. In creating DHS, Congress envisioned that
efficiencies and economies of scale would be realized by eliminating
overlap and redundancies. Our prior work has highlighted the
significant management and organizational challenges DHS faces in
becoming a fully integrated and unified department, while at the same
time fulfilling its primary mission of protecting the
homeland.[Footnote 5] These include a broad array of operational and
management challenges that DHS inherited from its legacy agencies.
DHS's strategic plan, issued in 2004, provides the primary guidance for
the department's efforts to integrate its agencies. Specifically, the
DHS strategic plan describes the department's vision, mission, core
values, and guiding principles to achieve its mission of protecting the
homeland.[Footnote 6] Along with identifying DHS's primary mission of
homeland security, the plan establishes an objective to optimize
mission performance by consolidating and integrating roles and
responsibilities, and to foster collaboration and communication across
agency lines to ensure the most effective mix of services. The
strategic plan also established the objective of securing our borders
against terrorists, means of terrorism, illegal drugs, and other
illegal activity. The plan stated that the department will enforce
border security in an integrated fashion at ports of entry, on the
borders, on the seas, and before potential terrorist threats can reach
the borders.[Footnote 7]
Border Security Roles and Responsibilities:
The border security responsibilities of DHS are primarily located
within the Border and Transportation Security (BTS)
Directorate.[Footnote 8] Within the BTS Directorate, CBP has
responsibility for security at and between ports of entry along the
border. CBP's priority mission is to prevent terrorists and terrorist
weapons from entering the United States. Within CBP, the United States
Border Patrol is the agency responsible for the enforcement of federal
immigration laws between ports. In addition to the priority homeland
security mission of CBP, Border Patrol has its traditional mission of
preventing illegal aliens, smugglers, narcotics, and other contraband
from entering the United States. Border Patrol agents perform their
duties by land, sea, and air near and along over 8,000 miles of U.S.
boundaries. Also within BTS, ICE focuses on enforcement of immigration
and customs laws within the United States, and its mission is to detect
and prevent terrorist and criminal acts by targeting the people, money,
and materials that support terrorists and criminal networks. Within
ICE, AMO's mission is to protect the American people and critical
infrastructure by using an integrated and coordinated air and marine
force to deter, interdict, and prevent acts of terrorism arising from
threats of unlawful movement of people and goods across U.S.
borders.[Footnote 9] AMO supports ICE investigations as well as those
of other agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration; the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives; and the Secret Service.
The USCG is a military, maritime, multimission service whose overall
mission is to protect the public, the environment, and U.S. economic
interests in maritime regions. The Coast Guard is the lead federal
agency for the maritime component of homeland security and is
responsible for border security as it applies to U.S. ports, coastal
and inland waterways, and territorial waters. The USCG missions include
search and rescue, law enforcement, alien interdiction, and port
security. As the Coast Guard is a distinct entity within DHS, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard reports directly to the Secretary of DHS.
Figure 1 shows the primary agencies within DHS with border security
responsibilities prior to the proposed organizational changes announced
on July 13, 2005.
Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security Responsibilities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Border Security Aviation and Marine Assets:
Coast Guard, CBP, and ICE use millions of dollars in air and marine
assets to accomplish DHS's primary mission of ensuring homeland
security, as well as their traditional missions.[Footnote 10] The
assets are used for patrol, surveillance, interdiction, transport, and
rescue, among other things. The assets of all three organizations are
arrayed along the land and sea borders of the United States, with the
heaviest concentration of assets along the southern border, reflecting
the operational demands of legacy counter-drug and illegal immigration
missions. While the agencies use a variety of assets, in some cases the
air and marine assets are similar or have similar mission capabilities.
According to DHS, the department's air fleet consists of about 460
rotary and fixed wing aircraft, and the department spends between $400
million and $500 million annually for aviation acquisition,
maintenance, and training programs. Figure 2 shows seven aviation
assets typically used by DHS agencies.
Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DHS's marine fleet includes nearly 200 boats for CBP and ICE and 1,700
Coast Guard boats and vessels. Figure 3 shows some of the marine assets
typically used by the three border security agencies.
Figure 3: Selected DHS Marine Assets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In fiscal year 2004, DHS spent about $80 million for the boat
program.[Footnote 11] See figure 4 for a map of the agencies' air and
marine assets in selected locations.
Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and Marine
Assets:
DHS Aviation and Boat Councils Identified Opportunities to Achieve Cost
Efficiencies and Savings Involving the Department's Air and Marine
Assets:
DHS has taken steps over the last 2 years to review the practices used
by USCG, CBP, and ICE to acquire, operate, and maintain their air and
marine assets and train the personnel that operate them. In October
2003, DHS established departmental councils with broad responsibilities
to review the missions and requirements of USCG, CBP, and ICE; identify
opportunities to achieve cost efficiencies and savings; and propose to
DHS's senior-level management departmental strategies to realize these
opportunities. Two such councils--the Aviation Management Council and
Boats Commodity Council--are staffed by subject matter experts from all
agencies with aviation and boat programs.[Footnote 12]
The Aviation Management Council was tasked with reviewing and analyzing
a February 2004 contractor report that provided an assessment of the
aviation operations and support programs of the USCG, CBP, and ICE, and
with determining the feasibility of implementing the report's
recommendations.[Footnote 13] Specifically, the contractor study
examined DHS's aviation capabilities in relation to the collective
assets of these three agencies and identified overlaps in aviation
capability, assets, training, maintenance and logistics, facilities,
and acquisition that could be minimized to achieve efficiencies and
reduce operating expenses. To address one of the contractor study's
recommendations, the council issued a broad-based departmentwide
"concept of operations" plan to DHS senior management in April 2005
that establishes a framework for how the agencies can work
collaboratively in a joint environment to accomplish mission
priorities. The concept of operations plan provides a broad,
generalized description of the missions each agency typically conducts
on a regular basis. The plan assigns each agency primary, secondary, or
tertiary responsibility levels for missions based on the capabilities
of the agencies, but notes that each agency remains responsible for the
day-to-day operations of its aviation assets. In cases where more than
one of the agencies have the appropriate skills and regularly perform
the same mission, the plan calls for the operational lead to be based
on the geographic location and local availability of resources.
However, the plan does not indicate who will make decisions on the lead
agency in cases where two units perform the same mission or specify how
operations are to be coordinated.
The Aviation Commodity Council, another departmental council with the
same membership as the Aviation Management Council, examined other
recommendations in the contractor study for achieving efficiencies and
economies, such as colocating agency facilities in proximity, including
air hangars and maintenance facilities, and consolidating common
training for agencies under single contracts where feasible. For
example, one contractor study recommendation called for the development
of a common information technology system for use in managing aviation
assets. The contractor study concluded that bringing the aviation
programs of all three agencies under one information system would
improve DHS's ability to make accurate comparisons of the costs of
maintenance for the department as well as decisions on how to integrate
its aviation maintenance operations. According to the contractor study,
each agency currently uses a different method for recording and
calculating asset use and costs, including parts and maintenance. In
addressing this recommendation, the Aviation Management Council
initiated a pilot project in 2004 to examine the feasibility of using
the Coast Guard's Aviation Logistics Management Information System
(ALMIS) to maintain data on all of DHS's aviation assets.[Footnote 14]
The pilot project, scheduled to be completed in September 2005, is
examining options for incorporating the separate aviation data of the
CBP and ICE aviation fleets into one system with the Coast Guard.
The Boats Commodity Council has identified areas for collaborating on
marine asset procurements, conducting joint training programs, and
consolidating some maintenance programs to achieve savings among the
agencies. For example, rather than initiating a separate procurement,
CBP acquired six boats through an existing Coast Guard contract and
saved $300,000 by taking advantage of USCG's large-volume discounts.
The Coast Guard has also entered into an agreement with ICE for
outboard engine maintenance through ICE's maintenance program at its
National Marine Service Center. The council also proposed a study to
determine if the different boat training schools used by the agencies
can be consolidated to achieve additional cost efficiencies. Council
officials indicated that where possible, officials are looking to use
the same types of patrol boats and equipment for additional savings,
efficient use, and reduced labor costs. The boats council's plan
identifies issues to study for future cost savings in acquisition,
training, and maintenance. In most cases, these actions are to be
carried out using working groups to develop the specific details on how
DHS can achieve efficiencies and savings for each of the selected
opportunities. In addition, the time frames for accomplishing these
actions are general, such as "within the fiscal year" or "in fiscal
year 2006-2007."
The boats council did not develop a concept of operations plan for
using marine assets similar to the one developed by the Aviation
Management Council that provides a framework for coordinated efforts to
use air assets, because the council considered this task as outside of
its purview. In addition, DHS has not done a baseline study on boats
such as the contractor study done for aviation assets. According to
DHS, a newly chartered Logistics Functional Committee has been tasked
with developing a concept of operations plan for the DHS boat community
and is recommending that DHS agencies with boat programs request
funding in their fiscal year 2007 budgets to conduct a baseline study
similar to that conducted on aviation assets. However, no time frames
have been set for completion of the plan or baseline study.
Integration of ICE Air and Marine Operations with CBP under Development:
In October 2004, DHS announced another effort related to achieving
operational efficiencies among border security agencies. Specifically,
DHS transferred the Air and Marine Operations program that had been in
ICE to CBP. According to DHS, the purpose of the transfer was to
consolidate air and marine operations within the BTS directorate, to
realign and streamline agency resources, and allow DHS to maximize the
use of its aircraft and pilots, as well as gain potential efficiencies
in support areas, such as maintenance, acquisition, and training.
Initially, the merger involved the transfer of responsibility for AMO's
personnel, resources, and air and marine assets to the CBP
Commissioner. The unit was transferred intact to CBP, thereby retaining
the unit's chain of command. The next stage involves developing
specific plans for integrating the aviation and marine assets,
personnel, and missions within CBP. DHS expects these plans to be
completed in September 2005. According to a DHS management official,
decisions on developing departmentwide guidance on coordinating air and
marine operations will not be made until the integration of AMO and CBP
is completed and its impact on asset coordination has been assessed.
Our previous work on the creation and development of DHS and additional
work on transformations and mergers indicates that such a merger or
transformation can take years before it is completed, and therefore it
must be carefully and closely managed.
Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite Challenges
to Their Efforts:
Coordination among the local units we visited was performed on an ad
hoc basis, primarily at the direction and discretion of local unit
commanders. It was not possible to assess the full extent of these
efforts because neither DHS nor the agencies systematically track them.
Local unit officials said the degree of coordination varied. In all
locations, unit officials told us that while they coordinate the use of
their assets, they would not physically share or turn over control of
an asset to another agency. Local unit air and marine operators said
the coordination efforts have resulted in improved communication and
intelligence, among other things. However, local unit officials noted
that tactical, training, and legal challenges can limit the extent to
which coordination occurs, and that DHS clarification of each agency's
roles and responsibilities for homeland security and asset coordination
could help address these challenges.
Coordination among Agencies Initiated by Local Unit Leadership:
The types of air and marine asset coordination efforts practiced by
USCG, CBP, and ICE units at the locations we visited varied and were
primarily informal and based on the willingness of local unit
commanders to cooperate with each other, according to the local unit
officials with whom we spoke.[Footnote 15] The information we were able
to obtain on the nature and extent to which agencies coordinate asset
use was largely anecdotal because local unit officials told us that
they do not routinely track asset coordination efforts because doing so
is not required by DHS and they do not have the resources or systems to
track this information. Local unit officials from each agency indicated
that while coordination can be useful, the units are distinct, trained
in their agency's missions, and assets and personnel are not always
interchangeable. Officials from each of the locations we visited also
cited benefits to asset coordination, as the following examples
illustrate.
Miami, Florida:
USCG, CBP, and ICE each have air and marine operations in the Miami
region.
Together, these units have an operational area that encompasses South
Florida, including the Florida Straits, through North Carolina, and
internationally to the Bahamas. This combined area represents over
1,600 miles of coastline and over 30,000 square miles of open water
that the agencies have responsibility for patrolling and keeping
secure. The agencies use fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, and boats to
carry out these responsibilities.
Local unit officials from all three agencies told us that while they do
not physically share aircraft or boats, they routinely coordinate or
collaborate on operations and asset use. Officials we interviewed
stated that working together was important because of the large area to
be covered and the fact that no single agency had enough resources
alone to cover the area. Local unit officials told us that they had
received no guidance or requirements from DHS to coordinate the use of
or share assets. They attributed the ability to work together to the
leadership and personalities of those in charge of the units. In
December 2002, prior to the formation of DHS, they established the
Partners' Forum to discuss and make decisions on options for
coordination and collaboration that affect the entire region. Local
unit officials told us that prior to the forum, coordination was
limited. Miami CBP officials noted that a major benefit of this
coordination is being able to learn from one another and to understand
the methods used by the various agencies in performing their missions.
For example, USCG, ICE, and CBP local unit officials told us that the
agencies developed weekly air and marine schedules that helped increase
law enforcement coverage in the area. According to a USCG official,
having organized blocks of flying time ensures that agencies are not
duplicating patrol efforts. He also stated that prior to the Partner's
Forum, there were duplicative patrols among agencies. Agencies also
collaborated and identified a common radio frequency to improve
communications.
Local units have also been able to occasionally share air and marine
crews on one another's assets. For example, officials stated that USCG
and ICE have occasionally augmented each other's operations with
certified staff, allowing for boats to be manned and operational. Local
unit officials also told us that they have been able to work joint
operations, such as coordinating agency air and marine assets to
apprehend targets, as in a recent interdiction of a Cuban fast boat
where USCG, CBP, and ICE coordinated efforts to apprehend the
smugglers. The operation, based on confidential intelligence, enabled
the agencies to track and chase targets and was provided as an example
of using multiple assets on a real-time basis.
San Diego, California:
USCG, CBP and ICE each have air and marine assets and units operating
in the San Diego region. Together, these units' coastal and border
security operational areas encompass California and Arizona, which
share their southern borders with Mexico. The agencies employed fixed
wing aircraft, helicopters, and boats to cover this area. Challenges in
securing the San Diego border area include protecting one of the
busiest ports in the world and providing coverage over areas of the
southern border region that reach extreme temperatures. In 2004, the
local ICE and CBP units experienced reductions in their staff and air
assets when DHS detailed them to the northern border for national
operations. CBP staff and assets were also detailed to Tucson for
national operations. According to a local CBP official, this has
resulted in flight patrols with smaller crews and reduced operating
hours in the San Diego border area.
Coast Guard local unit leadership in the San Diego area initiated an
effort to coordinate maritime homeland security missions. The Joint
Harbor Operations Center brought together the three agencies and other
law enforcement agencies to one command center to conduct vessel
surveillance and share intelligence through the use of the same
technology, software, and databases, and to strengthen maritime
security by ensuring that available assets were providing coverage of
the entire border area. Other collaboration efforts included the local
CBP unit providing marine patrol personnel to USCG to help them meet
patrol requirements. A local USCG official stated that without this
crew augmentation from CBP, USCG would have to reduce its readiness to
respond to other missions. Additionally, USCG provides pier and office
space to CBP. On the aviation side, CBP and ICE collaborated to
accomplish missions, such as ICE using its Blackhawk helicopter to
transport CBP agents to difficult terrain to conduct patrols. According
to a local CBP official, support from ICE to transport agents when
possible has been essential in helping CBP accomplish its volume of
missions and allowing CBP agents to meet their requirements to patrol
and protect the U.S. border.
Bellingham, Washington:
USCG, CBP and ICE each have units operating in the Bellingham region.
Together, their responsibilities include coverage for the coastal and
northern border areas of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. As of
November 2004, the agencies together had helicopters, fixed wing
aircraft, and boats to cover this area. Additional helicopters are
located at USCG's air station in Port Angeles, about 30 minutes away by
air. Most asset coordination occurs in marine operations and has been
essentially between USCG and CBP, because ICE began operations only in
October 2004 when it opened its new facility. Bellingham was the first
northern border location where all three agencies have stations and
assets.
Local unit officials told us that the agencies in the Bellingham region
have worked together periodically in the past, as part of the
Integrated Border Enforcement Team. This multiagency law enforcement
team targets cross-border criminal and homeland security efforts.
Member agencies review intelligence and plan security initiatives for
the northern border. Most of the coordination in the region involved
staff augmentation in which agencies use each other's staff to provide
crew for air and marine assets to accomplish missions. For example, a
seven-member CBP team was detailed to the USCG station. Part of this
detail, a four-member CBP boat crew, received USCG training to provide
assistance and operate as part of the USCG crew when necessary,
increasing the number of vessels the two agencies can deploy in order
to accomplish missions. USCG also provides docking space for CBP boats.
ICE has also been able to participate in this staff augmentation with
CBP by flying missions when CBP staff was not available to patrol. ICE
and the USCG are considering ways to consolidate aviation activities,
such as through joint scheduling so that patrols are not duplicated.
Tucson, Arizona:
CBP and ICE are the two agencies located in the Tucson region. No
marine or USCG assets are in this region. CBP's operational areas
include approximately 200 miles of the Arizona/Mexico border, while
ICE's area includes the entire 363-mile Arizona/Mexico border. As of
November 2004, the agencies had fixed wing aircraft and helicopters to
cover this area. Challenges in the area include covering the large
desert areas on the U.S. border with Mexico under extreme high and low
temperatures. To meet these challenges, aircraft need to be able to
operate in desert areas, to fly low to track migrants, and to be able
to transport agents to key locations to conduct foot patrols.
DHS's Border and Transportation Security Directorate initiated a major
enforcement coordination effort in the Tucson region--the Arizona
Border Control Initiative--to help detect and deter terrorist
activities and cross-border illegal trafficking of people and drugs in
the Tucson border region. CBP, ICE, and other agencies combined their
efforts and assets to help carry out this initiative, which was
conducted from March to September 2004.[Footnote 16] CBP's Border
Patrol personnel were significantly increased to help conduct this
initiative. ICE provided increased air surveillance--contributing over
1,600 flight hours, as well as interdiction and law enforcement
support. CBP and ICE both had some personnel and assets moved from the
San Diego region to aid in this effort. According to local unit
officials, the coordination of aviation assets and personnel were
helpful in the apprehension of thousands of undocumented aliens. Local
unit officials also told us that because of its success, the Arizona
Border Control Initiative was extended through 2005. Local unit
officials in Tucson also identified several locally initiated actions
in which CBP and ICE coordinate to accomplish missions. For example,
CBP coordinates flight schedules with ICE by identifying areas where
CBP could use assistance. ICE also said it collaborates with CBP by
contacting it before launching an operation to see if CBP can provide
assistance.
Local Unit Officials Cited Challenges Affecting Coordination:
While local unit officials cited benefits to coordination, they also
identified challenges that affect their ability to coordinate the use
of air and marine assets. First, local unit officials from each of the
three agencies told us that their respective roles and responsibilities
were not clear and at times overlapped. Local unit officials stated
that as their homeland security missions evolve, in some instances it
was not clear which agency should take the lead on certain actions.
Such clarification, local officials said, would help determine how to
prioritize and optimize staff resources and air and marine asset
utilization to ensure readiness for both homeland security and legacy
missions. Headquarters officials agreed that local officials might
benefit from clarification of their roles and responsibilities for
homeland security missions and that there was some overlap. In some
cases, they are flying the same aircraft and in other cases they are
using aircraft with similar operational capabilities, since each agency
uses assets for patrol, surveillance, and interdiction.
Another challenge to asset coordination is that agencies must meet
readiness requirements that limit the use of assets that are on standby
in the event they are needed. For example, a USCG official stated that
Coast Guard units have many unscheduled operations and must maintain
certain resource levels that allow them to meet readiness standards for
carrying out missions, such as search and rescue, and thus a station
must maintain a certain number of assets at all times. Thus, units
cannot afford to use the assets for coordinated missions without
hindering their ability to respond to emergencies. CBP officials told
us that they need to have assets on standby to respond to certain
situations, such as to assist foot patrol agents in preventing illegal
aliens from crossing the border. ICE officials told us that some of
their air and marine resources are committed to operations with other
law enforcement organizations that limit their availability for use in
coordination with other border security agencies. Additionally, local
officials told us that they had been called upon to provide air and
marine assets and personnel for national, coordinated operations
conducted by DHS, including one on the northern border and another in
the South Florida area.[Footnote 17] While ability to move local assets
to support national missions is important, it does affect local
operations by limiting asset availability for local coordinated
operations.
Local officials also cited differences in asset capabilities as
limiting opportunities for asset coordination. Specifically,
differences in the capabilities and configurations of the air and
marine assets used by the three agencies to achieve both homeland
security and legacy missions may make it difficult to interchange
assets. For example, ICE has faster fixed wing aircraft and Blackhawk
helicopters to be able to chase suspects over long distances, while the
border patrol uses smaller, slower helicopters to track illegal
immigrants. These helicopters are not suitable for maritime missions
but need to be able to withstand tremendous heat, as often encountered
in the southern border regions. Agency officials in the locations we
visited also said that in some cases technical problems arose that made
it difficult for individuals among the different local units to
communicate using secure radio channels.
Differences in training and staff expertise present other challenges or
limitations to asset coordination. For example, while all agencies'
pilots and marine boat and vessel operators receive basic training at
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, each agency also provides
specific training for its staff based on legacy missions and needs.
Because of different operational requirements needed to accomplish
missions, staff receive training on operating procedures that best suit
the accomplishment of their respective missions. In addition, agency
officials told us that training needs differ because there is a range
of skill levels among the pilots and marine operators in each agency
because of the different types of assets used. Also, the various air
programs have different entry requirements. Another factor that affects
asset coordination is that pilots and marine operators can be certified
only on a specific number of aviation or marine assets at a given time,
primarily for safety reasons. This limits their ability to operate
various types of equipment. Agency officials said that only a certain
amount of training coordination is necessary and that staff need to
continue to specialize and keep certifications current.
Headquarters officials cited potential legal issues that could limit
efforts to coordinate the use of assets among agencies. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002, which established DHS, prohibited the diversion
of USCG assets to any other organization or entity of DHS, except for
details or assignments that do not reduce the USCG's capability to
perform its missions.[Footnote 18] USCG officials cite this provision
as a potential legal barrier to efforts to coordinate assets. In
addition, under federal law, an agency may transfer excess property
within the agency when it is no longer needed for the purposes of the
appropriation used to purchase it, but generally not if the property
continues to meet the transferring unit's need.[Footnote 19] Without
specific authority, such as that provided for excess property, the
transfer could result in an unauthorized augmentation of the receiving
unit's appropriation account. These issues would not apply, however, to
the transfer of the Air and Marine Operations program from ICE to CBP
because the assets remain with the appropriation account from which
they were purchased. Fiscal year 2005 appropriations language also
generally prohibits CBP from transferring aircraft or related equipment
to agencies outside DHS without the prior approval of the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees but does not prohibit sharing within
DHS.[Footnote 20]
Conclusions:
The Department of Homeland Security plays a critical role in
strengthening efforts by the United States to combat terrorist threats,
in part by coordinating a vast array of resources that protect our
borders. One of the ongoing challenges facing the department is
balancing the need for a department-level coordinated, integrated
approach to implementing border security while supporting the efforts
of agencies with border security responsibilities, including the United
States Coast Guard, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, as they fulfill their missions in the field. Part
of this challenge involves determining how agency air and marine assets
can best be coordinated locally to optimize their effectiveness while
avoiding duplication of efforts and resources. The department has begun
to address this challenge by identifying opportunities for the border
security agencies to improve the efficient use of their air and marine
assets--airplanes, helicopters, and boats--and proposing broad plans
and time frames for further analysis and development of implementation
plans.
In order to maximize operational and cost efficiencies in the use of
assets for border security, it is important to clarify how field units
should work together and under what circumstances. This clarification
will help ensure that the mix of services at the nation's borders and
the enforcement of border security are carried out in an efficient and
integrated fashion, as stated in DHS's 2004 strategic plan. Additional
steps could be taken to help ensure that agencies coordinate their
assets to the extent practicable and permitted by law without
compromising or conflicting with their primary security missions. Local
units of CBP, ICE, and USCG appear to have developed ad hoc asset
coordination procedures driven by local circumstances and situations.
These efforts have occurred without clear delineation of roles and
responsibilities at the headquarters and field unit levels on
coordinating efforts, and without guidance from DHS concerning how and
when this coordination should occur. To further facilitate the
coordination of air and marine assets among DHS agencies, an
examination of whether the Homeland Security Act of 2002 poses a
potential legal obstacle to such efforts should clarify the extent to
which the USCG can coordinate assets with CBP and other agencies. Such
a determination may be important, particularly given the fact that USCG
employs the majority of DHS's marine assets.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
In order to help ensure that the use of available air and marine assets
is effectively coordinated to meet border security needs, we are
recommending that the Secretary of Homeland Security take the following
two actions:
1. Provide guidance that clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
USCG and CBP, the primary DHS agencies that employ air and marine
assets, in their homeland security missions, as well as how asset use
should be coordinated.
2. Determine whether the Homeland Security Act's prohibition on
diversion of USCG assets, or any similar restriction in appropriations
laws, limits the ability of USCG to coordinate assets with other
agencies, and if so, evaluate the merits, including the costs and
benefits of proposing a change in relevant laws to Congress.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment. On
July 29, 2005, we received written comments on the draft report, which
are reproduced in full in appendix I. DHS generally concurred with the
report's recommendations.
In its comments, DHS stated that the Secretary recently proposed
changes to the organization with a focus on ensuring that all elements
of the department are effectively organized and mission-focused, and
that operations are integrated and coordinated in a manner that will
allow the department to best address any threats with appropriate
actions and policies. Specifically, DHS stated that the move of AMO
from ICE to CBP last fall, and the recent reorganization of the CBP
aviation program, which consolidates the two separate air programs
within CBP, will enable the CBP air program to more effectively carry
out border and homeland security missions. DHS stated that the
implementation of the new CBP aviation program began July 14, 2005, and
is expected to be phased in through October 1, 2005. DHS believes these
initiatives, along with other changes to be proposed as a result of the
Secretary's comprehensive review, should address the recommendations
contained in this report. As part of these initiatives, DHS needs to
ensure that guidance provided by the department will address the
coordination of air and marine assets within CBP, as well as ensure
that the role and use of USCG air and marine assets in homeland
security missions is coordinated with CBP.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretary of DHS and other interested parties. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
July 29, 2005:
Mr. Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G St., NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Jones,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report entitled,
"Opportunities to Increase Coordination of Air and Marine Assets," (GAO-
05-543). We generally concur with your recommendations and look forward
to incorporating your recommendations concerning the coordination of
air and marine assets.
As you know, Secretary Chertoff recently initiated a comprehensive
Second Stage Review of the Department's organization, operations, and
policies to ensure that every element of the Department is mission-
focused and best organized to meet potential threats to our nation. He
has proposed a numerous of changes to the Department of Homeland
Security's structure and organization which are designed to improve our
capabilities to protect and safeguard this nation. One critical need
within the Department is to have the capacity to think through broad
and overarching issues with a Department-wide perspective, rather than
just through the lenses of one particular component. By integrating and
coordinating areas of intelligence, policy, operations and preparedness
efforts, this Department will be in a stronger position to respond
actively to present and future threats with appropriate actions and
policies. Moreover, the new structure flattens the Department structure
by removing layers within the organization. Second, it creates new and
stronger components with a function to integrate across the Department.
For example, DHS previously lacked a policy office. This new agenda
calls for a new Policy Directorate that will provide DHS with the
capacity to think through broad, overarching issues that affect
numerous components, better integrate policies and programs across the
Department, and provide long-term strategic planning to better focus
and guide the Department's operations.
DHS needs a central office to serve as primary coordinator for program
policies and initiatives, providing a capacity to think through
critical security issues with a department-wide perspective, coordinate
consistent courses of action across various department functions, and
perform long-range strategic policy planning. For two years the
Department has relied on the component policy shops to try and push
policies upward, and this will allow for one overarching entity to set
department-wide policies since many critical security issues currently
cut across several Department entities. Bringing together the important
policy-making functions of this Department into a single office will
ensure the Department of Homeland Security performs seamlessly in full
cooperation among DHS components, eliminate any duplication of effort,
and takes advantage of the vast network of operations and programs
within the Department dedicated to protecting our homeland.
In addition to coordinating policy concerns, the reorganization will
address the coordination of operations. The Office of Operations
Coordination will be a unified, Department-wide operations coordinating
mechanism that will permit the Secretary to translate policy and
intelligence into immediate action across all of the Department's
components. A new operational coordination office will reduce stove
piping and provide the Secretary with improved crisis and operational
management tools. At the heart of the Office of Operations Coordination
will be the Department's Homeland Security Operations Center, the
primary, national-level nerve center for real-time threat monitoring,
domestic incident management, and vertical and horizontal information
sharing efforts within the Federal government. Each component's
operational element will be represented in the Office of Operations
Coordination and will be responsible for helping coordinate the
Department's response to the strategic matrix of threat, vulnerability
and consequence. In addition, certain operational resources from the
Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate including some
from the Office of International Enforcement will be merged into the
Office of Operations Coordination. This Office will be headed by the
Director of Operations Coordination, who will report directly to the
Secretary.
While Secretary Chertoff has announced certain organizational changes
to the Department of Homeland Security, the recommendations,
deliberations and analysis completed as part of the Second Stage Review
will continue to guide other Department programs and policy-related
initiatives as an ongoing basis in order to ensure Department resources
and capabilities are being effectively deployed to achieve our security
goals. In the coming weeks and months, the Department of Homeland
Security will propose additional policy initiatives and management
directives resulting from the Second Stage Review process, including
innovative new approaches to securing our borders; needed reforms to
our immigration system; and new ways of looking at cargo screening. We
believe that these initiatives will address the recommendations
contained in this report.
One of these initiatives has already begun at Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), integrating air assets. Last fall, DHS moved the
Office of Air and Marine Operations (AMO) from U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) to CBP. Currently, the CBP aviation and
marine programs reside in two separate offices: AMO and the Office of
Border Patrol (OBP). After thorough study and analysis, CBP has begun
to the roll out of the integrated CBP air program. In addition to the
creation of this new organization, the Commissioner of CBP has named a
new Assistant Commissioner for CBP's entire aviation program ("CBP
Air"). All CBP aviation personnel and assets will be consolidated in
this new organization for administrative and programmatic purposes.
Tactical control of aviation assets and personnel will be assigned to
CBP field commanders responsible for overall operational effectiveness
and results. This reorganization will enable all of CBP's pilots to
collectively support and carry out our border and homeland security
missions more effectively than ever.
This reorganization of CBP Air ensures that CBP will achieve greater
operational efficiencies while sustaining effective air support for CBP
and the other agencies they support. Implementation of the new
structure began on July 14 and will be phased in between then and
October 1, 2005.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments to the draft
report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven J. Pecinovsky:
Director, Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison:
Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the above, John C. Hansen, Bonnie Hall, Carla D. Brown,
Sona Kalapura, Francis Cook, and Amy Bernstein made key contributions
to this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
[2] In creating DHS, parts of legacy Customs and Border Patrol moved to
ICE and CBP. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is
responsible for securing the nation's land, rail and air transportation
networks, is not covered in this report.
[3] Pub. L. No. 107-296 § 888(d), 6 U.S.C. § 468(d).
[4] Pub. L. No. 107-296 (Nov. 25, 2002).
[5] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
[6] Department of Homeland Security, Securing Our Homeland, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.:
February 2004).
[7] In March 2005, DHS announced plans to conduct a comprehensive
review of all departmental policies and operations to determine if
organizational changes were needed to ensure that DHS can meet current
and future threats. This review could lead to revisions in many DHS
policies and plans that affect border security agencies, among others.
[8] Secretary Chertoff has proposed organizational changes that would
eliminate the BTS directorate and have ICE and CBP reporting directly
to the Secretary, along with five other operational components: USCG,
TSA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and the Secret Service.
[9] On October 31, 2004, DHS transferred AMO from ICE to CBP as a
separate and distinct entity, with specific plans for the integration
of the missions and assets of the two agencies to be completed by
September 30, 2005. Because this merger was not final during most of
our site visits this report refers to the AMO unit as part of ICE. The
units are now CBP-AMO and CBP-OBP. As of July 14, 2005, the separate
air units of CBP-AMO and CBP-OBP were consolidated into one program
called CBP Air. Implementation of this reorganization is expected to
take until October 1, 2005.
[10] In fiscal year 2004, the combined appropriations for BTS, which
includes CBP and ICE, and Coast Guard, was about $18 billion, which
supported 142, 255 full-time equivalent employees.
[11] The amount DHS spent on its boat program includes boat
acquisition, maintenance, and supplies and personal protective gear,
such as tools, work accessories, and safety items.
[12] DHS has established a number of other management and commodity
councils for other issues.
[13] Booz Allen Hamilton, "DHS Assessment of Aviation Operations and
Support" (February 2004).
[14] The Coast Guard's ALMIS system is an integrated maintenance system
that supports data entry from the start of a flight operation,
recording the flight execution, tracking crew events, aircraft aging,
aircraft configuration, aircraft maintenance requirements, parts
replacement, warehouse activities, procurement actions, financial
payments, and reconciliation.
[15] Our first two site visits were conducted before AMO had been
transferred to CBP, and the last two were conducted shortly after DHS
announced the transfer.
[16] These include the Transportation Security Administration and state
and local law enforcement agencies.
[17] Operation Liberty Shield focused on increasing homeland security
along the national border during heightened threat levels, and
Operation Plan Vigilant Sentry was a comprehensive emergency plan for a
joint response to a mass migration event from the Caribbean.
[18] Pub. L. No. 107-296 § 888(d), 6 U.S.C. § 468(d).
[19] 40 U.S.C. § 524(b); 31 U.S.C. §§ 1301(a), 3302(b).
[20] Pub. L. No. 108-334, 118 stat. 1298, 1301-02 (2004).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. 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:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548: