BORDER SECURITY

Additional Actions 

Needed to Improve 

Planning for a 

Biometric Air Exit 

System

Statement of Rebecca Gambler, Director

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Border 

and Maritime Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security, House of 

Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT

Thursday, September 26, 2013

GAO-13-853T

United States Government Accountability Office
Page 1 GAO-13-853T

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the status of the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts to implement a biometric exit system. 

Beginning in 1996, federal law has required the implementation of an 

entry and exit data system to track foreign nationals entering and leaving 

the United States.1 The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act 

of 2004 required the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a plan to 

accelerate implementation of a biometric entry and exit data system that 

matches available information provided by foreign nationals upon their 

arrival in and departure from the United States.2 In 2003, DHS initiated 

the U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) 

program to develop a system to collect biographic data (such as name 

and date of birth) and biometric data (such as fingerprints) from foreign 

nationals at U.S. ports of entry.3

However, we have identified a range of management challenges that 

DHS has faced in its effort to fully deploy a corresponding biometric exit 

Since 2004, DHS has tracked foreign 

nationals’ entries into the United States as part of an effort to comply with 

legislative requirements, and since December 2006, a biometric entry 

capability has been fully operational at all air, sea, and land ports of entry.

 1

Pub. L. No. 104-208, div. C, § 110, 110 Stat. 3009-546, 3009-558 to 59. Additionally, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 

required the implementation of an integrated entry and exit data system for foreign 

nationals that would provide access to and integrate foreign national arrival and departure 

data that are authorized or required to be created or collected under law and are in an 

electronic format in certain databases, such as those used at ports of entry and consular 

offices. See 8 U.S.C. § 1365a(b)(1).

2

See 8 U.S.C. § 1365b.

3

A port of entry is any officially designated location (seaport, airport, or land border 

location) where DHS officers or employees are assigned to clear passengers and 

merchandise, collect duties, and enforce customs laws. 
Page 2 GAO-13-853T

capability to track foreign nationals when they depart the country.4 For 

example, in November 2009, we found that DHS had not adopted an 

integrated approach to scheduling, executing, and tracking the work that 

needed to be accomplished to deliver a biometric exit system.5 In these 

reports, we made recommendations intended to help ensure that a 

biometric exit capability was planned, designed, developed, and 

implemented in an effective and efficient manner. DHS generally agreed 

with our recommendations and has taken action to implement a number 

of them. Most recently, in July 2013, we reported on DHS’s progress in 

developing and implementing a biometric exit system, as well as DHS’s 

efforts to identify and address potential overstays—individuals who were 

admitted into the country legally on a temporary basis but then 

overstayed their authorized period of admission.6

Within DHS, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is tasked with, 

among other duties, inspecting all people applying for entry to the United 

States to determine their admissibility to the country. CBP collects 

biographic and biometric information to document nonimmigrants’ entry 

into the country and biographic information to document their exit. CBP is 

also responsible for implementing a biometric exit program. Within DHS’s 

National Protection and Programs Directorate, the Office of Biometric 

Identity Management (OBIM) manages the Automated Biometric 

Identification System, which maintains biometric information that DHS 

 4

See GAO, Overstay Enforcement: Additional Actions Needed to Assess DHS’s Data and 

Improve Planning for a Biometric Air Exit Program, GAO-13-683 (Washington, D.C.: July 

30, 2013); Homeland Security: US-VISIT Pilot Evaluations Offer Limited Understanding of 

Air Exit Options, GAO-10-860 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 10, 2010); Homeland Security: Key 

US-VISIT Components at Varying Stages of Completion, but Integrated and Reliable 

Schedule Needed, GAO-10-13 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19, 2009); Visa Waiver Program: 

Actions Are Needed to Improve Management of the Expansion Process, and to Assess 

and Mitigate Program Risks, GAO-08-967 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2008); Homeland 

Security: U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Program’s Long-standing Lack of Strategic 

Direction and Management Controls Needs to Be Addressed, GAO-07-1065 (Washington, 

D.C.: Aug. 31, 2007); Homeland Security: Planned Expenditures for U.S. Visitor and 

Immigrant Status Program Need to Be Adequately Defined and Justified, GAO-07-278

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2007); and Homeland Security: Some Progress Made, but 

Many Challenges Remain on U.S. Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology 

Program, GAO-05-202 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2005).

5

GAO-10-13.

6

GAO-13-683.
Page 3 GAO-13-853T

collects from nonimmigrants upon their entry into the United States.7

My statement today is based on our July 2013 report and, like that report, 

discusses the extent to which DHS has made progress in developing and 

implementing a biometric exit system at air ports of entry, which is DHS’s 

priority for a biometric exit capability.

OBIM also manages the Arrival and Departure Information System, which 

tracks and matches arrival and departure records for the purpose of 

identifying potential overstays.

8 For our report, we reviewed 

statutory requirements for a biometric exit system and analyzed DHS 

documents, including a May 2012 report on the status of efforts to 

implement a biometric exit capability at airports that was based on 

analysis that DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate (S&T) 

conducted. We compared the status of DHS’s efforts against statutory 

requirements and standard practices for project management. We 

interviewed DHS Office of Policy and S&T officials regarding DHS’s plans 

for addressing recommendations in the department’s May 2012 report 

and other ongoing efforts to develop a biometric exit system. We also 

analyzed information about the Beyond the Border initiative, which is a 

joint effort between the United States and Canada to exchange entry and 

exit data through which entry into one country is treated as exit from the 

other. We conducted this work in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Our July 2013 report provides further 

details on our scope and methodology.

 7

Pursuant to the fiscal year 2013 DHS appropriations act and its accompanying 

explanatory statement, DHS created OBIM effective March 27, 2013, to manage the 

Arrival and Departure Information System and the Automated Biometric Identification 

System and realigned US-VISIT’s responsibility for analyzing overstay data into U.S 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. See Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. No. 113-6, div. D, 127 Stat. 198, 342, 346-47, 356 

(2013); Explanatory Statement, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2013, 159 Cong. Rec. S1287, S1551, S1557-58 (daily ed. Mar. 11, 2013).

8

GAO-13-683.
Page 4 GAO-13-853T

As we reported in July 2013, DHS has not yet fulfilled the 2004 statutory 

requirement to implement a biometric exit capability, but has planning 

efforts under way to report to Congress in time for the fiscal year 2016 

budget cycle on the costs and benefits of such a capability at airports and 

seaports. Development and implementation of a biometric exit capability 

has been a long-standing challenge for DHS. Since 2004, we have issued 

a number of reports on DHS’s efforts to implement a biometric entry and 

exit system. For example, in February and August 2007, we found that 

DHS had not adequately defined and justified its proposed expenditures 

for exit pilots and demonstration projects and that it had not developed a 

complete schedule for biometric exit implementation.9 Further, in 

September 2008, we reported that DHS was unlikely to meet its timeline 

for implementing an air exit system with biometric indicators, such as 

fingerprints, by July 1, 2009, because of several unresolved issues, such 

as opposition to the department’s published plan by the airline industry.10

In 2009, DHS conducted pilot programs for biometric air exit capabilities 

in airport scenarios, and in August 2010 we found that there were 

limitations with the pilot programs—for example, the pilot programs did 

not operationally test about 30 percent of the air exit requirements 

identified in the evaluation plan for the pilot programs—that hindered 

DHS’s ability to inform decision making for a long-term air exit solution 

and pointed to the need for additional sources of information on air exit’s 

operational impacts.11

In an October 2010 memo, DHS identified three primary reasons why it 

has been unable to determine how and when to implement a biometric 

exit capability at airports: (1) The methods of collecting biometric data 

could disrupt the flow of travelers through airport terminals; (2) air carriers 

and airport authorities had not allowed DHS to examine mechanisms 

through which DHS could incorporate biometric data collection into 

passenger processing at the departure gate; and (3) challenges existed in 

capturing biometric data at the point of departure, including determining 

what personnel should be responsible for the capture of biometric 

information at airports. In July 2013, we reported that, according to DHS 

officials, the challenges DHS identified in October 2010 continue to affect 

 9

GAO-07-1065 and GAO-07-278.

10GAO-08-967.

11GAO-10-860.

DHS Faces LongStanding Challenges 

and Uncertain Time 

Frames in Planning 

for a Biometric Exit 

System at Airports
Page 5 GAO-13-853T

the department’s ability to implement a biometric air exit system. With 

regard to an exit capability at land ports of entry, in 2006, we reported that 

according to DHS officials, for various reasons, a biometric exit capability 

could not be implemented without incurring a major impact on land 

facilities.12

Our July 2013 report found that since April 2011, DHS has taken various 

actions to improve its collection and use of biographic data to identify 

potential overstays. For example, DHS is working to address weaknesses 

in collecting exit data at land borders by implementing the Beyond the 

Border initiative, through which DHS and the Canada Border Services 

Agency exchange data on travelers crossing the border between the 

United States and Canada.

For example, at the time of our 2006 report, DHS officials 

stated that implementing a biometric exit system at land ports of entry 

would require new infrastructure and would produce major traffic 

congestion because travelers would have to stop their vehicles upon exit 

to be processed. As a result, as of April 2013, according to DHS officials, 

the department’s planning efforts focus on developing a biometric exit 

capability for airports, with the potential for a similar solution to be 

implemented at seaports, and DHS’s planning documents, as of June 

2013, do not address plans for a biometric exit capability at land ports of 

entry.

13 Because an entry into Canada constitutes a 

departure from the United States, DHS will be able to use Canadian entry 

data as proxies for U.S. departure records. As a result, the Beyond the 

Border initiative will help address those challenges by providing a new 

source of biographic data on travelers departing the United States at land 

ports on the northern border. Our July 2013 report provides more 

information on DHS’s actions to improve its collection and use of 

biographic entry and exit data.14

 12GAO, Border Security: US-VISIT Program Faces, Strategic, Operational, and 

Technological Challenges at Land Ports of Entry, GAO-07-248 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 

2006).

13We found in April 2011 that DHS faced challenges in its ability to identify overstays 

because of unreliable collection of departure data at land ports of entry. See GAO, 

Overstay Enforcement: Additional Mechanisms for Collecting, Assessing, and Sharing 

Data Could Strengthen DHS’s Efforts but Would Have Costs, GAO-11-411 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 15, 2011).

14GAO-13-683.
Page 6 GAO-13-853T

In 2011, DHS directed S&T, in coordination with other DHS component 

agencies, to research long-term options for biometric air exit.15 In May 

2012, DHS reported internally on the results of S&T’s analysis of previous 

air exit pilot programs and assessment of available technologies, and the 

report made recommendations to support the planning and development 

of a biometric air exit capability.16

 15In our previous reviews of DHS’s efforts to pursue a biometric exit capability, DHS’s 

plans have approached development of a biometric exit system through a phased 

approach that involved conducting pilots to inform eventual planning for long-term 

solutions. Different pilots were created to inform solutions at air, sea, and land ports. See 

In that report, DHS concluded that the 

building blocks to implement an effective biometric air exit system were 

available. In addition, DHS’s report stated that new traveler facilitation 

tools and technologies—for example, online check-in, self-service, and 

paperless technology—could support more cost-effective ways to screen 

travelers, and that these improvements should be leveraged when 

developing plans for biometric air exit. However, DHS officials stated that 

there may be challenges to leveraging new technologies to the extent that 

U.S. airports and airlines rely on older, proprietary systems that may be 

difficult to update to incorporate new technologies. Furthermore, DHS 

reported in May 2012 that significant questions remained regarding (1) 

the effectiveness of current biographic air exit processes and the error 

rates in collecting or matching data, (2) methods of cost-effectively 

integrating biometrics into the air departure processes (e.g., collecting 

biometric scans as passengers enter the jetway to board a plane), (3) the 

additional value biometric air exit would provide compared with the 

current biographic air exit process, and (4) the overall value and cost of a 

biometric air exit capability. The report included nine recommendations to 

help inform DHS’s planning for biometric air exit, such as directing DHS to 

develop explicit goals and objectives for biometric air exit and an 

evaluation framework that would, among other things, assess the value of 

GAO-10-13. As of April 2013, the department’s planning efforts are focused on developing 

a biometric exit system for airports, with the potential for a similar solution to be rolled out 

at seaports, according to DHS officials.

16DHS, DHS Biometric Air Exit: Analysis, Recommendations and Next Steps,

(Washington, D.C.: May 2012).
Page 7 GAO-13-853T

collecting biometric data in addition to biographic data and determine 

whether biometric air exit is economically justified.17

DHS reported in May 2012 that it planned to take steps to address these 

recommendations by May 2014; however, as we reported in July 2013, 

according to DHS Office of Policy and S&T officials, the department does 

not expect to fully address these recommendations by then. In particular, 

DHS officials stated that it has been difficult coordinating with airlines and 

airports, which have expressed reluctance about biometric air exit 

because of concerns over its effect on operations and potential costs. To

address these concerns, DHS is conducting outreach and soliciting 

information from airlines and airports regarding their operations. In 

addition, DHS officials stated that the department’s efforts to date have 

been hindered by insufficient funding. In its fiscal year 2014 budget 

request for S&T, DHS requested funding for a joint S&T-CBP Air 

Entry/Exit Re-Engineering Apex project. Apex projects are crosscutting, 

multidisciplinary efforts requested by DHS components that are highpriority projects intended to solve problems of strategic operational 

importance. According to DHS’s fiscal year 2014 budget justification, the 

Air Entry/Exit Re-Engineering Apex project will develop tools to model 

and simulate air entry and exit operational processes. Using these tools, 

DHS intends to develop, test, pilot, and evaluate candidate solutions. As 

of April 2013, DHS Policy and S&T officials stated that they expect to 

finalize goals and objectives for a biometric air exit system in the near 

future and are making plans for future scenario-based testing.

Although DHS’s May 2012 report stated that DHS would take steps to 

address the report’s recommendations by May 2014, DHS officials told us 

that the department’s current goal is to develop information about options 

for biometric air exit and to report to Congress in time for the fiscal year 

2016 budget cycle regarding (1) the additional benefits that a biometric air 

 17The report recommended that DHS take the following actions: (1) develop explicit goals 

and objectives for biometric air exit, (2) leverage improvements in passenger facilitation 

and biometric technology to support a concept of operations, (3) use developmental 

scenario testing instead of pilot programs to validate a concept of operations, (4) establish 

collaborative relationships with airports and airlines, (5) use operational tests to validate 

performance and cost estimates, (6) develop an evaluation framework for biometric air 

exit, (7) employ a holistic approach to assess the costs and benefits of comprehensive 

biometric entry and exit processes, (8) determine whether biometric air exit is 

economically justified, and (9) incrementally deploy biometric air exit to airports where it is 

cost-effective to do so.
Page 8 GAO-13-853T

exit system provides beyond an enhanced biographic exit system and (2) 

costs associated with biometric air exit. However, as we reported in July 

2013, DHS has not yet developed an evaluation framework, as 

recommended in its May 2012 report, to determine how the department 

will evaluate the benefits and costs of a biometric air exit system and 

compare it with a biographic exit system. According to DHS officials, the 

department needs to finalize goals and objectives for biometric air exit 

before it can develop such a framework, and in April 2013 these officials 

told us that the department plans to finalize these elements in the near 

future. However, DHS does not have time frames for when it will 

subsequently be able to develop and implement an evaluation framework 

to support the assessment it plans to provide to Congress.

According to A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 

which provides standards for project managers, specific goals and 

objectives should be conceptualized, defined, and documented in the 

planning process, along with the appropriate steps, time frames, and 

milestones needed to achieve those results.18

 18Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

(PMBOK® Guide), Fifth Edition, (Newton Square, Pennsylvania: 2013). We have used A 

Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge to provide criteria in previous 

reports, including GAO, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund: State Should Better 

Assure the Effective Use of Program Authorities, 

In fall 2012, DHS 

developed a high-level plan for its biometric air exit efforts, which it 

updated in May 2013, but this plan does not clearly identify the tasks 

needed to develop and implement an evaluation framework. For example, 

the plan does not include a step for developing the methodology for 

comparing the costs and benefits of biometric data against those for 

collecting biographic data, as recommended in DHS’s May 2012 report. 

Furthermore, the time frames in this plan are not accurate as of June 

2013 because DHS is behind schedule on some of the tasks and has not 

updated the time frames in the plan accordingly. For example, DHS had 

planned to begin scenario-based testing for biometric air exit options in 

August 2013; however, according to DHS officials, the department now 

plans to begin such testing in early 2014. A senior official from DHS’s 

Office of Policy told us that DHS has not kept the plan up to date because 

of the transition of responsibilities within DHS; specifically, in March 2013,

pursuant to the explanatory statement for DHS’s 2013 appropriation, DHS 

established an office within CBP that is responsible for coordinating 

GAO-13-83 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 

2012).
Page 9 GAO-13-853T

DHS’s entry and exit policies and operations.19

In summary, we concluded in our July 2013 report that without robust 

planning that includes time frames and milestones to develop and 

implement an evaluation framework for this assessment, DHS lacks 

reasonable assurance that it will be able to provide this assessment to 

Congress for the fiscal year 2016 budget cycle as planned. Furthermore, 

any delays in providing this information to Congress could further affect 

possible implementation of a biometric exit system to address statutory 

requirements. Therefore, we recommended that the Secretary of 

Homeland Security establish time frames and milestones for developing 

and implementing an evaluation framework to be used in conducting the 

department’s assessment of biometric exit options. DHS concurred with 

this recommendation and indicated that its component agencies plan to 

finalize the goals and objectives for biometric air exit by January 31, 

2014, and that these goals and objectives will be used in the development 

of an evaluation framework that DHS expects to have completed by June 

30, 2014.

This transition was in 

process as of June 2013, and CBP told us that it planned to establish an 

integrated project team in July 2013 that will be responsible for more 

detailed planning for the department’s biometric air exit efforts. DHS 

Policy and S&T officials agreed that setting time frames and milestones is 

important to ensure timely development and implementation of the 

evaluation framework in accordance with DHS’s May 2012 

recommendations. According to DHS officials, implementation of a 

biometric air exit system will depend on the results of discussions 

between the department and Congress after the department provides this 

assessment of options for biometric air exit.

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and members of the 

subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to respond to any questions you may have at this time.

 19See Explanatory Statement, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2013, 159 Cong. Rec. S1287, S1550 (daily ed. Mar. 11, 2013).
Page 10 GAO-13-853T

For information about this statement, please contact Rebecca Gambler, 

Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at (202) 512-8777 or 

gamblerr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Other individuals making key contributions include Kathryn 

Bernet, Assistant Director; Frances A. Cook; Alana Finley; and Ashley D. 

Vaughan.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441181)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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.
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.