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 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

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. 

Highlights of GAO-05-543, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on National 

Security, Emerging Threats, and 

International Relations, House Committee 

on Government Reform 

August 2005

BORDER SECURITY

Opportunities to Increase Coordination of 

Air and Marine Assets 

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 

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 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. 
Page i GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 5 

DHS Has Undertaken Efforts to Address Efficient Use of Air and 

Marine Assets 13 

Local Units Coordinate Asset Use on an Ad Hoc Basis and Cite 

Challenges to Their Efforts 16 

Conclusions 22 

Recommendations for Executive Action 23 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24 

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 26 

Appendix II GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 29 

Figures 

Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security 

Responsibilities 8 

Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets 10 

Figure 3: Selected DHS Marine Assets 11 

Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets 12 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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).2

 These agencies were charged with enforcing 

border security across over 7,500 miles of U.S. land borders with Canada 

 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 
Page 3 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

Results in Brief 
Page 4 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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, 

 3

Pub. L. No. 107-296 § 888(d), 6 U.S.C. § 468(d). 
Page 5 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

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.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.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.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 

 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). 

Background 
Page 6 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.7

The border security responsibilities of DHS are primarily located within 

the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate.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. 9 AMO 

supports ICE investigations as well as those of other agencies, including 

 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 CBPAMO 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. 

Border Security Roles and 

Responsibilities 
Page 7 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 
Page 8 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Figure 1: DHS Agencies with Primary Border Security Responsibilities 

Information Analysis 

and Infrastructure

Development Directorate

Border and 

Transportation 

Security Directorate

Transportation 

Security 

Administration

U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection

(CBP)

Federal Law 

Enforcement Training 

Center

Office for

Domestic 

Preparedness

U.S. Immigration

and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE)

Emergency 

Preparedness and 

Response Directorate

Science and 

Technology 

Directorate

Management

Directorate

Coast

Guard

Secret

Service

Office for State

and Local 

Government 

Coordinator

Office of

International

Affairs

Special Liaison

for Private

Sector

 U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Service (CIS)

Source: GAO analysis of President’s fiscal year 2005 budget, P.L. 107-286, and DHS October 28, 2004, memorandum.

Deputy Secretary

Department of Homeland 

Security (Secretary)

Components highlighted within this report

Air and Marine 

Operations (AMO) 

moved from ICE to CBP
Page 9 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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 counterdrug 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. 

 10In 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. 

Border Security Aviation 

and Marine Assets 
Page 10 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Figure 2: Selected DHS Aviation Assets 

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. 

Source: DHS.

HU-25 Guardian P-3 Dome

OH-6A Light Enforcement Helicopter UH-60 Blackhawk HH-65 Dolphin

C550 Citation Pilatus1
Page 11 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Figure 3: Selected DHS Marine Assets 

In fiscal year 2004, DHS spent about $80 million for the boat program.11 See 

figure 4 for a map of the agencies’ air and marine assets in selected 

locations. 

 11The 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. 
Page 12 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Figure 4: Location of Selected DHS Air and Marine Assets 

CT

DE

KY

MD

DC

MA

NH

NJ

OH

RI

VT

AK

HI

AL

AZ AR

CA

CO

GA

ID

IL IN

IA

KS

LA

ME

MI

MO

MO

MT

NV NE

NM

NY

ND

OK

OR

PA

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

FL

MS

NC

Bellingham/Blaine, WA

USCG 

- boats

CBP

- helicopter; fixed wing 

 aircraft; boats

AMO

- fixed wing aircraft; boats 

Tucson, AZ

CBP 

- helicopters; fixed wing 

 aircraft

AMO

- helicopters; fixed wing 

 aircraft

Miami, FL

USCG 

- helicopters; fixed wing aircraft; 

 boats 

CBP

- helicopter; fixed wing aircraft; 

 boats

AMO 

- helicopters; fixed wing aircraft; 

 boats

San Diego, CA

USCG 

- helicopters; boats

CBP 

- helicopters; boats

AMO 

- helicopters; fixed wing 

 aircraft; boats

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

USCG assets

CBP assets

AMO assets
Page 13 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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.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-

 12DHS has established a number of other management and commodity councils for other 

issues. 

13Booz Allen Hamilton, “DHS Assessment of Aviation Operations and Support” (February 

2004). 

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 
Page 14 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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 

 14The 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. 
Page 15 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

$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. 

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 

Integration of ICE Air and 

Marine Operations with 

CBP under Development 
Page 16 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

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. 

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. 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 

 15Our 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. 

Local Units 

Coordinate Asset Use 

on an Ad Hoc Basis 

and Cite Challenges to 

Their Efforts 

Coordination among 

Agencies Initiated by Local 

Unit Leadership 
Page 17 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

locations we visited also cited benefits to asset coordination, as the 

following examples illustrate. 

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 

Miami, Florida 
Page 18 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

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. 

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 

San Diego, California 

Bellingham, Washington 
Page 19 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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 crossborder 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. 

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 crossborder 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 

Tucson, Arizona 
Page 20 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

2004. 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. 

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 

 16These include the Transportation Security Administration and state and local law 

enforcement agencies. 

Local Unit Officials Cited 

Challenges Affecting 

Coordination 
Page 21 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 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 

 17Operation 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. 
Page 22 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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.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. 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.20

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 

 18Pub. L. No. 107-296 § 888(d), 6 U.S.C. § 468(d). 

1940 U.S.C. § 524(b); 31 U.S.C. §§ 1301(a), 3302(b). 

20Pub. L. No. 108-334, 118 stat. 1298, 1301-02 (2004). 

Conclusions 
Page 23 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

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. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 24 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

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. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 25 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

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. 

Paul L. Jones 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 26 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 27 GAO-05-543 Border Security 
Appendix I: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 28 GAO-05-543 Border Security 
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 29 GAO-05-543 Border Security 

Paul L. Jones, (202) 512-8777 

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. 

Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440314) 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

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 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER