United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Science, House of

Representatives

For Release

on Delivery

Expected at

11:30 a.m. EDT

Thursday

September 19, 1996

AVIATION SECURITY

Technology’s Role in

Addressing Vulnerabilities

Statement of Keith O. Fultz

Assistant Comptroller General,

Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Protecting civil aviation from a terrorist attack is an urgent national issue.

We appreciate the opportunity to testify before this Committee on the

serious vulnerabilities that exist within the nation’s air transportation

system and ways to address them. As you know, the threat of terrorism

against the United States has increased. Aviation is and will remain an

attractive target for terrorists. The 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight

103, which killed 270 people, and the more recent, but as yet unexplained,

explosion of TWA flight 800 have shaken the public’s confidence in the

safety and security of air travel.

At your request, we are testifying on the actions that need to be taken to

protect the flying public from the activities of terrorists and the role of

technology in improving aviation security. Our testimony is based on

several issued GAO reports and testimonies.1

 Today, we will discuss (1) the

aviation security system and vulnerabilities that exist within it, (2) the

availability and limitations of explosives detection technology and other

methods to address the threat, and (3) the efforts under way to improve

aviation security. We also will discuss the September 9, 1996,

recommendations from the Presidential Commission on Aviation Security

and Terrorism headed by Vice President Al Gore (the Gore Commission).

In summary,

• In response to the increased threat from terrorists, the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) has mandated additional security procedures.

Currently, aviation security relies on a mix of procedures and technology.

However, the domestic and international aviation systems have serious

vulnerabilities. For example, conventional X-ray screening of checked

baggage has performance limitations and offers little protection against a

moderately sophisticated explosive device.

• Explosives detection devices that could improve security are

commercially available for checked and carry-on baggage, but all of the

devices have some limitations. Some of these devices are being tested

domestically and are already in use at overseas locations. The Gore

Commission has recommended that the federal government purchase

1

Aviation Security: Additional Actions Needed to Meet Domestic and International Challenges

(GAO/RCED-94-38, Jan. 27, 1994), Aviation Security: Development of New Security Technology Has

Not Met Expectations (GAO/RCED-94-142, May 19, 1994), Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Threats and

Roles of Explosives and Narcotics Detection Technology (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-76BR, Mar. 27, 1996),

Aviation Security: Immediate Action Needed to Improve Security (GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-237, Aug. 1,

1996), and Aviation Security: Urgent Issues Need to Be Addressed (GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-251, Sept.

11, 1996).

Page 1 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
some of this equipment for use in airports. Other devices are under

development and may be available in a few years for screening baggage

and passengers, but technologies for screening cargo and mail at airports

are not as far along. Other security methods that could be expanded

upon—and that have been recommended by the Gore

Commission—include matching passengers with their bags and identifying

passengers for additional security screening (profiling). A mix of

technology and procedures will be needed to improve security.

• To improve aviation security, the Congress, the

administration—specifically, FAA and the intelligence community, among

others—and the aviation industry need to agree and take action on what

needs to be done to meet the threat of terrorism and who will pay for it.

Several initiatives are under way to address this issue; they include two

presidential commissions and an FAA working group. The Gore

Commission’s report provides opportunities for agreement on steps that

could be taken in the short term; however, the issue of how to finance

security over the long term still needs to be addressed. Given the urgent

need to improve aviation security and FAA’s problems in addressing

long-standing safety and security concerns, once steps are agreed upon, it

will be important for the Congress to monitor their implementation.

Therefore, we recommend that (1) the Congress, along with responsible

agencies and other affected parties, establish consistent goals and

performance measures and (2) the Congress require periodic reports from

FAA and other responsible federal agencies on the progress and

effectiveness of efforts to improve aviation security.

Aviation Security

System and Its

Vulnerabilities

Even though FAA has increased security procedures as the threat has

increased, the domestic and international aviation systems continue to

have numerous vulnerabilities. According to information provided by the

intelligence community, FAA makes judgments about the threat and

decides which procedures would best address the threat. The airlines and

airports are responsible for implementing the procedures and paying for

them. For example, the airlines are responsible for screening passengers

and property, and the airports are responsible for the security of the

airport environment. FAA and the aviation community rely on a

multifaceted approach that includes information from various intelligence

and law enforcement agencies, contingency plans to meet a variety of

threat levels, and the use of screening equipment, such as conventional

X-ray devices and metal detectors.

Page 2 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
For flights within the United States, basic security measures include the

use of walk-through metal detectors for passengers and X-ray screening of

carry-on baggage—measures that were primarily designed to avert

hijackings during the 1970s and 1980s, as opposed to the more current

threat of attacks by terrorists that involve explosive devices. These

measures are augmented by additional procedures that are based on an

assessment of risk. Among these procedures are passenger profiling and

passenger-bag matching.2

Because the threat of terrorism had previously been considered greater

overseas, FAA mandated more stringent security measures for international

flights. Currently, for all international flights, FAA requires U.S. carriers, at

a minimum, to implement the International Civil Aviation Organization’s

standards that include the inspection of carry-on bags and passenger-bag

matching.3 FAA also requires additional, more stringent

measures—including interviewing passengers that meet certain criteria,

screening every checked bag, and screening carry-on baggage—at all

airports in Europe and the Middle East and many airports elsewhere.

In the aftermath of the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, a Presidential

Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism was established to

examine the nation’s aviation security system. This commission reported

that the system was seriously flawed and failed to provide the flying public

with adequate protection. FAA’s security reviews, audits prepared by the

Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General, and work

we have conducted show that the system continues to be flawed.

Providing effective security is a complex problem because of the size of

the U.S. aviation system, the differences among airlines and airports, and

the unpredictable nature of terrorism. In our previous reports and

testimonies on aviation security, we highlighted a number of

vulnerabilities in the overall security system, such as checked and carry-on

baggage, mail, and cargo. We also raised concerns about unauthorized

individuals gaining access to critical parts of an airport and the potential

use of sophisticated weapons, such as surface-to-air missiles, against

commercial aircraft. According to FAA officials, more recent concerns

2

Passenger profiling is a method of identifying potentially threatening passengers, who are then

subjected to additional security measures. Passenger-bag matching is a procedure used by air carriers

to ensure that a passenger who checks a bag also boards the flight; if the passenger does not board, the

bag is removed.

3

The International Civil Aviation Organization is a United Nations organization that develops standards

and recommends practices for aviation safety and security.

Page 3 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
include smuggling bombs aboard aircraft in carry-on bags and on

passengers themselves.

Specific information on the vulnerabilities of the nation’s aviation security

system is classified and cannot be detailed here, but we can provide you

with unclassified information. Nearly every major aspect of the

system—ranging from the screening of passengers, checked and carry-on

baggage, mail, and cargo as well as access to secured areas within airports

and aircraft—has weaknesses that terrorists could exploit. FAA believes

that the greatest threat to aviation is explosives placed in checked

baggage. For those bags that are screened, we reported in March 1996 that

conventional X-ray screening systems (comprising the machine and

operator, who interprets the image on the X-ray screen) have performance

limitations and offer little protection against a moderately sophisticated

explosive device. In our August 1996 classified report, we provided details

on the detection rates of current systems as measured by numerous FAA

tests that have been conducted over the last several years.

In 1993, the Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector

General also reported weaknesses in security measures dealing with

(1) access to restricted airport areas by unauthorized persons and

(2) carry-on baggage. A follow-on review in 1996 indicated that these

weaknesses continue to persist and have not significantly improved.

Explosives Detection

Technology Can

Improve Security but

Has Limitations

New explosives detection technology will play an important part in

improving security, but it is not a panacea. In response to the Aviation

Security Improvement Act of 1990, FAA accelerated its efforts to develop

explosives detection technology. A number of devices are now

commercially available to address some vulnerabilities. Since fiscal year

1991, FAA has invested over $150 million in developing technologies

specifically designed to detect concealed explosives. (See table 1.) Since

fiscal year 1992, funding for these technologies has fallen, except for the

most current fiscal year, 1996. FAA relies primarily on contracts and grants

with private companies and research institutions to develop these

technologies and engages in some limited in-house research. The act

specifically directed FAA to develop and deploy explosives detection

systems by November 1993. However, this goal has not been met.

Page 4 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
Table 1: FAA’s Expenditures for

Developing Explosives Detection

Technology, by Fiscal Year

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Expenditure

1991 $22.4

1992 27.1

1993 26.7

1994 24.2

1995 23.6

1996a 29.3

Total $153.3

aThe 1996 funding level is an estimate as of June 1996.

Source: FAA.

Since fiscal year 1991, these expenditures have funded approximately 85

projects for developing new explosives detection technology. Currently,

FAA has 40 active development projects. Of these, 19 projects are

developing explosives detection prototype systems. The remaining 21

projects are conducting basic research or developing components for use

in explosives detection systems.

In September 1993, FAA published a certification standard that explosives

detection systems for checked bags must meet before they are deployed.

The standard is classified and sets certain minimum performance criteria.4

To minimize human error, the standard also requires that the devices

automatically sound an alarm when explosives are suspected; this feature

is in contrast to currently used conventional X-ray devices, whereby the

operator has to look at the X-ray screen for each bag to determine whether

it contains a threat. In 1994, we reported that FAA had made little progress

in meeting the law’s requirement for deploying explosives detection

systems because of technical problems, such as slow baggage processing.

As of today, one system has passed FAA’s certification standard and is

being operationally tested by U.S. airlines at two U.S. airports and one

foreign location.

Explosives detection devices can substantially improve the airlines’ ability

to detect concealed explosives before they are brought aboard aircraft.

4

The certification standard sets minimum performance criteria for (1) the explosive substances to be

detected; (2) the probability of detection, by explosive; (3) the quantity of explosive; and (4) the

number of bags processed per hour. In addition, the standard specifies the maximum allowable false

alarm rate, by explosive.

Page 5 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
While most of these technologies are still in development, a number of

devices are now commercially available. However, none of the

commercially available devices are without limitations. On the basis of our

analysis, we have four overall observations on detection technologies that

have important implications for their use at airports.

• First, these devices vary in their ability to detect the types, quantities, and

shapes of explosives.

• Second, explosives detection devices typically produce a number of false

alarms that must be resolved either by human intervention or technical

means. These false alarms occur because the devices use various

technologies to identify characteristics, such as shapes, densities, and

other properties, to indicate a potential explosive. Given the huge volume

of passengers, bags, and cargo processed by the average major U.S.

airport, even relatively modest false alarm rates could cause several

hundreds, even thousands, of items per day to need additional scrutiny.

• Third, and most important, these devices ultimately depend upon human

beings to resolve alarms. This activity can range from closer inspection of

a computer image and a judgment call, to a hand search of the item in

question. The ultimate detection of explosives depends on extra steps

being taken by security personnel—a correct judgment by them—to

determine whether an explosive is present. Because many of the devices’

alarms signify only the potential for explosives being present, the true

detection of explosives requires human intervention. The higher the false

alarm rate, the greater is the system’s need to rely on human judgment. As

we noted in our previous reports, this reliance could be a weak link in the

explosives detection process. In addition, relying on human judgments has

implications for the selection and training of operators for new equipment.

• Fourth, although these devices can substantially increase the probability

of discovering an explosive, their performance in the field may not be as

good as in laboratory tests. For example, the FAA-certified system has not

performed as well in operational testing at two airports as in FAA’s

certification test. The need to rely on operators to resolve false alarms is a

primary reason for this.

Despite the limitations of the currently available technology, some

countries have already deployed some explosives detection equipment

because of differences in their perception of the threat and their

approaches to counter the threat. The Gore Commission recommends that

$161 million in federal funds be used to deploy some of these devices. The

Gore Commission has also recommended that decisions about deploying

equipment be based on vulnerability assessments of the nation’s 450

Page 6 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
largest airports. It may take some time to deploy new detection technology

for screening checked baggage at U.S. airports because of production

limitations and difficulties in integrating new equipment with airline and

airport operations.

Devices Are Available to

Address Some of the

System’s Vulnerabilities,

and FAA Has Developed

Some Cost Estimates

A number of explosives detection devices are currently available or under

development to determine whether explosives are present in checked and

carry-on baggage or on passengers, but they are costly. FAA is still

developing systems to screen cargo and mail at airports.

Checked Bags Four explosives detection devices with automatic alarms are commercially

available for checked bags, but only one has met FAA’s certification

standard—the CTX-5000. FAA’s preliminary estimates are that the one-time

acquisition and installation costs of the certified system for the 75 busiest

airports in the United States could range from $400 million to $2.2 billion,

depending on the number of machines installed. These estimates do not

include operating costs. The four devices rely on three different

technologies.

• The CTX-5000 is a computerized tomography device, which is based on

advances made in the medical field. It has the best overall detection ability

but is relatively slow in processing bags and has the highest price. To meet

FAA’s standard for processing bags, two devices are required, which would

cost approximately $2 million for a screening station. This system was

certified by FAA in December 1994.

• Two other advanced X-ray devices have lower detection capability but are

faster at processing baggage and cheaper—costing approximately $350,000

to $400,000 each.

• The last device uses electromagnetic radiation. It offers chemical-specific

detection capabilities but only for some of the explosives specified in FAA’s

standard. The current price is about $340,000 each.

FAA is funding the development of next-generation devices based on

computerized tomography, which is currently used in the CTX-5000. These

devices are being designed to meet FAA’s standard for detecting explosives

at faster processing speeds; the target price is about $500,000 each, and

they could be available by early 1998. Advanced X-ray devices with

improved capabilities are also being developed.

Page 7 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
Carry-on Items Explosives detection devices are commercially available for screening

carry-on bags, electronics, and other items but not yet for screening

bottles or containers that could hold liquid explosives. Devices for liquids,

however, may be commercially available within a few years.

Carry-on bags and electronics. At least five manufacturers sell devices that

can detect the residue or vapor from explosives on the exterior of carry-on

bags and on electronic items, such as computers or radios. These devices,

also known as “sniffers,” are commonly referred to as “trace” detectors

and range in price from about $30,000 to $170,000 each. They have very

specific detection capabilities as well as low false alarm rates. One

drawback to trace devices, among others, is nuisance alarms. The alarms

on these devices could be activated by persons who have legitimate

reasons for handling explosive substances, such as military personnel.

Also available is an electromagnetic device that offers a high probability of

chemical-specific detection but only for some explosives. The price is

about $65,000.

Detecting liquid explosives. FAA is developing two different

electromagnetic devices for screening bottles and other containers. A

development issue is processing speed. These devices may be available

within 2 years. The cost is projected to be between $25,000 and $125,000

each.

Passengers Although a number of commercially available trace devices could be used

on passengers if deemed necessary, passengers might find their physical

intrusiveness unacceptable. In June 1996, the National Research Council,

for example, reported that passenger-screening devices may pose a

number of health, legal, operational, privacy, and convenience concerns.

FAA and other federal agencies are developing devices that passengers may

find more acceptable. FAA estimates that the cost to provide about 3,000 of

these devices to screen passengers would be about $1.9 billion.

• A number of trace devices in development will detect residue or vapor

from explosives on passengers’ hands. Two devices screen either

documents or tokens that have been handled by passengers. These devices

should be available in 1997 or 1998 and sell for approximately $65,000 to

$85,000 each.

• Another five devices under development use walk-through screening

portals similar to current metal detectors. Three will use trace technology

Page 8 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
to detect particles and vapor from explosives on passengers’ clothing or in

the air surrounding their bodies. Projected selling prices range from

approximately $170,000 to $300,000. One of these devices will be tested at

an airport in the latter part of 1996, and another device may undergo

airport testing next year.

• Two other walk-through portals based on electromagnetic technology are

in development. Rather than detecting particles or vapor, these devices

will show images of items concealed under passengers’ clothing. Prices

are projected to be approximately $100,000 to $200,000.

Cargo and Mail Screening cargo and mail at airports is difficult because individual

packages or pieces of mail are usually batched into larger shipments that

are more difficult to screen. If cargo and mail shipments were broken

down into smaller packages, some available technologies could be used.

For example, the electromagnetic device available for checked baggage

will be tested for screening cargo and mail at a U.S. airport. Although not

yet commercially available, two different systems for detecting explosives

in large containers are being developed by FAA and other federal agencies.

Each system draws vapor and particle samples and uses trace technology

to analyze them. One system is scheduled for testing in 1997.

In addition, FAA is considering, for further development, three

nuclear-based technologies originally planned for checked-bag screening

for use on cargo and mail. These technologies use large, heavy

apparatuses to generate gamma rays or neutrons to penetrate larger items.

However, they require shielding for safety reasons. These technologies are

not as far along and are still in the laboratory development stage rather

than the prototype development stage. If fully developed, these devices

could cost as much as $2 million to $5 million each.

Blast-Resistant Containers To reduce the effects of an in-flight explosion, FAA is conducting research

on blast-resistant containers, which might reduce the number of expensive

explosives detection systems needed. FAA’s tests have demonstrated that it

is feasible to contain the effects—blast and fragments—of an internal

explosion. However, because of their size, blast-resistant containers can

be used only on wide-body aircraft that typically fly international routes.

FAA is working with a joint industry-government consortium to address

concerns about the cost, weight, and durability of the new containers and

is planning to blast test several prototype containers later this year. Also

this year, FAA will place about 20 of these containers into airline operations

Page 9 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
to assess, among other things, their durability and effect on airline

operations.

Other Methods to Improve

Aviation Security

In addition to technology-based security, FAA has other methods that it

uses, and can expand upon, to augment domestic aviation security or use

in combination with technology to reduce the workload required by

detection devices. The Gore Commission has recommended expanded use

of bomb-sniffing dogs, profiling passengers to identify those needing

additional attention, and matching passengers with their bags.

Dogs are considered a unique type of trace detector because they can be

trained to respond in specific ways to the smell of explosives. Dogs are

currently being used at a number of U.S. airports. The Gore Commission

has recommended that 114 additional teams of dogs and their handlers be

deployed at a cost of about $9 million.

On July 25, 1996, the President announced additional measures for

international and domestic flights that include, among other things,

stricter controls over checked baggage and cargo as well as additional

inspections of aircraft. Two procedures that are routinely used on many

international flights are passenger profiling and passenger-bag matching.

FAA officials have said that profiling can reduce the number of passengers

and bags that require additional security measures by as much as

80 percent. The Gore Commission has recommended several initiatives to

promote an automated profiling system. In addition, to determine the best

way to implement systemwide matching of passengers with their bags, the

Gore Commission has recommended testing techniques at selected

airports.

Profiling and bag matching are unable to address certain types of threats.

However, in the absence of sufficient or effective technology, these

procedures are a valuable part of the overall security system. FAA has

estimated that incorporating bag matching in everyday security measures

could cost up to $2 billion in start-up costs and lost revenue. The direct

costs to airlines include, among other things, equipment, staffing, and

training. The airlines’ revenues and operations could be affected

differently because the airlines currently have different capabilities to

implement bag matching, different route structures, and different periods

of time allotted between connecting flights.

Page 10 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
Important Initiatives

Are Under Way and

Will Require Oversight

Addressing the vulnerabilities in the nation’s aviation security system is an

urgent national issue. Although the Gore Commission made

recommendations on September 9, no agreement currently exists among

all the key players, namely, the Congress, the administration—specifically

FAA and the intelligence community, among others—and the aviation

industry, on the steps necessary to improve security in the short and long

term to meet the threat. In addition, who will be responsible in the long

term for paying for new security initiatives has not been addressed. While

FAA has increased security at domestic airports on a temporary basis, FAA

and Department of Transportation officials believe that more permanent

changes are needed. Furthermore, the cost of these changes will be

significant, may require changes in how airlines and airports operate, and

will likely have an impact on the flying public. To achieve these permanent

changes, three initiatives that are under way may assist in developing a

consensus among all interested parties on the appropriate direction and

response to meet the ever-increasing threat. Once actions are agreed upon,

congressional oversight will be needed to ensure the successful

implementation of new technology and procedures.

On July 17, 1996, FAA established a joint government-industry working

group under its Aviation Security Advisory Committee. The committee,

composed of representatives from FAA, the National Security Council, the

Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the

Departments of Defense and State, the Office of Management and Budget,

and the aviation community, will (1) review the threat to aviation,

(2) examine vulnerabilities, (3) develop options for improving security,

(4) identify and analyze funding options, and (5) identify the legislative,

executive, and regulatory actions needed. The goal is to provide the FAA

Administrator with a final report by October 16, 1996. Any national policy

issues would then be referred to the President by the FAA Administrator

through the Secretary of Transportation.

In recognition of the increased threat of terrorism in general, the President

established a Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection on July 15,

1996. Moreover, with respect to the specific threat against civil aviation, in

the aftermath of the TWA flight 800 crash, the President established a

commission headed by the Vice President on July 25, 1996, to review

aviation safety, security, and the pace of modernization of the air traffic

control system. The Gore Commission is working with the National

Transportation Safety Board, the Departments of Transportation and

Justice, aviation industry advisory groups, and concerned

nongovernmental organizations.

Page 11 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
In our August 1, 1996, testimony before the Senate Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation, we emphasized the importance

of informing the American public of and involving them in this effort.

Furthermore, we recommended that several steps be taken immediately,

including among other things, conducting a comprehensive review of the

safety and security of all major domestic and international airports and

airlines to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their procedures to

protect the traveling public.

In addition, in our classified August 1996 report, we concluded that to

sustain the Gore Commission’s momentum and its development of

long-term actions to improve aviation security, the commission should be

supported by staff composed of the best available government and

industry experts on terrorism and civil aviation security. We made a

number of unclassified recommendations aimed at improving the various

initiatives underway, including a recommendation that the President

report to the Congress, during the current congressional session, on

(1) what statutory changes may be required, including who should pay for

additional security measures; (2) whether aviation security should be

considered a national security issue; and (3) whether changes are needed

in the requirement for FAA’s certification of explosives detection

technology before mandating its deployment.

The Gore Commission was charged with reporting its initial findings on

aviation security within 45 days, including plans (1) to deploy new

technology to detect the most sophisticated explosives and (2) to pay for

that technology. We are pleased that the Gore Commission’s September 9,

1996, report contains many recommendations similar to those we made.

The commission recommended a budget amendment for fiscal year 1997

of about $430 million to implement some of the 20 recommendations made

in the report. However, the commission stated that it did not settle the

issue of how security costs will be financed in the long run. The

commission will continue to review aviation safety, security, and air traffic

control modernization over the next several months and is scheduled to

issue its final report by February 1, 1997.

Given the urgent need to improve aviation security and FAA’s

less-than-effective history of addressing long-standing safety and security

concerns, it will be important for the Congress to oversee the

implementation of new security measures once they are agreed upon.

Therefore, we recommend that (1) the Congress, along with responsible

agencies and other affected parties, establish consistent goals and

Page 12 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
performance measures and (2) the Congress require periodic reports from

FAA and other responsible federal agencies on the progress and

effectiveness of efforts to improve aviation security.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the threat of terrorism has been an

international issue for some time and continues to be, as illustrated by

events such as the bombing of U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia . But other

incidents—such as the bombings of the World Trade Center in New York

and the federal building in Oklahoma City—have made terrorism a

domestic as well as an international issue. Public concern about aviation

safety, in particular, has already been heightened as a result of the ValuJet

crash, and the recent TWA flight 800 crash—regardless of the cause—has

increased that concern. If further incidents occur, public fear and anxiety

will escalate, and the economic well-being of the aviation industry will

suffer because of reductions in travel and the shipment of goods.

Given the persistence of long-standing vulnerabilities and the increased

threat to civil aviation, we believe that corrective actions need to be

undertaken immediately. These actions need a unified effort from the

highest levels of the government to address this national issue. With three

separate initiatives under way, the Vice President could be the focal point

to build a consensus on the actions that need to be taken to address a

number of these long-standing vulnerabilities. The Gore Commission’s

September 9, 1996, report to the President provides opportunities for

agreement on steps to improve security that could be taken in the short

term. In our opinion, once steps are agreed on, it will be important for the

Congress to work with agencies to establish consistent goals and

performance measures and for the Congress to oversee their

implementation.

(341509) Page 13 GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-262
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100