United States General Accounting Office

GAO

Testimony
Before the Subcommittee on
Infrastructure and Border Security,
Select Committee on Homeland Security,
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 3:00 p.m. EDT
Monday, June 16, 2003

HOMELAND SECURITY
Challenges Facing the
Department of Homeland
Security in Balancing its
Border Security and Trade
Facilitation Missions
Statement of Richard M. Stana, Director
Homeland Security and Justice Issues

GAO-03-902T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the longstanding challenge ofbalancing our nation’s security and commercial needs, an issue that is
especially important in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks that changed the nation’s security environment. Addressing thischallenge now falls principally to the Department of Homeland Security(DHS) and its Border and Transportation Security directorate. Within thisdirectorate, the responsibility has been assigned primarily to the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection (BCBP). BCBP consists of the inspections
component of the former U.S. Customs Service; the Border Patrol andInspections components of the former Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS); and a former component of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).1
Achieving the balance between security and commercial needs is greatly
affected by BCBP’s commercial and border and immigration control
workload. Regarding commercial workload, in fiscal year 2002, the former
U.S. Customs Service processed 24.9 million trade import entries valued atover $1.1 trillion and collected $23.8 billion in duties and fees; it also
processed about 6 million cargo containers arriving at U.S. sea ports.
While the cargo workload has stabilized somewhat as a result of the recent
global economic slowdown, it is likely to begin growing again when an
economic recovery is underway at some point in the future, thus
exacerbating the challenges BCBP faces. Regarding border andimmigration control workload, in fiscal year 2002, inspectors at over 300
ports of entry inspected nearly 450 million travelers while the Border
Patrol apprehended nearly 960,000 aliens trying to enter the U.S. illegally
between the ports of entry.
BCBP faces many challenges as it performs its important missions. In my
testimony today, I make the following points:•

With respect to cargo, BCBP has attempted to select and inspect thehighest-risk incoming cargo, while enabling legitimate cargo to be cleared
in a timely manner. These efforts pose a range of challenges, from theavailability of threat assessments and actionable intelligence to thecapability of nonintrusive inspection technology to detect potentially1

Following the creation of DHS and its absorption of Customs, the Secretary of theTreasury retained authority over Customs’ revenue functions.

Page 1

GAO-03-902T

harmful contraband. BCBP has made some progress in implementing
initiatives that are designed to improve the efficiency of its regulation oflegitimate commercial activities. But, additional challenges remain,
including the need to improve its trade compliance program and tosuccessfully implement its new trade processing information system.
•

BCBP also faces many challenges with respect to preventing illegal entry
by individuals into the United States. These challenges impact BCBP’s
ability to detect and deter illegal entry between ports of entry and to
identify those individuals who should not be permitted entry at the ports.
BCBP is faced with continuing to implement its southwest border strategy
while simultaneously addressing emerging concerns over illegal entry
along the northern border, mitigating the negatives affects the strategy
may have on communities, and responding to continuing concerns overthe safety of aliens who cross in remote and desolate areas. At our nation’sborders, the challenges include detecting false admissibility documents,
unifying and enhancing inspector training, providing timely intelligence tothe field, and successfully implementing the new entry-exit system.

•

In our recent Performance and Accountability series report, we designatedimplementation and transformation of DHS as high risk based on threefactors. First, the implementation and transformation of DHS is anenormous undertaking that will take time to achieve in an effective andefficient manner. Second, components to be merged into DHS, including
those forming BCBP, already face a wide array of existing challenges,
some of which are described in this statement. Finally, failure toeffectively carry out its mission would expose the nation to potentiallyvery serious consequences.
My testimony today is intended to provide an overview based primarily on
the results of work that we have completed in recent years, namely, our
Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk reports related to
DHS, Justice and Treasury;2 DHS’s international mail and package
inspection processes;3 DHS’s acquisition and deployment of radiation

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A
Governmentwide Perspective, GAO-03-95 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003); Major
Management Challenges and Program Risks Department of Homeland Security,
GAO-03-102 (Washington, D.C., Jan. 2003); Major Management Challenges and Program
Risks: Department of the Treasury, GAO-03-109 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003); and HighRisk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003).

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Customs Service: International Mail and Package
Inspection Processes at Selected Locations, GAO-02-967 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2002).

Page 2

GAO-03-902T

detection equipment;4 the Border Patrol’s southwest border strategy;5
DHS’s spending plans for its planned system to monitor the flow of foreign
nationals in and out of the United States;6 and our investigators’ efforts toenter the country using fraudulent documents.7 My testimony also
highlights our ongoing work related to cargo inspections and individual
inspections at land ports of entry.8

Challenges Related to
Cargo Processing

BCBP has undertaken efforts to focus its enforcement on selecting andinspecting the highest-risk incoming cargo, while enabling legitimate cargo
to be cleared in a timely manner. It has a number of initiatives underway
aimed at improving its ability to identify potentially risky cargo forinspection. BCBP and Customs before it have longstanding efforts to use
information, personnel, and technology to identify such cargo. These
efforts pose a range of challenges, from the availability of threat
assessments and actionable intelligence to the capability of nonintrusive
inspection technology to detect potentially harmful contraband. From a
trade facilitation perspective, BCBP has made some progress in
implementing initiatives that are designed to improve the efficiency of its
regulation of commercial activities. But additional challenges remain,
including the need to improve its evolving trade compliance program andacquire a new trade processing system.

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Customs Service: Acquisition and Deployment ofRadiation Detection Equipment, GAO-03-235T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2002).

5

U.S. General Accounting Office, INS’ Southwest Border Strategy: Resource and Impact
Issues Remain After Seven Years, GAO-01-842 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001).

6

U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Homeland Security Needs to
Improve Entry Exit System Expenditure Planning, GAO-03-563 (Washington, D.C.: June
2003).

7

U.S. General Accounting Office, Weaknesses in Screening Entrants into the UnitedStates, GAO-03-438T (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2003) and Counterfeit Documents Used toEnter the United States from Certain Western Hemisphere Countries Not Detected,
GAO-03-713T (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2003).

8

The cargo inspection work was requested by the House Committee on Energy andCommerce. The individual inspections at land ports of entry work is being done pursuant
to a mandate in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Since this work is ongoing and involves information that BCBP considers to be law
enforcement sensitive, we are precluded from further discussing it in this unclassifiedstatement.

Page 3

GAO-03-902T

Major Cargo Security
Initiatives

According to the Commissioner of BCBP, the priority mission is to prevent
terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States. This
important mission means improving security at our physical borders andports of entry, as well as extending the zone of security beyond ourphysical borders. BCBP has a number of initiatives underway aimed at
improving security, including:
•

•

•

•

Container Security Initiative, which stations BCBP personnel in key
international ports to examine high-risk cargo before it is placed on shipsbound for the United States.
Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and the Free and Secure
Trade Program, which are designed to increase supply chain security and
expedite the clearance of legitimate trade.
Non-Intrusive Inspection technology, which increases the ability to detect
conventional explosives, nuclear weapons, radioactive components, andother weapons of mass destruction.
Automated Targeting System, which is used by the National Targeting
Center and field targeting units in the United States and overseas to help
target high-risk cargo and passengers entering the United States.
We have work underway to review most of these initiatives and will makeour results available to the Subcommittee as soon as the work iscompleted.

Selecting Highest-Risk
Cargo for Inspection

Separating high-risk cargo from low- or no-risk cargo is extremely
important to BCBP because searching each and every cargo and travelerthat enters the United States would cripple the flow of legitimate trade andtravel and would require a huge resource commitment. Over the years
Customs has recognized that it needed to identify what is high risk—andto do so as early in the process as possible—and target its limited
resources accordingly. To select, or “target,” and inspect the highest-risk
cargoes and travelers, BCBP relies on the use of threat assessments andactionable intelligence, the ability of inspectors to quickly discover orsense an unlawful cargo, and the use of nonintrusive inspection
technology to detect potentially harmful contraband. Each of these poseschallenges to BCBP.
Information is key to identifying high-risk cargo. Such information cancome from manifests for air and sea shipments, from importers, or from
intelligence units within or outside DHS. Accurate information can help
BCBP make reliable risk determinations, particularly when it is used in
DHS computerized models that help assess cargo risk. Obviously, when

Page 4

GAO-03-902T

information or intelligence is incomplete or unreliable, it can adversely
impact on BCBP’s ability to identify potentially risky cargo for inspection.
We are currently reviewing how BCBP is targeting cargo for further
inspection and how such cargo is inspected at ports. In this regard, we arereviewing how BCBP developed the model used in targeting, how BCBP is
handling the targets generated by the model at sea ports, and whether andhow BCBP intends to evaluate targeting. Since this work is ongoing, andinvolves information that BCBP also considers to be law enforcement
sensitive, we are precluded from discussing specific aspects of this matterin this unclassified statement. However, in the broadest terms, our work todate shows that BCBP’s targeting efforts face a range of challenges
relating to threat assessments, actionable intelligence, and nonintrusive
inspection technology.
Having sufficient numbers of well-trained and motivated staff is also key
to identifying high-risk cargo. Inspectors and canine officers are trained todetect unusual or abnormal behaviors or circumstances that suggest apotential threat or unlawful activity. Many have developed a “sixth sense”
in that they pick up on latent clues and unconnected information.
Nevertheless, these inspectors are challenged by the tight timeframes andpressures they work under to move legitimate cargo through the ports.
Our recent work on the inspection of international mail showed thatrelying on inspectors alone can increase the risk that contraband enters
the country. The inspection of incoming foreign mail remains largely amanual process that relies primarily on physical examination. We foundseveral challenges relating to this process, but BCBP’s determination that
our results were law enforcement sensitive precludes our discussing them
here. However, at the time our work was completed, one courier was
working with the former Customs Service to pilot test an advance manifest
system—a computerized database that receives cargo manifest
information. The database is intended to allow Customs to analyze
incoming package information and make more informed decisions about
what packages to inspect.
In addition to information and staff, technology provides for a more
effective and efficient process. Large-scale x-ray and gamma–ray imaging
systems, portal radiation monitors, and portable and hand-held radiation
detection devices can reduce the need for costly, intensive inspections andsave inspection time and resources.

Page 5

GAO-03-902T

As important as the use of technology is, there are certain limitations andchallenges that need to be considered. For example, we reviewed
Customs’ acquisition and deployment of radiation detection equipment.
We found that some of the radiation detection equipment being used—radiation pagers—have a limited range and are not designed to detect
weapons-usable nuclear material. Furthermore, experts we contacted did
not view pagers as search instruments but rather as personal safety
devices. We plan to report later this summer on BCBP’s acquisition anddeployment of radiation detection equipment.

Assuring the Timely Flowof Legitimate Cargo

In trying to achieve the commercial-security balance, BCBP is challenged
to ensure that antiterrorism efforts do not slow the flow of legitimate
international commerce and travel. According to BCBP, it has worked
with importers on concerns such as where their goods originated, thephysical security and integrity of their overseas plants and those of theirforeign suppliers, the background of their personnel, the means by which
they transport goods, and those who they have chosen to transport theirgoods into the country. BCBP has reaffirmed to importers the importanceof knowing their customers and has examined the security practices of
their freight forwarders and the routes their shipments travel.
Although BCBP has made some progress in implementing initiatives thatare designed to improve the efficiency of its regulation of commercial
activities, additional challenges remain, particularly in view of the new andheightened emphasis on terrorism. These challenges include (1)continuing to improve its evolving trade compliance program and (2)acquiring a new trade processing system.

Implementing the Customs
Modernization Act

Although tempered recently by the global economic slowdown, growth in
the volume and value of imports continues to create profound challenges
for BCBP to facilitate and enforce U.S. trade laws and regulations. The
volume of trade is expected to surpass $2 trillion in the year 2006. To
speed the processing of imports and improve compliance with trade laws,
specifically, the Customs Modernization and Informed Compliance Act ofPage 6

GAO-03-902T

1993 (also known as the “Mod Act”),9 BCBP’s predecessor, Customs,
developed an “informed compliance strategy.”
In 1999, we recommended that the Customs Service develop andimplement an evaluation of the effectiveness of its informed compliancestrategy. Customs agreed with our recommendation and completed its
Trade Compliance Strategy Study on May 24, 2001. The study indicatedthat the strategy improves compliance, but the impact on overall
compliance rates is small. For example, one initiative, the Company
Enforced Compliance Process (CECP), was to address large importers’
noncompliance that had a significant negative impact on the overallnational compliance rates. According to the study, Customs was to punish
noncomplying companies by imposing “confirmed risk” designations,increasing examinations, removing privileges, and referring for penalties.
However, the confirmed risk status was only used six times, and loss ofprivileges and referral for penalties were never used. The study concluded
that CECP was not much of an enforced compliance process, and it was
discontinued.
On the other hand, the study found that the companies’ compliance rates
increased after they participated in the other initiatives such ascompliance assessment and account management initiatives. While it is
not possible to attribute the increase in compliance totally to these
initiatives, the study concluded that these programs had a positive impact.

Acquiring a New Trade
Processing System

Customs’ ongoing effort to acquire a new trade processing system is key tomodernizing how Customs tracks, controls, and processes all commercial
goods imported into and exported out of the United States. This large andcomplex system, known as the Automated Commercial Environment(ACE), is expected to cost about $1.7 billion and is to replace Customs’
antiquated system. Expected benefits from ACE include speeding the flowof legitimate commerce into and out of the United States, identifying andtargeting high-risk commerce requiring greater scrutiny, and providing asingle interface between the trade community and the federal government
for trade data. In April 2001, Customs awarded a 5-year contract, with

9

P.L. 103-183, title VI. The Mod Act fundamentally altered the relationship between
importers and, at the time, Customs by giving the importer the legal responsibility for
declaring the value, classification, and rate of duty applicable to merchandise being
imported into the United States. Customs, however, is responsible for determining the finalclassification and value of the merchandise. The Mod Act also gave Customs and importersa shared responsibility for ensuring compliance with trade laws.

Page 7

GAO-03-902T

options to extend the contract to not more than 15 years, to a system
integrator responsible for developing and deploying ACE.
Successfully managing a project as large and complex as ACE is achallenging undertaking. Over the last 4 years, we have reported on ACE
and recommended steps Customs needed to take to minimize projectrisks. To its credit, Customs has taken action to implement ourrecommendations, as follows:
•

•

•

•

•

We recommended Customs incrementally justify the ACE investment.
Customs defined and committed to implement process controls forjustifying and making ACE investment decisions incrementally. After
implementing the first ACE release, Customs plans to verify that actual
costs and benefits meet expectations and plans to continue thisincremental investment approach for the remaining ACE releases.
We recommended Customs ensure ACE alignment with its enterprisearchitecture. Customs ensured that its enterprise architecture contained
sufficient detail to build the first ACE release and has aligned the releasewith the enterprise architecture. Customs plans to continue to extend its
enterprise architecture as necessary to build subsequent ACE releases.
We recommended Customs have sufficient human capital resources.
Customs developed and plans to implement a human capital management
strategy for the Customs modernization office, which is responsible formanaging the ACE acquisition.
We recommended Customs develop rigorous and analytically verifiable
cost estimating. Customs began developing and plans to implement a costestimating program that employs the tenets of effective cost estimating as
defined by the Software Engineering Institute (SEI).
We recommended Customs employ effective software acquisition
processes. Customs continues to make progress and has plans to establish
effective software acquisition process controls, as embodied primarily inthe second level of SEI’s Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model.10
Customs has made progress in implementing some, but not all, of ourrecommendations. Moreover, because Customs is in the early stages ofacquiring ACE, many challenging tasks remain before Customs will have
implemented full ACE capability.

10

Capability Maturity ModelSM is a service mark of Carnegie Mellon University, and CMM isregistered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The SA-CMM identifies key processareas that are necessary to effectively manage software-intensive system acquisitions.
Achieving the second level of the SA-CMM’s five-level scale means that an organization has
the software acquisition rigor and discipline to repeat project successes.

Page 8

GAO-03-902T

Challenges Related to
Immigration Control

To prevent illegal entry of individuals into the United States between theports of entry, BCBP has deployed significant resources but estimatessignificantly more are needed. Continued implementation of the southwest
border strategy faces a range of challenges, including meeting hiring goals
and obtaining needed approvals to deploy fencing and technology toimplement its strategy while simultaneously addressing emerging
concerns over illegal entry along the northern border, mitigating thenegatives affects the strategy may have on communities that experience anincrease in illegal alien traffic, and responding to continuing concerns overthe safety of aliens who cross in remote and desolate areas. At our nation’s
ports, BCBP faces an array of challenges, including improving inspectors’ability to verify the identity of travelers and whether they can be admitted
into the country, unifying and enhancing inspector training, and complying
with the congressional mandate to implement a system to track the entry
and exit of all aliens.

Deterring Illegal Entry
between the Ports of Entry

Deterring illegal entry between the nation’s ports of entry will continue tobe a challenge for BCBP. In previous work, we reported that the Border
Patrol had estimated that significantly more resources would be needed to
fully implement its border control strategy and that various factors had
impeded the Border Patrol’s ability to implement its strategy as originallyplanned.
Since 1994, the Border Patrol has been implementing a phased strategy toincrease deterrence to illegal entry beginning, first, with the areas that had
the largest influx of illegal aliens. The strategy postulated that as resourceswere applied in one area, the flow of illegal alien traffic would shift toother locations along the southwest border where resources had yet to be
applied.
In our last report on the southwest border strategy in August 2001, we
reported that the Border Patrol estimated it would need between 11,700
and 14,000 agents, additional support personnel, and hundreds of millionsof dollars in additional technology and infrastructure to fully implement
the Southwest border strategy.11 We reported that it would take at least 5
more years (until 2006) to reach the minimum number of agents theBorder Patrol believed it needed along the Southwest border if (1) the11

See U.S. General Accounting Office, INS’ Southwest Border Strategy: Resource andImpact Issues Remain After Seven Years, GAO-01-842 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 2001).

Page 9

GAO-03-902T

administration’s agent hiring goals at that time were maintained and metand (2) all new agents were deployed to the southwest border. However,this estimate was made before the September 11, 2001, attacks and thesubsequent concerns regarding the need for additional resources to deter
illegal entry along the northern border.
BCBP continues to face hiring challenges to meet its estimated needs. The
Border Patrol currently has about 9,500 agents deployed along thesouthwest border. While nearly a 3-fold increase from the 3,400 agents theBorder Patrol had along the southwest border in 1994, it is still about 2,200
agents short of the minimum number, 11,700, the Border Patrol said it
needed to fully implement the southwest border strategy. Currently, theBorder Patrol has 567 agents deployed along the northern border.
We also reported on various factors that had impeded the Border Patrol’sability to implement its strategy, some of which still appear to be
problematic. For example, it had taken the Border Patrol longer toimplement the strategy than originally planned because, among otherthings, the Border Patrol experienced difficulties hiring agents and delaysin obtaining approvals needed to deploy technology and build fences.
The Border Patrol also recognized the need to make outreach efforts tocommunities because its initial failure to warn some communities about
anticipated increases in illegal alien traffic caught community officials by
surprise and angered some residents due to the negative effects theincreased traffic had on the community. When apprehensions surged incommunities into which the illegal alien traffic was reportedly pushed,
officials and residents in one community reported experiencing loss ofbusiness, destruction of private property, and environmental degradation.
Concerns have been raised over the environmental impact of current plansto build additional fencing along the border in Arizona. A recent news
article described how some local residents in the border area southwest of
Tucson, Arizona, are patrolling the border to report illegal crossingsraising the concern of law enforcement officials. The Border Patrol has
realized its goal of shifting illegal alien traffic away from urban areas into
more remote areas. However, rather than being deterred from attempting
illegal entry, many aliens have instead risked injury and death by trying tocross mountains, deserts, and rivers. This prompted the Border Patrol to
implement a Border Safety Initiative consisting of, among other things, a
media campaign to warn aliens about the dangers of crossing illegally, as
well as establishing search-and-rescue units.

Page 10

GAO-03-902T

We further reported in August 2001 that although alien apprehensions had
shifted along the border as expected, overall apprehensions along thesouthwest border had continued to increase to over 1.6 million in fiscal
year 2000—raising questions about the strategy’s effect on overall illegal
entry along the southwest border. However, since then apprehensions
along the southwest border have declined to less than 1 million in fiscal
year 2002.
While there may be many reasons for the decline in apprehensions, in
response to our recommendation, the Border Patrol has developed a plan
designed to evaluate the impacts of its southwest border strategy.
However, the evaluation has yet to be completed.

Preventing Illegal Entry at
Ports of Entry

Our recent work at ports of entry and our ongoing work specifically atland border ports, indicate that BCBP inspectors continue to facechallenges that those from their predecessor agencies also faced inbalancing the need to identify violators of immigration and other laws
while facilitating the movement of lawful travelers. Today, I will touch on
several issues relating to the inspection of entry documents, inspector
training, intelligence information needs of the field, and BCBP plans for
implementing the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indication Technology
system, known as the U.S. VISIT system.

Determining Traveler
Admissibility

At land border ports of entry, inspectors must quickly make decisions
about whether to admit a traveler into the United States or refer travelers
for more intensive inspection if admissibility cannot be readily
determined. Two of the factors that challenge inspectors’ ability to verify
the travelers’ identity and admissibility are that (1) some travelers may
enter the United States without having to present a travel document and(2) travelers can present a variety of documents to gain entry into theUnited States, some of which can be easily counterfeited.
First, some travelers do not need to present proof of citizenship at theborder. U.S. and certain Canadian citizens are exempt from having topresent any document upon entry. Instead, they can make an oral claim of
citizenship, if this satisfies the inspector. According to immigration data,inspectors at land border ports intercepted nearly 15,000 people in 2002
who falsely claimed to be U.S. citizens in order to gain illegal entry,
suggesting an unknown number of travelers successfully entered theUnited States this way.

Page 11

GAO-03-902T

Second, a variety of documents are accepted at ports, and many can becounterfeited or used fraudulently with apparent ease. With nearly 200
countries issuing unique passports, official stamps, seals, and visas, thepotential for document fraud is great. A wide variety of documents can bepresented for inspection—including more than 8,000 state and local
offices issue birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and other documents, anyof which could potentially be counterfeit. According to immigration data,inspectors at land ports intercepted nearly 60,000 fraudulent documents infiscal year 2002, including over 10,000 U.S. citizenship-related documents.
Clearly, others have successfully gained access to this country using
counterfeit documents. Earlier this year, we testified on how ourinvestigators entered the country from Canada, Mexico, and Jamaica
through land, air, and sea ports of entry using fictitious names, andcounterfeit driver’s licenses and birth certificates made using readily
available software.12 INS and Customs Service inspectors never questioned
the authenticity of the counterfeit documents, and our investigators
encountered no difficulty in entering the country using them.

Unifying and Enhancing
Inspector Training

BCBP will also face an array of challenges in ensuring that its borderinspectors are adequately trained, including ensuring appropriate training
is provided in the detection of fraudulent documents. For example, former
INS and Customs inspectors are still being trained at separate basic
training academies using two different curricula. If border inspectors are
to wear “one face” at the border, a unified curriculum and training
approach will need to be developed and implemented. These training
challenges will continue beyond the academy—BCBP will also need toensure that a field training program is established that meets the needs ofthe newest as well as experienced inspectors at the ports. For example,
neither the former INS nor Customs agencies had a standard on-the-job
training program for their inspectors working at land border ports. The
prior work I mentioned in which our investigators used counterfeit
documents to enter the United States, as well as our ongoing work at 15
land border ports, suggest that one training challenge for BCBP will be toensure that both new and experienced border inspectors are capable ofreadily detecting fraudulent documents.

12

U.S. General Accounting Office, Weaknesses in Screening Entrants into the UnitedStates, GAO-03-438T (Washington D.C.: Jan. 30, 2003) and Counterfeit Documents Used toEnter the United States from Certain Western Hemisphere Countries Not Detected,
GAO-03-713T (Washington D.C.: May 13, 2003).

Page 12

GAO-03-902T

Meeting Field Intelligence
Needs

Our ongoing work at land border ports suggests that the Bureau will also
face challenges regarding the collection, analysis, and use of intelligence
information in the field. The former INS recognized the need for more
intelligence support in the field. In 1997, an INS-contracted study reported
the lack of an intelligence capability at all INS locations, including districts
and ports.13 More recent studies suggest needs in this area persist.
Although some steps have been taken to bring the intelligence function to
the field level, additional steps remain if the intelligence needs of the field
are to be met. These challenges include, but are not limited, to decisions
related to staffing and training, as well as merging intelligence positions
from the former Customs and INS.

Implementing the New U.S.
VISIT System

One of the most significant challenges facing DHS at ports of entry is theimplementation of the U.S. VISIT system. This significant undertaking is
intended to capture both entry and exit data on travelers. It will also have
many implications for operations at U.S. ports of entry, including
expenditures, staffing, inspection procedures, and infrastructure. We
reviewed INS’s fiscal year 2002 expenditure plan and associated system
acquisition documentation and system plans. We reported that INS’s
preliminary plans showed that it intended to acquire and deploy a systemthat will satisfy the general scope of capabilities required under various
laws. However, we found that the initial plan did not provide sufficient
information about INS commitments for the system, such as what specificsystem capabilities and benefits will be delivered, by when, and at what
cost. We concluded that this lack of detail is a material limitation in thefirst plan that will become even more problematic in the future as themagnitude and complexity of the system acquisition increases, as will theimportance of creating plans with the appropriate level and scope of
information.14 Responsibility for implementing U.S. VISIT now resides in
the Border and Transportation Security directorate. We are currently
reviewing the fiscal year 2003 expenditure plan and will ascertain whether
these problems were addressed.

13

INS Intelligence Program Strategic Plan, September 30, 1997 (submitted by LB&M
Associates, Inc.).

14

U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Homeland Security Needs to
Improve Entry Exit system Expenditure Planning, GAO-03-563 (Washington D.C.: Jun.
2003).

Page 13

GAO-03-902T

Challenges Related to
Implementing andTransforming DHS

We designated implementation and transformation of the new Departmentof Homeland Security as high risk based on three factors. First, theimplementation and transformation of DHS is an enormous undertaking
that will take time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner. Second,
components to be merged into DHS—including those that now form
BCBP—already face a wide array of existing challenges, some of which wehave described in this statement. Finally, failure to effectively carry out its
mission would expose the nation to potentially very serious consequences.
In the aftermath of September 11, invigorating the nation’s homeland
security missions has become one of the federal government’s mostsignificant challenges. DHS, with an anticipated budget of almost $40
billion and an estimated 170,000 employees, will be the third largest
government agency; not since the creation of the Department of Defense(DOD) more than 50 years ago has the government sought an integrationand transformation of this magnitude. In DOD’s case, the effective
transformation took many years to achieve, and even today, thedepartment continues to face enduring management challenges and highrisk areas that are, in part, legacies of its unfinished integration.
Effectively implementing and transforming DHS may be an even more
daunting challenge. DOD was formed almost entirely from agencies whose
principal mission was national defense. DHS will combine 22 agencies
specializing in various disciplines: law enforcement, border security,
biological research, disaster mitigation, and computer security, forinstance. Further, DHS will oversee a number of non-homeland-security
activities, such as the Coast Guard’s marine safety responsibilities and theFederal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) natural disaster
response functions. Yet, only through the effective integration andcollaboration of these entities will the nation achieve the synergy that canhelp provide better security against terrorism. The magnitude of the
responsibilities, combined with the challenge and complexity of thetransformation, underscores the perseverance and dedication that will be
required of all DHS’s leaders, employees, and stakeholders to achieve
success.
Further, it is well recognized that mergers of this magnitude in the public
and private sector carry significant risks, including lost productivity andinefficiencies. Generally, successful transformations of largeorganizations, even those undertaking less strenuous reorganizations andwith less pressure for immediate results, can take from 5 to 7 years toachieve. Necessary management capacity and oversight mechanisms mustbe established. Moreover, critical aspects of DHS’s success will depend on
Page 14

GAO-03-902T

well-functioning relationships with third parties that will take time toestablish and maintain, including those with state and local governments,
the private sector, and other federal agencies with homeland security
responsibilities, such as the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, DOD, and the Department
of Health and Human Services. Creating and maintaining a structure thatcan leverage partners and stakeholders will be necessary to effectively
implement the national homeland security strategy.
The new department is also being formed from components with a widearray of existing major management challenges and program risks. For
instance, one DHS directorate’s responsibility includes the protection ofcritical information systems that we already consider a high risk. In fact,many of the major components merging into the new department,
including the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), FEMA andthe U.S. Coast Guard, face at least one major problem, such as strategic
human capital risks, critical information technology challenges, or
financial management vulnerabilities; they also confront an array ofchallenges and risks to program operations. For example, TSA has had
considerable challenges in meeting deadlines for screening baggage, andthe agency has focused most of its initial security efforts on aviation
security, with less attention to other modes of transportation. The Coast
Guard faces the challenges inherent in a massive fleet modernization.
DHS’s national security mission is of such importance that the failure toaddress its management challenges and programs risks could have serious
consequences on our intergovernmental system, our citizens’ health andsafety, and our economy. Overall, our designation of the implementationand transformation of DHS as a high-risk area stems from the importanceof its mission and the nation’s reliance on the department’s effectivenessin meeting its challenges for protecting the country against terrorism.

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

Page 15

GAO-03-902T

Appendix: Contacts and Acknowledgments

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Richard
M. Stana at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key contributions to thistestimony included Seto J. Bagdoyan, Michael P. Dino, Darryl W. Dutton,
Barbara Guffy, E. Anne Laffoon, and Lori Weiss.

(440222)

Page 16

GAO-03-902T

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the
United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further
permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images orother material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.

GAO’s Mission

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm ofCongress, 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 governmentis reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of
GAO Reports andTestimony

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 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, andcorrespondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web sitedaily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mailthis list to you every afternoon, go to 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 asingle 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:TDD:
Fax:(202) 512-6000(202) 512-2537(202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud,
Waste, and Abuse inFederal Programs

Contact:

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

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470