oversight

Crime Technology: Department of Defense Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-10-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                United States General Accounting Office

GAO             Report to the Honorable Mike DeWine
                U.S. Senate



October 1999

                CRIME
                TECHNOLOGY
                Department of
                Defense Assistance
                to State and Local
                Law Enforcement
                Agencies




GAO/GGD-00-14
                                                                                                 Assistant Comptroller General
United States General Accounting Office                                                           General Government Division
Washington, D.C. 20548




                                    B-283095

                                    October 12, 1999

                                    The Honorable Mike DeWine
                                    United States Senate

                                    Dear Senator DeWine:

                                    This report responds to your request for information about crime
                                                           1
                                    technology assistance provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) to
                                    state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through
                                          2
                                    1998. As agreed, we categorized the assistance into the following three
                                    categories: (1) grants or other types of direct federal funding; (2) access to
                                    support services and systems, such as counterdrug or other intelligence
                                    centers; and (3) in-kind transfers of equipment or other assets. Also, to
                                    provide perspective, we identified several relevant DOD research and
                                    development efforts that may have indirectly benefited state and local law
                                    enforcement agencies.

                                    Regarding the first category, DOD said it provided no crime technology-
Results in Brief                    related grants to state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal
                                    years 1996 through 1998. Although each state’s National Guard received
                                    funds for its counterdrug program, these funds did not meet our definition
                                                                                        3
                                    of crime technology assistance, with one exception. We also did not find
                                    any other type of direct funding.

                                    In the other two categories, identifiable crime technology assistance
                                    provided by DOD to state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal
                                    years 1996 through 1998 totaled an estimated $125.9 million, as table 1


                                    1
                                     In developing the information in this report, we defined “crime technology assistance” as any
                                    technology-related assistance provided to state and local law enforcement agencies, including those of
                                    Indian tribes, for establishing and/or improving (1) criminal justice history and/or information systems
                                    and specialized support services or (2) the availability of and capabilities to access such services and
                                    systems related to identification, information, communications, and forensics. (See app. I.)
                                    2
                                     At your request, we previously reported on crime technology assistance to state and local law
                                    enforcement agencies provided by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the Office of
                                    National Drug Control Policy, Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State and Local Law
                                    Enforcement (GAO/GGD-99-101, June 7, 1999).
                                    3
                                     The one exception involved courses at two of the National Guard’s three counterdrug training
                                    locations. We considered these courses to be a “support service,” and we included the relevant funding
                                    in that category.




                                    Page 1         GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                                      B-283095




                                      shows. Of this amount, about $95.9 million involved in-kind transfers,
                                      representing about 76 percent of the total.

Table 1: Estimated DOD Funding for
Crime Technology Assistance, Fiscal   Dollars in thousands
Years 1996 Through 1998               Category of assistance                                                      Amount
                                      Support services and systems                                               $29,985.5
                                      In-kind transfers                                                           95,877.2
                                      Total                                                                     $125,862.7
                                      Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD components.


                                      Although not directly intended for state and local law enforcement
                                      agencies, some of DOD’s research and development efforts in recent years
                                      have had spin-off benefits for these agencies—particularly DOD’s efforts to
                                      develop technologies for federal use in detecting explosives and narcotics.
                                      For example, proven technologies have resulted in crime-fighting
                                      products—-such as bomb detection equipment—becoming commercially
                                      available for purchase by all levels of law enforcement. We did not attempt
                                      to identify all relevant examples nor to quantify the costs associated with
                                      specific products because (1) DOD’s research and development efforts
                                      primarily and directly support federal agency needs and (2) the acquisition
                                      of any resulting commercially available products generally is dependent on
                                      state and local law enforcement agencies’ own budgets.

                                      Under long-standing law, the so-called Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18
Background                            U.S.C. 1385) prohibits the use of the Departments of the Army or the Air
                                      Force to enforce the nation’s civilian laws except where specifically
                                      authorized by the Constitution or Congress. While the language of section
                                      1385 lists only the Army and the Air Force, DOD has made the provisions
                                      of section 1385 applicable to the Department of the Navy and the U.S.
                                      Marine Corps through a DOD directive (DOD Directive 5525.5, Jan. 15,
                                      1986).

                                      Congress has enacted various pieces of legislation authorizing a military
                                      role in supporting civilian law enforcement agencies. For example, in the
                                      Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1982 (P.L. 97-86),
                                      Congress authorizes the Secretary of Defense to provide certain
                                      assistance-type activities for civilian law enforcement activities. This
                                      legislation also provided, however, that such U.S. military assistance does
                                      not include or permit participation in a search, seizure, arrest, or other
                                      similar activity, unless participation in such activity is otherwise
                                      authorized by law.




                                      Page 2       GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
B-283095




Beginning in the early 1980s, Congress authorized an expanded military
                                                       4
role in supporting domestic drug enforcement efforts. As part of the
national counterdrug effort, for example, the U.S. military provides federal,
state, and local law enforcement agencies with a wide range of services,
such as air and ground transportation, communications, intelligence, and
technology support. DOD counterdrug intelligence support is provided by
Joint Task Force Six, which is based at Fort Bliss (El Paso, TX). This
component coordinates operational intelligence in direct support of drug
                           5
law enforcement agencies.

Moreover, under congressional authorization that was initially provided in
1989 (32 U.S.C. 112), DOD may provide funds annually to state governors
who submit plans specifying how the respective state’s National Guard is
to be used to support drug interdiction and counterdrug activities. Such
operations are conducted under the command and control of the state
governor rather than the U.S. military. Also, federal, state, and local law
enforcement personnel may receive counterdrug training at schools
managed by the National Guard in California, Florida, and Mississippi.

In 1989, Congress authorized the Secretary of Defense to transfer to
federal and state agencies excess DOD personal property suitable for use
in counterdrug activities, without cost to the recipient agency. In 1996,
Congress authorized such transfers of excess DOD personal property
suitable for use in law enforcement generally and not just specifically for
                                                               6
counterdrug efforts. This Law Enforcement Support Program is managed
by the Defense Logistics Agency.

Military law enforcement agencies are major consumers of forensic
                    7
laboratory services. The Army operates the U.S. Army Criminal
Investigation Laboratory (Fort Gillem, GA), which provides forensic
support regarding questioned documents, trace evidence, firearms and tool
marks, fingerprints, imaging and technical services, drug chemistry, and
serology. The Navy operates two limited-service forensic laboratories,
which are referred to as Naval Criminal Investigative Service Regional
4
 See, Nina M. Serafino, Congressional Research Service, U.S. Military Participation in Southwest
Border Drug Control: Questions and Answers (CRS 98-767F), updated September 17, 1998.
5
 Drug Control: An Overview of U.S. Counterdrug Intelligence Activities (GAO/NSIAD-98-142, June 25,
1998).
6
 This program is referred to as the 1033 program named after section 1033 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 1997.
7
 Forensic science refers to the systematic application of scientific techniques and methods that are
based on academic disciplines, such as chemistry, physics, medicine, anthropology, and toxicology.




Page 3         GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                         B-283095




                                                                                                        8
                         Forensic Laboratories (Norfolk, VA, and San Diego, CA). Both Navy
                         laboratories provide forensic support regarding latent prints, drug
                         chemistry, arson, and questioned documents. The Air Force is the
                         executive agent of the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum,
                         MD), which processes digital and analog evidence for DOD
                         counterintelligence operations and programs as well as fraud and other
                         criminal investigations. Generally, with the exception of participating with
                         state or local law enforcement agencies in cases with a military interest,
                                                                                             9
                         the military laboratories do not provide support to these agencies.

                         In response to our inquiries, officials at each of the DOD components we
Grants or Other Direct   contacted told us that they did not provide grants for any purposes,
Federal Funding          including crime technology-related assistance, to state and local law
                         enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Moreover, we
                         found no indications of crime technology-related grant assistance provided
                         by DOD during our review of various DOD authorization, appropriations,
                         and budget documents.

                         According to the General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal
                                                10
                         Domestic Assistance, DOD can provide grants for a variety of purposes to
                         some non-law enforcement agencies. For example, some DOD grants may
                         assist state and local agencies in working with the Army Corps of
                         Engineers to control and eradicate nuisance vegetation in rivers and
                         harbors.

                         DOD direct funding—$563.3 million total appropriations for fiscal years
                         1996 through 1998—was provided for the National Guard Bureau’s
                         counterdrug program, which covers the following six mission areas: (1)
                         program management, (2) technical support, (3) general support, (4)
                         counterdrug-related training, (5) reconnaissance/observation, and (6)
                         demand reduction support. However, we determined that, with one
                         exception, these mission areas did not involve activities that met our
                         definition of crime technology assistance. The one exception involved
                         courses at two of the National Guard’s three counterdrug training
                         8
                          The Marine Corps does not operate a forensic laboratory. Rather, the Marine Corps mainly uses the
                         Navy and Army laboratories. The Air Force uses Army; Navy; and other federal, state, or local
                         laboratories for forensic analyses that are not computer-related.
                         9
                          DOD, Office of the Inspector General, Criminal Investigative Policy & Oversight: Evaluation of the
                         Department of Defense Forensic Laboratories (Report Number 9850008X), September 16, 1998.
                         10
                           Published annually, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance is a reference source of federal
                         programs, projects, services, and activities that provides assistance to a variety of potential
                         beneficiaries, including states and localities. For purposes of our review, we consulted the 1996, 1997,
                         and 1998 editions.




                         Page 4         GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                                         B-283095




                                         locations in operation during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. We
                                         considered these courses to be a “support service,” and they are discussed
                                         in the following section.

                                         Regarding support services and systems, DOD’s crime technology
Support Services and                     assistance to state and local law enforcement totaled an estimated $30
Systems                                  million for fiscal years 1996 through 1998. As table 2 shows, this assistance
                                         was provided by various DOD components—the Defense Security Service,
                                         the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory, the Intelligence Systems
                                         Support Office, Joint Task Force Six, the military branch investigative
                                         agencies, National Guard Bureau counterdrug training schools, and the
                                         U.S. Army Military Police School. More details about the assistance
                                         provided by each of these components are presented in respective sections
                                         following table 2.


Table 2: DOD Support Services and Systems Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996
Through 1998
Obligations in thousands of dollars
Component and assistance                                                     1996        1997          1998         Total
Defense Security Service:
   Defense Clearance and Investigations Index                                $1.8         $2.4          $1.0         $5.2
                                       a
DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory                                             N/A          N/A          14.0         14.0
Intelligence Systems Support Office:
   Gulf States Initiative                                                 6,100.0      8,900.0     13,100.0     28,100.0
Joint Task Force Six:
   Communications assessment                                                 16.3          0.0           0.0         16.3
   Intelligence architecture assessment                                        0.0        15.0          17.5         32.5
Military branch investigative agencies:
                                           b
   Army Criminal Investigation Command                                        N/A          N/A           N/A          N/A
   Air Force Office of Special Investigations                                  0.0         8.4           0.0          8.4
   Naval Criminal Investigative Service:
       Forensic analyses                                                     63.0          9.0          34.0        106.0
                          c
       Technical training                                                      0.0         0.4           2.1          2.5
                                                d
   Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division                               N/A          N/A           N/A          N/A
National Guard Bureau:
                                 e
   Counterdrug training schools                                              62.1         72.8        145.8         280.7
Other training:
   U.S. Army Military Police School                                         579.1        385.8        455.0       1,419.9
Total                                                                    $6,822.3    $9,393.8     $13,769.4    $29,985.5
                                         Legend: N/A = Not applicable.
                                         Note: Dollar amounts are estimated and have been rounded to the nearest thousand.
                                         a
                                         The laboratory became operational in July 1998. Thus, the funding figure shown for 1998 covers 3
                                         months (July through Sept.).
                                         b
                                          In joint investigations with state and local law enforcement agencies, the Army may conduct forensic
                                         analyses. However, because the Army has an independent interest in such investigations, it does not
                                         categorize its participation in these investigations as providing assistance to state and local law




                                         Page 5        GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                           B-283095




                           enforcement agencies. Thus, the Army did not provide us any prorated funding data for these
                           investigations.
                           c
                            The Naval Criminal Investigative Service was unable to provide estimated funding data by fiscal
                           years. Therefore, the funding data are by calendar year.
                           d
                           The Marine Corps does not have a forensics laboratory. Rather, for its forensic analysis needs, the
                           Corps relies on other military or state laboratories.
                           e
                            Crime technology-related courses were provided at two of the National Guard Bureau’s three
                           counterdrug training schools. According to DOD, National Guard Bureau counterdrug program
                           funding is provided by the Office of Drug Enforcement Policy and Support.
                           Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD components.


Defense Security Service   As table 2 shows, the Defense Security Service estimated that its
                           assistance to state and local law enforcement totaled approximately $5,200
                           during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. This total represents responses to 59
                           requests—with estimated assistance costs ranging from $75 to $100 per
                           request (or an average of $87.50 per request)—for information from the
                                                                        11
                           Defense Clearance and Investigations Index.

                           A single, automated central repository, the Defense Clearance and
                           Investigations Index, contains information on (1) the personnel security
                           determinations made by DOD adjudicative authorities and (2)
                           investigations conducted by DOD investigative agencies. This database
                           consists of an index of personal names and impersonal titles that appear as
                           subjects, co-subjects, victims, or cross-referenced incidental subjects in
                           investigative documents maintained by DOD criminal, counterintelligence,
                           fraud, and personnel security investigative activities. For example, state
                           and local law enforcement agencies may request and receive completed
                           Defense Security Service investigations in support of criminal
                           investigations or adverse personnel actions.

DOD Computer Forensics     The DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory (Linthicum, MD) became
                           operational in July 1998. The laboratory is responsible for processing,
Laboratory                 analyzing, and performing diagnoses of computer-based evidence involving
                           counterintelligence operations and programs as well as fraud and other
                           criminal cases. According to DOD officials, forensic analyses can be
                           provided to state and local law enforcement when there is a military
                           interest or, in certain other instances, when specific criteria are met. In the
                           last 3 months of fiscal year 1998 (July through Sept.), according to DOD
                           officials, the laboratory performed 84 forensic analyses, 2 of which were

                           11
                            According to a Defense Security Service official, these costs do not include self-help assistance (i.e.,
                           instances whereby state and local agencies directly access the database through the Department of the
                           Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network). We accounted for this assistance in our earlier
                           report, GAO/GGD-99-101, which discussed assistance provided by the Departments of Justice and the
                           Treasury and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.




                           Page 6         GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                         B-283095




                         for law enforcement officials in the states of North Carolina and
                         Tennessee, respectively. As table 2 shows, DOD estimated that its costs
                         (which were based on prorated staff hours) in providing forensic
                         assistance to the states were $14,000 (or $7,000 per analysis).

Intelligence Systems     For fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD obligated $28.1 million for the
                         Gulf States Initiative. Using law enforcement intelligence software, the
Support Office           Gulf States Initiative is an interconnected communications system among
                         the states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Included in this
                         system are (1) specialized software for the analysis of counterdrug
                         intelligence information, (2) a secure and reliable communications
                         network, and (3) standardized tools to analyze and report counterdrug
                         intelligence information. Each state operates a drug intelligence center
                         (located in the capital city) that is connected to the hubs in other states.
                         This system allows states to process and analyze intelligence information.

Joint Task Force Six     At the request of a domestic law enforcement agency, DOD’s Joint Task
                         Force Six coordinates operational, technological, intelligence, and training
                         support for counterdrug efforts within the continental United States. For
                         fiscal years 1996 through 1998, Joint Task Force Six officials estimated
                         that the costs of crime technology assistance provided by this DOD
                         component to state and local law enforcement totaled $48,800. As table 2
                         shows, this assistance consisted of two types—communications
                         assessments ($16,300) and intelligence architecture assessments ($32,500).
                         In providing such assistance, military personnel essentially acted as
                         technical consultants in evaluating state or local agencies’ (1) existing
                         communications systems, including their locations and the procedures for
                         using them, and/or (2) intelligence organizations, functions, and systems.

Military Branch          The military branch investigative agencies generally do not unilaterally
                         provide assistance to state and local law enforcement. However, if there is
Investigative Agencies   a military interest, a military investigative agency may jointly conduct an
                         investigation with state or local authorities. (See table I.1 in app. I.) During
                         such collaborative efforts, the Army, Air Force, and Navy may provide
                         forensic support in areas involving, for example, fingerprints, drug
                         chemistry, and questioned documents.

                         The cost data presented for the military branch investigative agencies in
                         table 2 are the costs associated with (1) forensic analyses involving joint or
                         collaborative cases and (2) other technology-related assistance, such as
                         technical training. For example:




                         Page 7     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                              B-283095




                            • In 1997, the Air Force enhanced the quality of an audiotape used as
                              evidence for a homicide investigation for Prince George’s County, MD. The
                              Air Force estimated its costs to be $8,400 for this assistance.
                            • In addition to the forensic analyses conducted during fiscal years 1996
                              through 1998, the Navy also provided technical training to 386 state and
                              local law enforcement personnel. Such training covered various aspects of
                              forensic technology, such as conducting DNA analyses and using computer
                              databases.

                              Although it does not have a forensic laboratory, the Marine Corps Criminal
                              Investigation Division provided state and local law enforcement agencies
                              with other types of assistance, such as the use of dog teams to detect
                              explosives. However, we determined that these activities did not meet our
                              definition of crime technology assistance.

National Guard Bureau         At two of its three counterdrug training locations in operation during fiscal
                              years 1996 through 1998, the National Guard Bureau provided state and
                              local law enforcement with courses that met our definition of crime
                              technology assistance. According to National Guard Bureau officials, the
                              two locations and the relevant courses (with a prorated estimated funding
                              total of about $281,000 for the 3 fiscal years) are as follows:

                            • Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training (St. Petersburg, FL):
                              At this training location, the relevant course covered the use of technical
                              equipment to intercept secure communications. This course accounted for
                              about $60,000, or about 21 percent of the total $281,000 funding.
                            • Regional Counterdrug Training Academy (Meridian, MS): At this location,
                              National Guard Bureau officials identified the following three relevant
                              courses: (1) Basic Technical Service/Video Surveillance Operations, (2)
                              Counterdrug Thermal Imagery Systems, and (3) Investigative Video
                              Operations. These courses accounted for about $221,000, or the remaining
                              79 percent of the $281,000 funding total.

U.S. Army Military Police     The U.S. Army Military Police School (Fort Leonard Wood, MO) provided
                              counterdrug training to state and local law enforcement agencies. Eight
School                        courses were conducted that focused on drug enforcement training for
                              non-DOD students, including state and local law enforcement personnel. In
                              response to our inquiry, DOD officials indicated that two of these
                              courses—(1) Counterdrug Investigations and (2) Basic Analytical
                              Investigative Techniques—fit our definition of crime technology
                              assistance. For example, the Counterdrug Investigations course covered
                              such topics as (1) criminal intelligence, (2) surveillance operations, and (3)
                              technical surveillance equipment (audio/video). The Basic Analytical



                              Page 8     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                                         B-283095




                                         Investigative Techniques course trained law enforcement personnel how
                                         to maintain an automated criminal intelligence system under
                                         multijurisdictional narcotics scenarios. This course also covered such
                                         topics as (1) the analytical process, (2) sources of information, and (3)
                                         flowcharting.

                                         Regarding these 2 courses, Military Police School officials told us that
                                         training was provided to 2,121 state and local law enforcement personnel
                                         during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, at an estimated cost of over $1.4
                                         million.

                                         During fiscal years 1996 through 1998, DOD’s in-kind assistance to state
In-Kind Transfer                         and local law enforcement totaled about $95.9 million. As table 3 shows,
Programs                                 this category of assistance was provided by two DOD components—the
                                         Defense Information Systems Agency (about $24 million in the
                                         procurement and transfer of new equipment) and the Defense Logistics
                                         Agency (about $72.0 million in the transfer of surplus equipment). More
                                         details about the in-kind assistance provided by each of these two
                                         components are presented in respective sections following table 3.


Table 3: DOD In-Kind Transfers Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
Obligations in thousands of dollars
Component and assistance                                                    1996           1997          1998       Total
Defense Information Systems Agency:
                                       a
  Regional Police Information System                                         $0.0          $0.0      $3,000.0    $3,000.0
                                                          b
  Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System                   7,460.0        9,457.0       4,000.0    20,917.0
     Subtotal                                                           $7,460.0       $9,457.0      $7,000.0   $23,917.0
Defense Logistics Agency:
  Alarm, signal, and security detection equipment                            56.9          54.9         166.3       278.1
  Automated data processing units, equipment, components,
                                  c
    software, and control systems                                        6,218.4       10,824.5      12,492.6    29,535.5
  Chemical analysis instruments                                            109.9           41.8          17.4       169.1
  Communications security equipment and components                           37.6          30.7          25.8        94.1
  Cryptologic equipment and components                                       23.9            0.0           0.0       23.9
  Night vision equipment (emitted and reflected radiation)               7,051.9        3,199.4       6,648.8    16,900.1
  Radar equipment (except airborne)                                      1,151.7          177.8          68.8     1,398.3
  Radio and television communication equipment (except airborne)         7,738.2        5,730.3       6,698.4    20,166.9
  Stimulated coherent radiation devices, components, and
    accessories                                                              62.6            1.8           0.0       64.4
  Underwater sound equipment                                                  2.6            0.6         52.2        55.4
  Video recording and reproducing equipment                                388.5          600.4         896.5     1,885.4
  Visible and invisible light communication equipment                      702.9          339.0         347.1     1,389.0
     Subtotal                                                          $23,545.1     $21,001.2      $27,413.9   $71,960.2
Total                                                                  $31,005.1     $30,458.2      $34,413.9   $95,877.2
                                         Note: Dollars were rounded to the nearest thousand.
                                         a
                                         This system was procured by DOD and given to the states in fiscal year 1998.




                                         Page 9        GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                             B-283095




                             b
                              According to DOD officials, during fiscal years 1996 and 1997, equipment was procured and given to
                             the states, although the legal transfer of the equipment from DOD to the states did not occur until
                             September 1997. For fiscal year 1998, the officials explained that equipment was procured and given
                             to the states; but, as of August 1999, DOD had not legally transferred ownership of the equipment to
                             the states.
                             c
                              This line item consists of nine separate federal supply classes. For table presentation purposes, we
                             combined the nine supply classes into one line item.
                             Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD components.


Defense Information          The in-kind assistance (about $24 million) provided by the Defense
                             Information Systems Agency consisted of the procurement and transfer of
Systems Agency               equipment for the following information-sharing or communications
                             systems:

                           • Regional Police Information System ($3 million): Arkansas, Louisiana, and
                             Texas use this system, which (1) provides automated information
                             capabilities for detecting and monitoring illegal drug activities within each
                             state’s jurisdiction and (2) facilitates the sharing of both strategic and
                             tactical intelligence among participating agencies.
                           • The Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System (about $21
                             million): This is a secure law enforcement counterdrug information-
                             sharing system that connects intelligence databases of four southwest
                             border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas); the three
                             Regional Information Sharing Systems in that area; and the El Paso
                             Intelligence Center. This system provides for secure E-mail transmissions
                             and includes a preestablished query system. The system allows all
                             participants to query the databases of all other participants and has an
                             administrative Web site server that offers key electronic services, such as
                             providing agency contact information and system usage statistics.

Defense Logistics Agency     Through its Law Enforcement Support Program, the Defense Logistics
                             Agency provided about $72.0 million of crime technology-related, in-kind
                             assistance to state and local law enforcement during fiscal years 1996
                             through 1998. As table 3 shows, most of this assistance consisted of the
                             following three types of equipment or assets:

                           • Automated data processing units, equipment, components, software, and
                             control systems ($29.5 million);
                           • Radio and television equipment ($20.2 million); and
                           • Night vision equipment ($16.9 million).
                             Collectively, these three categories accounted for $66.6 million or about 93
                             percent of the total crime technology-related, in-kind assistance (about
                             $72.0 million) provided to state and local law enforcement by the Defense
                             Logistics Agency during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.



                             Page 10       GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                        B-283095




Other Transfers         In its counterterrorism and counterdrug efforts, the federal government
Indirect Assistance     has invested considerable funds in recent years to develop technologies
May Result From DOD     for detecting explosives and narcotics. For example, in 1996, we reported
Research and            that DOD had spent over $240 million since 1991 to develop nonintrusive
                        cargo inspection systems and counterdrug technologies for the Customs
Development Efforts     Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and other federal
                                   12
                        agencies. Although not directly intended for state and local law
                        enforcement agencies, some of DOD’s research and development efforts
                        have had spin-off benefits for these agencies. That is, proven technologies
                        have resulted in crime-fighting products’ becoming commercially available
                        for purchase by all levels of law enforcement. In citing two examples, DOD
                        officials commented basically as follows:

                      • A “percussion actuated neutralization disruptor”—funded by DOD’s Office
                        of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict—can be used to disarm
                        or neutralize pipebombs. Since becoming commercially available, this
                        device has widespread applicability in all states and municipalities.
                      • A “temporal analysis system” has been developed under DOD’s
                        Counterdrug Technology Development Program Office. This computer-
                        based system, which analyzes time-series and other event-related data,
                        allows law enforcement to predict a criminal’s activities and movements.

                        The DOD officials further commented that, while these items first became
                        commercially available some time during fiscal years 1996 through 1998,
                        the research and development funds associated with the items were
                        obligated in years before 1996.

                        We did not attempt to identify all relevant examples nor to quantify the
                        costs associated with specific products because DOD’s research and
                        development efforts primarily and directly support federal agency needs
                        rather than those of state and local law enforcement. Also, (1) any spin-off
                        benefits to state and local law enforcement may not occur until years after
                        federal research and development funds are expended and (2) the
                        acquisition of commercially available products generally is dependent on
                        these agencies’ own budgets.

                        To identify relevant crime technology assistance programs, we reviewed,
Scope and               among other sources, the General Services Administration’s Catalog of
Methodology             Federal Domestic Assistance. Also, to identify funding amounts, we
                        contacted cognizant DOD officials and reviewed budget and other

                        12
                         Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Threats and Roles of Explosives and Narcotics Detection
                        Technology (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-76BR, Mar. 27, 1996).




                        Page 11       GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                      B-283095




                      applicable documents provided by DOD components. We did not
                      independently verify the accuracy or reliability of the components’ funding
                      data. However, to obtain an indication of the overall quality of these data,
                      we contacted DOD officials to clarify the funding data when needed.
                      Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and
                      methodology.

                      We performed our work from May 1999 to September 1999 in accordance
                      with generally accepted government auditing standards.

                      On September 14, 1999, we provided DOD with a draft of this report for
Agency Comments and   comment. On September 23, 1999, DOD’s Office of the Inspector General
Our Evaluation        orally informed us that the draft report had been reviewed by officials in
                      relevant DOD components, and that these officials agreed with the
                      information presented and had no comments.

                      As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
                      this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the
                      date of this report. We are sending copies of this report to Senator Orrin G.
                      Hatch, Chairman, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member,
                      Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Representative Henry J. Hyde,
                      Chairman, and Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority
                      Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; the Honorable William S.
                      Cohen, Secretary of Defense; and the Honorable Jacob Lew, Director,
                      Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to
                      others upon request.

                      If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
                      on (202) 512-8777 or Danny R. Burton on (214) 777-5700. Key contributors
                      to this assignment are acknowledged in appendix II.

                      Sincerely yours,




                      Richard M. Stana
                      Associate Director, Administration
                        of Justice Issues




                      Page 12    GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Page 13   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Contents



Letter                                                                                                   1


Appendix I                                                                                              16
                         Objectives                                                                     16
Objectives, Scope, and   Definition of “Crime Technology Assistance”                                    16
Methodology              Overview of Scope and Methodology                                              16
                         Scope and Methodology Regarding Grants or Other                                18
                           Direct Funding
                         Scope and Methodology Regarding Support Services and                           19
                           Systems
                         Scope and Methodology Regarding In-Kind Transfers                              22
                         Scope and Methodology Regarding Research and                                   22
                           Development
                         Data Accuracy and Reliability                                                  23


Appendix II                                                                                             24

GAO Contacts and
Staff
Acknowledgments
Tables                   Table 1: Estimated DOD Funding for Crime Technology                             2
                           Assistance, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
                         Table 2: DOD Support Services and Systems Provided to                           5
                           State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal
                           Years 1996 Through 1998
                         Table 3: DOD In-Kind Transfers Provided to State and                            9
                           Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996
                           Through 1998
                         Table I.1: Number of Cases Closed by Military Branch                           21
                           Investigative Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998




                         Page 14   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Page 15   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


                        Senator Mike DeWine requested that we identify crime technology
Objectives              assistance provided by the Department of Defense (DOD) to state and
                        local law enforcement agencies. Specifically, for fiscal years 1996 through
                        1998, Senator DeWine requested that we identify the types and amounts of
                        such assistance. As agreed, we categorized the assistance into the
                        following three categories: (1) grants or other types of direct federal
                        funding; (2) access to support services and systems, such as counterdrug
                        or other intelligence centers; and (3) in-kind transfers of equipment or
                        other assets. Also, to provide a supplemental perspective, we identified
                        several relevant DOD research and development efforts that may have
                        indirectly benefited state and local law enforcement agencies.

                        As we discussed in our previous report covering assistance provided by
Definition of “Crime    the Departments of Justice and the Treasury and the Office of National
Technology              Drug Control Policy, there is no commonly accepted definition of “crime
                                               1
Assistance”             technology assistance.” Thus, for our previous report and for this report,
                        we developed our own definition by reviewing (1) a then pending bill (S.
                                                                       2
                        2022), which has since been enacted into law, related to crime technology
                        assistance introduced by Senator DeWine during the second session of the
                            th
                        105 Congress, and its legislative history; (2) Senator DeWine’s request
                        letter and subsequent discussions with his office; (3) the General Services
                        Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, which is a
                        reference source of federal assistance programs, including crime control
                        programs; and (4) Congressional Research Service reports on federal
                        crime control assistance.

                        Accordingly, we defined crime technology assistance as “any technology-
                        related assistance provided to state and local law enforcement agencies,
                        including those of Indian tribes, for establishing and/or improving (1)
                        criminal justice history and/or information systems and specialized
                        support services or (2) the availability of and capabilities to access such
                        services and systems related to identification, information,
                        communications, and forensics.” We used this definition in working with
                        DOD officials to identify and quantify relevant assistance provided by DOD
                        to state and local law enforcement agencies.

                        To obtain an overview of the potentially relevant types and amounts of
Overview of Scope and   crime technology assistance provided by DOD to state and local law
Methodology             enforcement, we reviewed documentary materials, such as the General
                        1
                         Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement (GAO/GGD-99-101, June
                        7, 1999).
                        2
                            P.L. 105-251 (Oct. 9, 1998).




                        Page 16           GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
    Appendix I
    Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




    Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, DOD
    directives, and various fiscal year authorization and appropriations laws.
    Also, we reviewed the U.S. Government Manual and worked closely with
    DOD officials to identify the DOD components that were most likely to
    have provided such assistance during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. In so
    doing, we identified and contacted the following DOD components:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense

• Counterdrug Technology Development Program Office
• Intelligence Systems Support Office
• Office of the Department of Defense Coordinator for Drug Enforcement
  Policy and Support
• Office of Reserve Affairs
• Office of Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict

    Defense Agencies

•   Defense Information Systems Agency
•   Defense Intelligence Agency
•   Defense Logistics Agency
•   Defense Security Service
•   National Imagery & Mapping Agency
•   National Security Agency

    Department of the Army

• Army Criminal Investigation Command

    Department of the Air Force

• Air Force Office of Special Investigations
• Air Force Security Service
• DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory

    Department of the Navy

• Naval Criminal Investigative Service
• Marine Corps Criminal Investigation Division




    Page 17     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                         Appendix I
                         Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




                         Joint Task Force Six

                       • J-5 Plans

                         National Guard Bureau

                       • Counterdrug Directorate

                         U.S. Army Military Police School

                       • Directorate of Training

                         In contacting each of these DOD components, we interviewed responsible
                         officials and reviewed relevant information, including organizational and
                         mission descriptions. In addition, at each component contacted, we
                         discussed our definition of “crime technology assistance” in relation to the
                         range of possible examples applicable to the respective component.

                         Moreover, to further verify that we had identified the DOD components
                         that most likely provided crime technology assistance to state and local
                         law enforcement, we submitted a letter to the Deputy Assistant Secretary
                         of Defense for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support. In our letter, we
                         included a list of the DOD components contacted, and we requested that
                         the Office for Drug Enforcement Policy and Support review the list for
                         completeness. In responding, the Special Assistant for Intelligence and
                         Technology commented that the list was extensive, and he was not aware
                         of any other relevant DOD components or offices.

                         The following sections give more details about the scope and methodology
                         of our work regarding each of the three assistance categories—grants or
                         other types of direct federal funding, support services and systems, and in-
                         kind transfers—and about indirect assistance resulting from DOD’s
                         research and development projects.

                         In contacting each DOD component, we asked whether any grants or other
Scope and                types of direct federal funding were provided to state and local law
Methodology              enforcement agencies for crime technology purposes. According to
Regarding Grants or      responsible officials, DOD did not provide grants or other types of direct
                         federal funding involving crime technology assistance. To corroborate this
Other Direct Funding     information, we reviewed the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance to
                         identify any grants available from DOD. We determined that, of the
                         available DOD grants, none met our definition of crime technology
                         assistance.



                         Page 18     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                           Appendix I
                           Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




                           Other DOD direct funding we identified involved funds to support the
                           National Guard Bureau’s counterdrug program. However, with one
                                        3
                           exception, this funding did not meet our definition of crime technology
                           assistance. Under 32 U.S.C. 112, this funding is provided to cover pay and
                           allowances, clothing, operation and maintenance of equipment and
                           facilities, and other related expenses of National Guard personnel engaged
                           in counterdrug activities. The amount of funding available to each state’s
                           National Guard is based on a counterdrug plan approved by the respective
                           state’s governor. Each plan is to identify counterdrug missions that the
                           state’s National Guard will undertake during a given year.

                           In interviewing DOD officials and reviewing applicable documents, we
Scope and                  determined that the following DOD components had support services and
Methodology                systems that provided crime technology assistance to state and local law
Regarding Support          enforcement during fiscal years 1996 through 1998: the Defense Security
                           Service, the DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory, the Intelligence
Services and Systems       Systems Support Office, Joint Task Force Six, the military branch
                           investigative agencies, National Guard Bureau counterdrug training
                           schools, and the U.S. Army Military Police School.

Defense Security Service   To determine the amount of assistance that the Defense Security Service
                           provided to state and local law enforcement agencies through the Defense
                           Clearance and Investigations Index, we asked for funding data related to
                           the total number of responses made to these agencies’ requests for
                           information. However, because the Defense Security Service does not
                           charge fees or track the costs of releasing investigation information to
                           state and local law enforcement agencies, we were provided with an
                           estimated funding range of $75 to $100 per request (which is an average of
                           $87.50 per request).

                           According to Defense Security Service officials, this funding range
                           included the costs associated with searching the database, retrieving the
                           data, reproducing the files, and paying personnel and administrative
                           expenses. The officials also told us that during fiscal years 1996 through
                           1998, they provided responses to 59 requests from state and local law
                           enforcement agencies. To calculate the costs of providing this assistance,
                           we multiplied the number of requests during each fiscal year by the
                           average estimated cost of responding to each request ($87.50). The results
                           are presented in table 2.

                           3
                            The one exception involves courses at two of the National Guard’s three counterdrug training
                           locations in operation during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. We considered these courses to be
                           “support services.”




                           Page 19       GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                         Appendix I
                         Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




DOD Computer Forensics   We requested descriptive information on the types of assistance that the
                         DOD Computer Forensics Laboratory provided to state and local law
Laboratory               enforcement agencies in 1998, which was the first year of its operations.
                         More specifically, we asked for and obtained information on (1) the
                         number of forensic analyses that were conducted, (2) the number of
                         analyses that were conducted for state and local law enforcement, and (3)
                         funding data on the costs associated with providing this assistance. Since
                         laboratory officials were not required to separately track their costs for
                         supporting state and local law enforcement, we relied on an agency
                         estimate that was based on prorated staff hour and workload data.

Intelligence Systems     The Intelligence Systems Support Office has oversight responsibility for
                         the Gulf States Initiative. As table 2 shows, for fiscal years 1996 through
Support Office           1998, Congress appropriated $28.1 million in support of this initiative. We
                         reviewed funding data provided to us by officials at the Intelligence
                         Systems Support Office. According to the officials, all appropriated
                         amounts were fully obligated during the respective fiscal years.

Joint Task Force Six     Joint Task Force Six officials provided us with descriptions of the types of
                         assistance that this DOD component provided to state and local law
                         enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Our review of
                         this information and subsequent discussions with the officials indicated
                         that 4 missions—of the 1,446 missions completed during the 3 fiscal
                         years—met our definition of crime technology assistance. These four
                         missions consisted of the following three types of crime technology
                         assistance: (1) communications assessment, (2) intelligence architecture
                         assessments, and (3) a technology demonstration (no cost).

Military Branch          We met with responsible officials from the various military branch (Army,
                         Air Force, Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps) investigative agencies. We
Investigative Agencies   reviewed documents describing the organization and mission of these
                         agencies. Also, for each investigative agency, we sought to obtain
                         information on (1) the number of investigations that were completed for
                         each fiscal year and (2) how many of the total involved investigations
                         conducted jointly with state or local law enforcement agencies, as
                         indicated in table I.1.




                         Page 20     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                                          Appendix I
                                          Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




Table I.1: Number of Cases Closed by
Military Branch Investigative Agencies,                                                                                          Joint cases as a
Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998            Military branch                                   Total closed      Joint closed         percentage of
                                                                                                                          a
                                          investigative agency                                     cases            cases             total cases
                                          Army Criminal Investigation
                                           Division                                                21,846              2,468                 11.3%
                                          Air Force Office of Special
                                           Investigationsb                                         13,203                 N/A                   N/A
                                          Naval Criminal Investigative
                                           Service                                                 31,213              3,677                    11.8
                                          Marine Corps Criminal
                                           Investigation Divisionc                                    N/A                 N/A                   N/A
                                                                                                                             d
                                          Total                                                    66,262                                       N/A
                                          Legend: N/A = Not available.
                                          a
                                           A joint case is one with a military interest and, thus, a military branch component jointly participated
                                          with a state or local law enforcement agency in investigating the case.
                                          b
                                           Air Force officials indicated that their database was unable to separately identify closed cases that
                                          involved joint investigations with state or local law enforcement. However, the Air Force officials did
                                          identify one instance (in 1997) wherein the Air Force assisted Prince George’s County, MD, by
                                          enhancing the quality of an audiotape used as evidence in a homicide investigation.
                                          c
                                           Marine Corps officials told us that they do not track jointly conducted investigations with state or local
                                          law enforcement agencies. Rather, the Marine Corps’ interests in applicable cases are handled by
                                          the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and included in their total cases.
                                          d
                                           Total joint closed cases could not be determined because the Air Force Office of Special
                                          Investigations does not separately identify these data.
                                          Source: GAO summary of data provided by DOD components.


                                          In addition to working jointly with state or local enforcement agencies on
                                          selected cases, the Navy also provided relevant technical training. For this
                                          type of technology-related assistance, the Navy provided us cost estimates
                                          that were based on (1) the number of state and local personnel trained and
                                          (2) training program budgets.

National Guard Bureau                     On the basis of information provided by the National Guard Bureau and
                                          review of mission-related and other documents, including course
Counterdrug Training                      descriptions, we determined that two of the National Guard Bureau’s three
                                          counterdrug training locations in operation during fiscal years 1996
                                          through 1998, provided courses that met our definition of crime technology
                                          assistance. For the relevant courses, National Guard Bureau officials
                                          calculated funding amounts that were based on (1) the number of state
                                          and local law enforcement personnel trained and (2) instructor pay and
                                          allowances.

Other Training                            We obtained descriptive information and estimated funding data on two
                                          training courses offered by the U.S. Army Military Police School’s
                                          Advanced Law Enforcement Training Division (Fort Leonard Wood, MO)—
                                          (1) Counterdrug Investigations and (2) Basic Analytical Investigative



                                          Page 21        GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                           Appendix I
                           Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




                           Techniques. Both courses covered crime technology-related topics and
                           were made available to state and local law enforcement agencies. U.S.
                           Army Military Police School officials provided us with estimated funding
                           data for these two courses that were based on (1) the number of state and
                           local law enforcement personnel trained and (2) prorated operating
                           budgets.

                           In interviewing DOD officials and reviewing applicable documents, we
Scope and                  determined that the following two DOD components made in-kind
Methodology                transfers of crime technology-related equipment to state and local law
Regarding In-Kind          enforcement during fiscal years 1996 through 1998: (1) the Defense
                           Information Systems Agency and (2) the Defense Logistics Agency.
Transfers
Defense Information        The Defense Information Systems Agency transferred the following two
                           automated information systems to state or local law enforcement: (1) the
Systems Agency             Regional Police Information System and (2) the Southwest Border States
                           Anti-Drug Information System. For each of these systems, the Defense
                           Information Systems Agency provided us with information on the funding
                           amounts obligated annually for the 3-year period covered by our study.

Defense Logistics Agency   We worked with Defense Logistics Agency officials to identify which of the
                           federal supply classes (639 classes) possibly met our definition of crime
                           technology assistance. We determined that 20 of the federal supply classes
                           contained equipment that met the definition. Of these 20 federal supply
                           classes, 9 involved various types of automated data processing equipment
                           or components. For funding presentation purposes, we combined these
                           nine classes into a single line item. Thus, table 3 presents funding data for
                           this combined line item and for the other 11 federal supply classes. The
                           funding amounts shown in the table are based on original acquisition
                           costs.

                           To obtain information about DOD’s research and development projects
Scope and                  that may have indirectly benefited state and local law enforcement during
Methodology                fiscal years 1996 through 1998, we contacted (1) the Counterdrug
Regarding Research         Technology Development Program Office and (2) the Office of Special
                           Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict. We obtained descriptive
and Development            information on (1) the types of technologies that these offices developed
                           and (2) examples of related crime-fighting products that had subsequently
                           become commercially available to all levels of law enforcement.

                           We did not attempt to identify all relevant examples nor to quantify the
                           costs associated with specific products because DOD’s research and
                           development efforts primarily and directly support federal agency needs



                           Page 22     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
                      Appendix I
                      Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




                      rather than those of state and local law enforcement. Also, (1) any spin-off
                      benefits to state and local law enforcement may not occur until years after
                      federal research and development funds are expended and (2) the
                      acquisition of commercially available products generally is dependent on
                      state and local law enforcement agencies’ own budgets.

                      Generally, we relied on funding information that DOD officials provided to
Data Accuracy and     us. Since DOD accounting systems are not required to and typically do not
Reliability           specifically track crime technology assistance, officials used various
                      methods to estimate the amounts of such assistance provided to state and
                      local law enforcement. We did not independently verify the accuracy or
                      reliability of the funding data provided by DOD officials. However, to help
                      ensure the overall quality of the funding data, we contacted DOD officials
                      to clarify the funding data when needed. In addition to this, we

                    • reviewed corresponding fiscal year authorization and appropriation
                      legislation and
                    • obtained information on and reviewed the processes used by agency
                      officials to calculate the estimated amounts of crime technology
                      assistance.




                      Page 23     GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Appendix II

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments


                  Richard M. Stana, (202) 512-8777
GAO Contacts      Danny R. Burton, (214) 777-5700



                  In addition to those named above, Chan My J. Battcher, Denise M.
Acknowledgments   Fantone, William M. Solis, and Geoffrey R. Hamilton made key
                  contributions to this report.




                  Page 24   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Page 25   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Page 26   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
Page 27   GAO/GGD-00-14 DOD Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies
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.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

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 (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

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 touch-
tone 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 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
United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested




(182071)