	Prior Actions Have Improved Port Security, but Challenges Remain

Port security in general has improved as a result of the development of  organizations and programs such as Area Maritime Security Committees  (area committees), Area Maritime Security Plans (area plans), maritime  security exercises, and the International Port Security Program, but  challenges to successful implementation of these efforts remain. Additionally, management of these programs will need to address  additional requirements directed by the SAFE Port Act. The SAFE Port Act called for an expansion of interagency operational  centers, directing the Secretary of DHS to establish such centers at all  high-risk priority ports no later than 3 years after the Act’s enactment. These  challenges include:    Obtaining security clearances for port security stakeholders. The Coast Guard  has seen improvements based on its efforts to sponsor security  clearances for members of area committees. While the SAFE Port Act does not call for expanding  area plans in this manner, it does contain a requirement that natural  disasters and other emergencies be included in the scenarios to be tested  in the Port Security Exercise Program. Coast Guard Is in Process of Evaluating the Security of Foreign Ports

The security of domestic ports is also dependent on security at foreign  ports where cargoes bound for the United States originate. However, our previous work showed the Coast Guard faces challenges in  carrying out its strategy to review and inspect facilities for compliance  with their security plans, and these challenges could be amplified with the  additional requirements called for by the SAFE Port Act. Given the differences among the  facilities and locations where the technology is to be implemented, it  may be difficult to test all scenarios. From  our findings and the further changes to the program enacted by the SAFE  Port Act, we identified the following challenge faced by CBP:    Implementing the program while internal controls are being  developed. To fulfill these requirements, DHS and  DOE jointly announced the formation of a pilot program called the Secure  Freight Initiative (SFI) in December 2006, as an effort to build upon  existing port security measures by enhancing the U.S. government’s ability  to scan containers for nuclear and radiological materials overseas and  better assess the risk of inbound containers. We recently completed this study, in which  we found three key weaknesses related to CBP’s performance of customs  revenue functions (1) CBP failed to maintain the legislatively mandated  staffing levels for performing customs revenue functions, (2) CBP lacks a  strategic workforce plan to help ensure it has a sufficient number of staff  with the necessary skills and competencies to effectively perform customs  revenue functions, and (3) CBP does not publicly report on its  performance of customs revenue functions, which would help ensure  accountability. Related GAO Products:

Transportation Security: TSA Has Made Progress in Implementing the  Transportation Worker Identification Credential Program, but  Challenges Remain.
Why GAO Did This Study

The United States has a vital national interest in maritime security. The safety and economic security of the United States depend in substantial part upon the secure use of the world's waterways and ports. In an effort to further the progress made through the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act (SAFE Port Act) was passed and became effective in October 2006. This testimony, which is based on past GAO work, synthesizes the results of this work as it pertains to the following: (1) overall port security, (2) facility security at U.S. ports, (3) the international supply chain and cargo container security, and (4) customs revenue collection efforts.

What GAO Found

With the Coast Guard generally implementing earlier port security requirements, the SAFE Port Act called for changes to several ongoing programs. For example, it called for interagency operational centers at high-risk ports within 3 years. Three centers currently operate, but agency coordination will pose a challenge. Also, the act established a port security exercise program, but more exercises could challenge stakeholders' ability to maintain coordination and quickly report results. Additionally, an expansion of foreign port security assessments may be challenged by greater workloads and the need for additional staff. Many port facility security requirements are being implemented, but not always on schedule. While the Coast Guard has approved, and verified through inspection, facility security plans, the SAFE Port Act requires inspections more often and some without notice. The Coast Guard will be challenged by the number of trained inspectors it needs. Worker credentialing programs were also modified by the act. One such program has seen substantial delays in the past, but is receiving more support. Efforts to avoid duplication in these programs will be challenged by the need for extensive coordination within and among federal departments. The SAFE Port Act codified existing major container security programs and also added guidance for these programs. It also required programs to test new technologies or combine existing technologies for scanning containers. While more container security activity is occurring overseas, challenges remain in the continued implementation of these efforts. These challenges include the inability to directly test the security measures used by different companies in their supply chains, particularly overseas. Since its formation, the Department of Homeland Security has faced challenges in maintaining its customs revenue functions. For example, the Department failed to maintain the legislatively mandated staffing levels, lacks a strategic workforce plan to help ensure it has a sufficient number of skilled staff to effectively perform customs revenue functions, and does not publicly report on its performance of customs revenue functions, which would help ensure accountability.