Combating Terrorism
Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data Gao ID: GAO-06-161 January 17, 2006The President's annual budget reports on federal funding dedicated to combating terrorism activities. Identification of such funding is inherently difficult because a significant portion of combating terrorism funding is embedded within appropriation accounts that include funding for other activities as well. In 2002, GAO reported on the difficulties that the executive branch faced in reporting funding for combating terrorism to Congress (see GAO-03-170). This report updates the information contained in the 2002 report by providing information on (1) the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their annual appropriations related to combating terrorism, and (2) the status of recommendations from GAO's 2002 report.
Seven of 34 agencies that reported receiving funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB used different methodologies to estimate the portion of their authorized funding that supports such activities. These 7 agencies account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal year 2006 budget request that the 34 agencies estimate relate to combating terrorism. All of these methods involve some level of professional judgment. Agencies stated this process is managed through OMB oversight and supervisory review. OMB staff said they do not review the overseas component of combating terrorism funding data since they are no longer required to report it. As a result, Congress does not receive OMB-reviewed data on the entirety of counterterrorism funding. Three recommendations from GAO's 2002 report have not been implemented. The first recommendation requests that OMB include agencies' obligation data in its annual reporting of funding data on combating terrorism. OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data but said they might consider reporting obligation information for a targeted set of accounts. Without obligation data, it is difficult for Congress to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what the size of the program is for a particular year and over time. The second recommendation was for OMB to direct relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures and include such measures in the governmentwide plan. Three of the seven agencies told us that OMB had not directed them to develop performance measures or enhance such measures for combating terrorism activities. However, four of the seven agencies had developed such measures. OMB staff said they are working with agencies to improve performance measurement of government programs related to combating terrorism. The development of such measures would assist Congress in determining whether funding increases have improved performance results. The third recommendation calls for the inclusion of national-level and federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures in supplements to existing strategies and their future revisions. There have been no supplements or revisions to the existing strategies that include governmentwide or national-level combating terrorism measures.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-161, Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-161
entitled 'Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal
Funding Data' which was released on January 17, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
January 2006:
Combating Terrorism:
Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data:
GAO-06-161:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-161, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The President‘s annual budget reports on federal funding dedicated to
combating terrorism activities. Identification of such funding is
inherently difficult because a significant portion of combating
terrorism funding is embedded within appropriation accounts that
include funding for other activities as well. In 2002, GAO reported on
the difficulties that the executive branch faced in reporting funding
for combating terrorism to Congress (see GAO-03-170). This report
updates the information contained in the 2002 report by providing
information on (1) the methods agencies use to determine the portion of
their annual appropriations related to combating terrorism, and (2) the
status of recommendations from GAO‘s 2002 report.
What GAO Found:
Seven of 34 agencies that reported receiving funding related to
combating terrorism activities to OMB used different methodologies to
estimate the portion of their authorized funding that supports such
activities. These 7 agencies account for about 90 percent of the total
fiscal year 2006 budget request that the 34 agencies estimate relate to
combating terrorism. All of these methods involve some level of
professional judgment. Agencies stated this process is managed through
OMB oversight and supervisory review. OMB staff said they do not review
the overseas component of combating terrorism funding data since they
are no longer required to report it. As a result, Congress does not
receive OMB-reviewed data on the entirety of counterterrorism funding.
Three recommendations from GAO‘s 2002 report have not been implemented.
The first recommendation requests that OMB include agencies‘ obligation
data in its annual reporting of funding data on combating terrorism.
OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data but
said they might consider reporting obligation information for a
targeted set of accounts. Without obligation data, it is difficult for
Congress to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still
available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) whether the
rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what
the size of the program is for a particular year and over time. The
second recommendation was for OMB to direct relevant departments to
develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures
and include such measures in the governmentwide plan. Three of the
seven agencies told us that OMB had not directed them to develop
performance measures or enhance such measures for combating terrorism
activities. However, four of the seven agencies had developed such
measures. OMB staff said they are working with agencies to improve
performance measurement of government programs related to combating
terrorism. The development of such measures would assist Congress in
determining whether funding increases have improved performance
results. The third recommendation calls for the inclusion of national-
level and federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance
measures in supplements to existing strategies and their future
revisions. There have been no supplements or revisions to the existing
strategies that include governmentwide or national-level combating
terrorism measures.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO continues to believe its prior recommendations are still valid and,
if implemented, would provide OMB and Congress with additional insights
for budget decisions and help them determine whether funding increases
for combating terrorism have improved performance results. In
commenting on a draft of the report, OMB objected to the use of
overseas combating terrorism funding data because they do not review
it. Congress should consider requiring OMB to report on overseas
combating terrorism funding data. Other agencies commenting on the
draft report had no comment, concurred, or provided technical comments.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-161.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones at (202)
512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the
Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities:
Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional
Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities:
Appendix II: The National Strategy for Homeland Security's Critical
Mission Areas:
Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face:
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism
Activities:
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify
Activities as Combating Terrorism:
Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of
Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Summarized
Agency:
Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency:
Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency,
Bureau, and Account:
Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area:
Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security Mission
Area:
Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by
Summarized Agency:
Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by
Agency:
Figures:
Figure 1: GSA's Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget
Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That Relate to
Homeland Security:
Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of
Budget Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to
Homeland Security:
Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity
Relates to Homeland Security:
Abbreviations:
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
ARS: Agricultural Research Service:
ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:
CBP: Customs and Border Protection:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
GSA: General Services Administration:
IAIP: Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection:
ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement:
NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act:
NSC: National Security Council:
OCT: Overseas Combating Terrorism:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
SLGCP: Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness:
TSA: Transportation Security Administration:
USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
USCG: U.S. Coast Guard:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
USSS: United States Secret Service:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 17, 2006:
The Honorable Jon Kyl:
Chairman:
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security:
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby:
United States Senate:
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration
and Congress have increased funding in support of combating terrorism
both at home and abroad. According to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), combating terrorism includes efforts to secure the
homeland (that is, homeland security activities to detect, deter,
protect against, and, if needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring
within the United States) and those to combat terrorism overseas (those
activities occurring outside the United States and its territories),
excluding direct military action.[Footnote 1] Between fiscal years 2002
and 2005, funding attributed to homeland security activities increased
39 percent, from $33 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $46 billion for
fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the President requested nearly
$50 billion for activities associated with homeland security. In
addition, Congress appropriated funding that agencies also attributed
to overseas combating terrorism activities. However, OMB is no longer
required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding
data.[Footnote 2]
In response to the September 11 attacks and the resulting emphasis
placed on combating terrorism, Congress took legislative action to
revise reporting requirements related to federal funding for combating
terrorism activities. Under section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002, the President's annual budget is required to include an analysis
of homeland security funding.[Footnote 3] This analysis is to be
organized by budget function (i.e., functions that cover 17 areas of
the government such as agriculture and health), agency, and initiative
area. According to OMB staff responsible for preparing this analysis on
behalf of the President, OMB adopted the six critical mission areas
captured in the National Strategy for Homeland Security--Intelligence
and Warning, Border and Transportation Security, Domestic
Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets,
Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency Preparedness and
Response--to represent initiative areas in its analysis. (See app. II
for a detailed description of each critical mission area).[Footnote 4]
This funding analysis appears in the Analytical Perspectives, which
accompanies the President's budget and provides information on
requested funding levels related to homeland security.[Footnote 5] Much
of the funding for combating terrorism activities is embedded within
appropriation accounts that finance programs that are not primarily
homeland security or overseas combating terrorism related. This makes
it difficult to identify activities and track funding without such an
analysis. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) receives the
majority of its appropriations through its Operating Expenses Account.
This funding supports the USCG's operations both for combating
terrorism activities such as securing ports, waterways, and the coast
and for non-combating terrorism activities such as ice-breaking
operations to facilitate navigation through waterways. Because
combating terrorism funding is embedded within appropriation accounts,
agencies provide OMB with information on the portion of funding that is
attributable to combating terrorism activities--both homeland security
and overseas combating terrorism. OMB then uses this information to
report funding information on homeland security activities in the
Analytical Perspectives.
In November 2002, we reported on the difficulty the executive branch
faced in identifying and tracking combating terrorism funding and other
challenges associated with reporting such data to Congress.[Footnote 6]
Among these other challenges was the difficulty the executive branch
faced in measuring the effective use of funds for combating terrorism
since clearly defined federal and national performance objectives and
measures for assessing programs' progress had not been
established.[Footnote 7] This report updates the information contained
in our 2002 report by responding to the following questions:
1. How do agencies determine what portion of their annual
appropriations relates to combating terrorism?
2. What is the status of the recommendations from our 2002
report?[Footnote 8]
In addition, we also identified patterns and trends in funding for
combating terrorism activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 as
well as the President's budget request for fiscal year 2006. This
information is discussed in appendix I. Further, we examined how
section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 affected the reporting
of funding data and the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking
activities--specific lines of work--related to combating terrorism and
ensuring the transparency of related funding data. The impact of
section 889 on the reporting of funding data and the challenges OMB
continues to face in tracking activities is discussed in appendix III.
Finally, we reviewed combating terrorism activities that were funded
through 34 budgetary accounts to determine whether the activities were
consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland security and overseas
combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular No. A-11.[Footnote 9]
The information on combating terrorism activities funded through these
34 accounts is included in appendix IV.
To address our objectives, we met with staff from OMB and with
officials from 7 agencies that conduct a range of combating terrorism
activities--the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD),
Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice (DOJ), and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the General Services Administration
(GSA). To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies
from 33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving
funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. The 7
agencies we selected account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal
year 2006 budget request that the 33 agencies and the District of
Columbia estimate relate to combating terrorism. Because we obtained
information from a nonprobability sample of 7 agencies and their
directorates and offices with combating terrorism responsibilities, the
information we obtained cannot be generalized to all agencies with
combating terrorism responsibilities. We reviewed activities in 34
budgetary accounts for the agencies in our review to determine whether
the activities were consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland
security and overseas combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular
No. A-11. We selected accounts with the most funding for combating
terrorism at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller amounts.
By reviewing the activities in these 34 accounts, we reviewed at least
70 percent of each agency's estimated gross budget authority related to
combating terrorism activities as reported in the President's fiscal
year 2006 budget request.[Footnote 10] Although we initially selected
budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review these accounts
because neither DOD nor OMB maintains information on activities
conducted by DOD to combat terrorism at the account level. For
illustrative purposes, we have included a description of some of these
accounts as well as the activities funded through each account and the
related budget authority in appendix IV. We also analyzed combating
terrorism data from the database used to prepare the Budget of the
United States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To ensure that the
database we received was consistent with published sources, we
conducted electronic data testing and determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix V contains more detailed information on our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
The seven agencies we contacted developed different methodologies to
estimate their portion of the federal budget that relates to combating
terrorism activities. These methods all involve some level of
professional judgment, which is inherent in any estimation process.
Although OMB provides guidance to agencies to help them determine the
portion of their budget authority that relates to combating terrorism
activities, it does not prescribe how agencies should make these
determinations. Officials at one agency--DOD--reported that OMB
determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating terrorism.
Officials at five of the other six agencies we contacted that make
their own determinations reported being challenged in making such
determinations because either (1) their activities have multiple
purposes that require them to use their judgment in determining how
much of an activity should be attributed to homeland security, overseas
combating terrorism, or non-combating terrorism or (2) they must
interpret OMB's combating terrorism definition to identify which of
their activities relate to combating terrorism. For example, GSA
officials said that they conduct upgrades to GSA-managed buildings'
fire alarm enhancement systems that could be used to alert employees to
a fire--a non-combating terrorism activity--and also to alert employees
to stay in the building in the event of a terrorist attack--a combating
terrorism activity. Consequently, GSA is challenged in categorizing
upgrades to GSA-managed fire alarm enhancement systems as a homeland
security activity because the application of these upgrades is not
exclusively related to homeland security. Agencies also reported having
to use professional judgment when interpreting accepted definitions of
combating terrorism to identify which of their activities relate to
combating terrorism. A DOE official told us that it can be problematic
to categorize activities that are associated with the Defense Nuclear
Nonproliferation Program. For example, one activity under this program
is to assist the Russians in converting surplus plutonium into fuel for
commercial reactors. After its conversion, this material is no longer
suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. The amount spent in Russia for
the conversion to fuel of already well protected materials is not
reported as combating terrorism, although the argument could be made
that the program's eventual effect may be to take potential ammunition
away from future terrorists. DOE cites this as one example of the fact
that the decision of whether an activity is considered combating
terrorism or non-combating terrorism is a judgment call based on
interpretation of the definition. Agencies report that they manage the
process of estimating combating terrorism funding levels through OMB
oversight and supervisory review. However, under section 889 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, OMB is no longer required to report on
overseas combating terrorism funding data. As a result, OMB staff said
that they do not review or validate estimates of overseas combating
terrorism funding that they continue to collect from federal agencies.
Therefore, Congress receives OMB-reviewed data on only the homeland
security portion of combating terrorism funding rather than on both
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding. Reporting
on both would provide more information to the Congress about the full
range of combating terrorism funding as currently defined.
Three recommendations from our 2002 report related to providing
additional information on spending and performance results have not
been implemented.[Footnote 11] We made two other recommendations in our
prior report based on reporting requirements that were subsequently
repealed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, thus rendering these two
recommendations moot.[Footnote 12] In our 2002 report, we recommended
that OMB include agencies' obligation data in its annual report on
combating terrorism.[Footnote 13] Without this information, it is
difficult for congressional decision makers to know how much funding
provided in prior years may be available to help reduce new spending
requests; whether agencies are delivering their programs as expected,
that is, at the rate of spending that they have claimed in earlier
budget requests; or what the level of effort is for a particular year.
Although OMB staff continue to be concerned about the effort required
to report these data, they said they might consider reporting
obligation information for a targeted set of accounts that receive
multiyear funding and carry balances for homeland security programs
from year to year. We continue to believe that our prior recommendation
on this issue is relevant and should be implemented. In our 2002
report, we also recommended that OMB direct relevant departments to
develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures
and include such measures in the governmentwide plan to assist in
determining whether funding increases have improved performance
results. Three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB had
not directed them to develop performance measures or enhance combating
terrorism performance goals and measures specifically for combating
terrorism activities. However, four of the seven agencies in our review
have developed performance measures for combating terrorism activities.
OMB staff said that they are working with agencies through initiatives
such as the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to improve
performance measurement of government programs, including those that
relate to homeland security.[Footnote 14] However, OMB has not yet
completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to these activities
or done either a crosscutting combating terrorism or homeland security
PART review that could address the appropriateness of performance
measures in this larger context. Our 2002 report also recommended that
national-level as well as federal governmentwide performance measures
be included in supplements to existing strategies and in future
revisions to strategies for homeland security and the combating of
terrorism overseas. OMB staff said that governmentwide performance
goals and measures have not been developed because they are focusing
their efforts on the development of combating terrorism performance
measures at the agency level, primarily with DHS. Thus, supplements or
updates to the national strategies that include governmentwide or
national level performance measures (i.e., goals and measures to track
progress of the numerous efforts by the federal, state, and local
governments and private sector to combat terrorism) have not been
issued. Without governmentwide goals and measures, the Administration
has no effective means of articulating to Congress or the American
people the federal government's progress, as a whole, related to
combating terrorism. Therefore, we continue to believe that our prior
recommendations on this issue have merit and should be implemented.
We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ,
USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment.
OMB objected to GAO including information on overseas combating
terrorism funding data because it has not been reviewed by OMB since
fiscal year 2003. In addition, GSA provided formal written comments on
a draft of this report and concurred with its contents. Copies of OMB's
letter and GSA's letter are presented in appendix VIII and appendix IX,
respectively. USDA, DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the report.
OMB, DHS, and DOJ provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate and the National Security Council did not provide comments.
Background:
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA for
FY 1998), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999) required OMB to issue both a
classified and an unclassified report[Footnote 15] on funding to combat
terrorism.[Footnote 16] Under the NDAA reporting requirements, OMB's
annual report addressed funding for combating terrorism without
differentiating between homeland security and overseas
activities.[Footnote 17] However, in its 2002 unclassified report, OMB,
for the first time, explicitly distinguished between overseas combating
terrorism activities coordinated by the National Security Council and
homeland security activities coordinated by the President's Office of
Homeland Security.
Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 repealed the NDAA
reporting requirements in favor of new reporting requirements. In
particular, section 889 required the President's budget to include an
analysis of "homeland security funding," which it defined by reference
to OMB's 2002 report as activities to detect, deter, protect against,
and if needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United
States. OMB's definition of homeland security activities included
activities that the agency had not previously treated as combating
terrorism.
The 2003 annual report on combating terrorism was the last combating
terrorism report issued under the NDAA reporting requirements. OMB's
next report to Congress was published as part of the President's fiscal
year 2005 budget, which was issued in February 2004 and reflected the
changes called for in that act for the first time. In its final 2003
unclassified annual report on combating terrorism, OMB categorized the
government's homeland security activities into the six critical mission
areas discussed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security.
Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the
Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities:
The seven agencies we contacted use different methods to estimate the
portion of their authorized funding that supports combating terrorism
activities.[Footnote 18] Although OMB provides guidance to agencies, it
does not prescribe a specific methodology for how agencies should
determine the portion of their budget authority that relates to
combating terrorism activities. One agency we contacted--DOD--reported
that OMB determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating
terrorism. While OMB staff said that they expect most executive
agencies to provide them with funding data related to combating
terrorism activities, they said that they make these determinations for
DOD. DOD officials said that they enter budget data into OMB's central
database and then OMB staff review the data and extract information
that they find consistent with OMB's definition of combating terrorism.
Six of the other seven agencies we reviewed developed their own
methodologies using guidance, such as OMB Circular No. A-11, which
includes definitions for combating terrorism activities and
instructions for submitting information on funding data related to
combating terrorism activities to OMB.[Footnote 19] Because these
methodologies involve estimations, some level of professional judgment
is inherent throughout the process. To implement these methodologies,
agencies first identify their combating terrorism activities and then
estimate their related funding levels. (See app. VI for guidance
agencies most commonly use to identify combating terrorism activities.)
Officials from two of these six agencies--GSA and DHS--reported that
they used methods involving formulas to determine their funding levels
that are related to combating terrorism. Officials from GSA told us
that they use a formula-driven methodology for estimating its budget
authority for the portion of Real Property Activities within its
Federal Buildings Fund that relate to homeland security
activities.[Footnote 20] To derive this methodology, GSA officials from
its Office of Budget said GSA consulted with OMB and reviewed all
activities conducted under the Federal Buildings Fund, looked at
historical trends related to homeland security activities associated
with the fund, and applied their professional judgment. Figure 1
illustrates GSA's methodology and demonstrates how the agency applied
its methodology in estimating its fiscal year 2006 budget authority for
the portion of Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings
Fund that relate to homeland security activities.
Figure 1: GSA's Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget
Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That Relate to
Homeland Security:
[See PDF for image]
[A] New construction costs includes costs associated with GSA's efforts
to implement security measures, such as installing perimeter protection
measures (such as cameras or fences) to newly constructed buildings.
[B] According to GSA officials, GSA makes budgetary requests for
repayments to the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) Judgment Fund
for money that Treasury disbursed on behalf of GSA when a contractor
made a claim against GSA and successfully sued the government. Treasury
will notify GSA when such a payment took place, and GSA will request
budget authority within the next fiscal year to reimburse Treasury's
Judgment Fund. Thus, all such requests are included as adjustments to
the total new construction costs.
[C] According to GSA officials, GSA determined that 5 percent of its
new construction costs was a reasonable estimate related to homeland
security activities when they initially developed their methodology.
They reported reviewing all activities conducted under the Federal
Buildings Fund, looking at historical trends related to homeland
security activities associated with the fund, and applying their
professional judgment to derive this percentage.
[D] Major repairs and alterations costs include costs GSA incurs in
implementing security enhancements to modify federal buildings where
the total project is estimated to cost more than $2.41 million in
fiscal year 2006. The $2.41 million is based on GSA's budget request
and may change once Congress appropriates funds to GSA.
[E] According to GSA officials, GSA determined that 1 percent of its
major repair and alterative costs was a reasonable estimate related to
homeland security activities when they initially developed their
methodology. They reported reviewing all activities conducted under the
Federal Buildings Fund, looking at historical trends related to
homeland security activities associated with the fund, and applying
their professional judgment to derive this percentage.
[F] Glass fragmentation costs are costs GSA incurs in installing window
systems in federal buildings designed to mitigate the hazardous effects
of flying glass following an explosive event.
[G] Minor repairs and alterations are costs GSA incurs in implementing
security enhancements to modify federal buildings where the total
project is estimated to cost less than $2.41 million per project in
fiscal year 2006. The $2.41 million is based on GSA's budget request
and may change once Congress appropriates funds to GSA.
[H] Building operations costs associated with homeland security
activities are those costs GSA incurs to conduct progressive collapse
studies. These studies help determine an appropriate structural design
that will mitigate the effects of progressive collapse. For instance,
if a terrorist bomb were to cause the local failure of one column and a
major collapse within one structural bay, a design mitigating
progressive collapse would preclude the additional loss of primary
structural members beyond the localized damage zone.
[I] The $79.2 million does not include an estimate of security costs
associated with GSA's leased facilities. In fiscal year 2006, GSA
requested $4 billion for leasing facilities. GSA officials acknowledged
that they have not estimated the portion of their leased costs that
relate to homeland security efforts, but plan to discuss with OMB the
possibility of doing so in future years.
[End of figure]
Officials from DHS's component offices with whom we met--Customs and
Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the
Transportation Security Administration, USCG, the United States Secret
Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate--told us
that they also derived formula-driven methodologies for determining
their homeland security funding levels. For example, officials from
USSS said that they derived a quantitative methodology for determining
the portion of their appropriation for Operating Expenses that relates
to homeland security.[Footnote 21] They said that to develop this
methodology, USSS reviewed all of its programs, activities, and related
staff hours conducted under its two missions--Protective Services and
Investigative Services--to determine those activities that related to
homeland security.[Footnote 22] See figure 2 for the USSS methodology.
Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of
Budget Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to
Homeland Security:
[See PDF for image]
[A] According to USSS officials, USSS determined that 100 percent of
its protective services and 75 percent of its investigative services
were related to homeland security activities when they initially
developed their methodology. They reported reviewing all of USSS's
programs, activities, and related staff hours conducted under their two
missions--Protective Services and Investigative Services--to determine
those activities that related to homeland security and calculated
related percentages.
[End of figure]
USSS officials told us that they discussed their methodology with OMB
and received OMB's approval to implement it. USSS officials told us
that they have been using this methodology to estimate the portion of
their operating expenses budget authority related to homeland security
since 2003.
The other four agencies--DOE, USDA, USACE, and DOJ--reported having
methodologies in place to determine their funding levels for combating
terrorism activities that are less formula driven. For example, using
the definitions contained in OMB Circular No. A-11, a DOE official told
us that DOE personnel review the agency's programs and activities to
determine which are related to homeland security or overseas combating
terrorism. Then, a DOE official consults with OMB to determine whether
OMB would like the agency to make any revisions to the activities it
has designated as combating terrorism. Once DOE finalizes its
determination that an activity is categorized as a combating terrorism
activity, 100 percent of that activity's budget authority is attributed
to combating terrorism. Additionally, officials from the component
offices in USDA we met with--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)--told us
that they used qualitative methods for determining their homeland
security funding levels. For example, APHIS officials said that they
developed a set of six questions to determine whether their activities
relate to homeland security.[Footnote 23] In reviewing these
activities, APHIS officials told us that if any of the questions in
figure 3 apply, they will consider the activity related to homeland
security, and then 100 percent of that activity's budget authority will
be attributed to homeland security.
Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity
Relates to Homeland Security:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to estimating funding levels for combating terrorism
activities, OMB also requires agencies to align their homeland security
activities with the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for
Homeland Security. Officials at four of the six agencies we visited
that estimate their combating terrorism funding levels said that they
used their professional judgment to determine which critical mission
area best aligns with their homeland security activities by comparing
those activities with the definitions of the national strategy's
critical mission areas.[Footnote 24]
As previously discussed, to estimate funding levels, agencies first
identify their combating terrorism activities. Officials at two of the
six agencies we contacted said that activities with multiple or dual
purposes pose a particular challenge to them when determining their
combating terrorism activities because they must apply professional
judgment to determine which purpose to emphasize. As a result,
determining funding levels for combating terrorism activities and
aligning homeland security activities to critical mission areas cannot
be precise. For example, as previously noted, GSA officials told us
that they conduct upgrades to buildings' fire alarm enhancement systems
that could be used to alert employees to a fire. However, these
officials also said the same system could also be used to alert
employees to stay in the building in the event of a terrorist attack.
Consequently, GSA cannot definitively categorize its fire alarm
enhancement systems as a homeland security activity because the efforts
within this activity are not exclusively related to homeland security.
DHS officials also reported facing similar challenges. For example,
SLGCP has multi-use grants that could be used for both combating
terrorism and other goals. SLGCP staff cited the fact that the chemical
protection suits provided under the Firefighter Assistance Grant
program could be used in the field for a fuel spill or for a terrorist
incident such as a dirty bomb. Consequently, DHS believes the process
of categorizing combating terrorism activities is an estimation
exercise, for which the department's staff must apply their
professional judgment.
Furthermore, agency officials at three agencies we visited said that an
additional challenge in determining whether an activity should be
considered a combating terrorism activity involves interpreting OMB's
combating terrorism definitions. For example, a DOE official told us
that it can be problematic to categorize activities that are associated
with the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program such as efforts to
assist the Russians in converting surplus plutonium into fuel for
commercial reactors. After its conversion, this material is no longer
suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. Although the argument could be
made that the program's eventual effect may be to take potential
ammunition away from future terrorists, the amount spent in Russia for
the conversion to fuel of already well protected materials is not
reported as combating terrorism. DOE cites this as one example of the
fact that the decision of whether an activity is considered combating
terrorism or non-combating terrorism is a judgment call based on
interpretation of the definition.
Agencies in our review manage the process of estimating funding levels
for combating terrorism activities through OMB oversight and
supervisory review. According to OMB, the responsibility of ensuring
that homeland security activities are properly categorized is a joint
effort made by OMB and the agencies involved. For their part, OMB staff
perform reviews of activities determined to be related to homeland
security to ensure that they are in accordance with the homeland
security definition. OMB staff told us that there is no written
guidance for such a review. Instead, OMB staff rely on the definition
in OMB Circular No. A-11 and their judgment to decide if the activity
has been reasonably categorized.
OMB staff said that they currently do not review agency estimates of
funding data for overseas combating terrorism activities because OMB is
no longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding
data.[Footnote 25] Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002
repealed the NDAA reporting requirements in favor of new reporting
requirements. The section 889 reporting requirement applies only to
homeland security activities, not overseas activities related to
combating terrorism.[Footnote 26] Although OMB still collects overseas
combating terrorism funding data, OMB staff said that they have not
reviewed or validated this information since fiscal year 2003. As a
result, the overseas combating terrorism data for fiscal years 2004-
2006 has not received the same level of scrutiny as the homeland
security data. Similarly, without any future legislative action, OMB
does not plan to review or validate future funding estimates related to
overseas combating terrorism activities. As a result, Congress does not
receive reports on both the homeland security and overseas combating
terrorism portions of combating terrorism funding.
In addition to reviewing homeland security data, OMB also reports
taking steps to ensure that agencies have properly aligned their
homeland security activities with the six critical mission areas
outlined in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. OMB staff told
us that annually, they examine the activities agencies aligned with
each critical mission area to ensure consistency across all federal
agencies and determine if the activities have been properly aligned
based on the definitions of the critical mission areas in the National
Strategy for Homeland Security. Such alignments can help inform
congressional decision makers about the amount of funding that has been
allocated to any one critical mission area.
In addition to undertaking the previously mentioned reviews, each year
since 2002, OMB has provided agencies with an opportunity to make
changes to the activities they report as homeland security. In fiscal
year 2005, OMB formalized this process by asking agencies to complete a
form outlining the agency's proposed changes prior to official
submission of annual budget requests. OMB staff said that OMB's
examiners use the definition for homeland security in its Circular No.
A-11 to review each agency's request, and then the examiners discuss
the agencies' request with staff from OMB's Homeland Security Branch,
as well as the agency to decide if the activity has been reasonably
categorized.[Footnote 27]
Officials at all six of the agencies we contacted who make their own
determinations of funding related to combating terrorism reported
having controls in place to help ensure that the agency's combating
terrorism activities are appropriately identified and categorized as
either homeland security or overseas combating terrorism. For example,
DHS officials said that DHS budget desk officers within the Chief
Financial Officer's Budget Division review activities its components
recommend as combating terrorism and check for activities that may have
been categorized incorrectly. Then, another budget desk officer, within
the same division, reviews the data for unusual fluctuations or trends.
If necessary, the budget desk officer and component representatives are
to contact OMB to resolve any potential disagreements. After agencies
submit information to OMB, OMB program examiners review the data and
approve the activities or request the agencies to make revisions
according to their instruction.
Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional
Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance:
OMB has not implemented three recommendations from our 2002 report that
would have and still could provide OMB and Congress with additional
information for making budget decisions and help them understand
performance results.[Footnote 28] In our 2002 report, we recommended
that OMB require agencies to provide information on obligations in the
database used by OMB to produce the President's annual budget request-
-and that OMB should include obligations as reported in this database
in its annual report on combating terrorism. We made this
recommendation to help Congress obtain information on spending that
supports the President's annual budget request related to combating
terrorism activities and to provide decision makers with insights as to
whether programs are being run according to plans established by their
budget projections.[Footnote 29] Without including obligation data in
the Analytical Perspectives, along with funding levels authorized by
Congress for agencies' homeland security activities, it is difficult
for decision makers to know (1) how much funding from prior years is
still available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2)
whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated,
or (3) what the level of effort (i.e., size of the program) is for a
particular year as well as for a program over time.
OMB staff told us that OMB has not substantially changed its position
on this recommendation since we published our 2002 report.[Footnote 30]
OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data.
While OMB staff acknowledged that OMB examiners use obligation data in
assessing the appropriateness of agency budget requests overall, they
have felt that budget authority data provide the most insight into
combating terrorism programs and facilitate follow up on areas of
concern. OMB staff also said that including obligation information in
its funding analysis is not necessary because at the end of the fiscal
year, most agencies with homeland security activities have already
obligated the majority of their budget authority. However, OMB staff
also said that they might consider reporting obligation information for
a targeted set of accounts that receive multiyear funding and might
carry balances for homeland security programs from year to year, unlike
the majority of accounts that receive funding with only 1 year of
availability. A conservative analysis suggests that unobligated
balances associated with funding for homeland security activities for
fiscal years 2002 through 2004 could be between $2 billion and $3.4
billion. Although it would be important to understand how agencies plan
to use these balances, information on what funding is unobligated--and
in which accounts--is potentially useful for congressional
deliberations on the President's budget request.[Footnote 31] We
recognize that collecting these data would create an additional
workload for both OMB and agency budget officials, but we continue to
believe that such an effort is warranted for congressional oversight
because of the high priority placed on combating terrorism. Therefore,
we continue to believe that our prior recommendation on this issue from
our 2002 report is relevant and should be implemented.
Similarly, implementation of our 2002 recommendation that OMB direct
relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism
performance goals and measures and include such measures in the
governmentwide plan would assist in determining whether funding
increases have improved performance results.[Footnote 32]
Although three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB did
not direct them to develop performance measures for combating
terrorism, OMB staff said that they are working with agencies on the
development of combating terrorism performance measures at the agency
level, primarily with DHS. OMB staff also said that they have not yet
taken any action to prepare measures on a governmentwide
basis.[Footnote 33] Additionally, OMB has not yet prepared a
governmentwide plan that could include such measures related to
combating terrorism. OMB staff said that the Homeland Security Council-
-which provides advice to the President on homeland security issues--
DHS, and OMB are coordinating and planning for the future development
of governmentwide performance measures related to combating
terrorism.[Footnote 34] However, OMB staff said that they have not yet
established a timeline for developing such measures.
Implementation of our 2002 recommendation to include national-level and
federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures as a
supplement to existing strategies and their future revisions would help
to assess and improve preparedness at the federal and national levels.
As previously discussed, federal governmentwide performance measures
related to combating terrorism have not yet been developed. Moreover,
there have been no supplements or revisions to the existing national
strategies that include federal governmentwide or national-level
combating terrorism performance goals and measures.[Footnote 35]
Without goals and measures from the federal and national levels, it is
difficult to organize a coordinated and effective combating terrorism
effort. Because numerous agencies are responsible for combating
terrorism, federal governmentwide performance planning could better
facilitate the integration of federal and national activities to
achieve federal goals in that they could provide a cohesive perspective
on the goals of the federal government. Furthermore, without
governmentwide combating terrorism goals and measures, the
Administration does not have an effective means of articulating to
Congress or the American people the governmentwide accomplishments
related to combating terrorism.
While OMB has not yet developed governmentwide performance goals and
measures, OMB established a formal assessment tool for the budget
formulation process in fiscal year 2002--the Program Assessment Rating
Tool to help measure program performance. However, OMB has not yet
completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to combating
terrorism activities, or done a crosscutting combating terrorism or
homeland security PART review that could address the appropriateness of
performance measures in the larger context. In our recommendation from
an earlier report, we stated that targeting PART could help focus
decision makers' attention on the most pressing policy and program
issues.[Footnote 36] Furthermore, we recommended that such an approach
could facilitate the use of PART assessments to review the relative
contributions of similar programs to common or crosscutting goals and
outcomes.
It is critical that the federal government, as the steward of the
taxpayers' money, ensure that such funds are managed to maximize
results. Governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures that
support the national strategies would allow the Administration and
Congress to more effectively assess the federal government's progress
in combating terrorism initiatives, and better determine how
effectively the government is using valuable resources. Furthermore,
they would provide a more effective means of holding agencies
accountable for achieving results.
Notwithstanding a lack of progress in developing governmentwide
performance measures, some agencies have performance goals and measures
that reflect priorities for combating terrorism. Performance measures
can provide information on many things, such as outputs, which provide
the number of activities, and outcomes, which demonstrate achievement
of intended results. Four of the seven agencies we contacted--DHS, DOE,
USDA, and DOJ--developed performance measures for combating terrorism
activities as part of their efforts under the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 37] An example of a DOE output
performance measure, designed to help achieve its goal of protecting
National Nuclear Security Administration personnel, facilities, and
nuclear weapons is as follows: "Replace, upgrade, re-certify 15 percent
of emergency response equipment by 2009."
To help DHS evaluate its efforts related to preventing entry of
unauthorized individuals and those that pose a threat to the nation,
DHS created the following performance measure: "Determine the
percentage of foreign nationals entering the United States who have
biometric and biographic information on file prior to entry, including
the foreign nationals who are referred for further inspection actions
and with fraudulent documents identified." This is an output-related
performance measure that provides information about the number of
foreign nationals who enter the country requiring further inspection.
Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency is required to develop
strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the
fiscal year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least
every 3 years. Under this act, strategic plans are the starting point
for agencies to set annual performance goals and to measure program
performance in achieving those goals. Although GPRA does not
specifically require executive agencies to develop strategic plans
related to combating terrorism, DOD has initiated efforts to develop
strategic plans that incorporate performance measures for combating
terrorism. In response to our previous recommendation that DOD develop
a framework for the antiterrorism program that would provide the
department with a vehicle to guide resource allocations and measure the
results of improvement efforts,[Footnote 38] DOD developed an
Antiterrorism Strategic Plan.[Footnote 39] This preliminary framework
includes, among other things, a collective effort to defend against,
respond to, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD personnel.
According to DOD officials, the strategic goals established in DOD's
Antiterrorism Strategic Plan directly align with OMB's definitions of
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. One of DOD's
strategic goals is to conduct effective antiterrorism training and
execute realistic antiterrorism exercises. DOD officials reported that
they intend to collect antiterrorism performance data from all DOD
components and plan to issue the first performance report on
antiterrorism in the second quarter of fiscal year 2006. While we have
not yet fully evaluated the effectiveness of this framework or plan,
such efforts represent important steps taken by an agency to develop
performance measures and, consequently, a results-oriented management
framework specifically related to combating terrorism activities.
Currently, because governmentwide performance measures have not been
developed, the executive branch does not have a means to effectively
measure and link resources expended and performance achieved related to
combating terrorism efforts on a governmentwide basis. Without a clear
understanding of this linkage, the executive branch and Congress may be
missing opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency to ensure
the best use of taxpayer funds. Therefore, we continue to believe that
our prior recommendations on this issue from our 2002 report are
important and should be implemented.
In our 2002 report, we also made recommendations to OMB concerning an
analysis of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism
activities and the timely reporting of information to support
congressional budget deliberations. Our November 2002 report was issued
concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,
which repealed OMB's prior reporting requirements, including the
duplication analysis, and accelerated the timeline for OMB to report
funding data on homeland security activities. The status of these
recommendations is discussed further in appendix VII.
Conclusions:
Given the recent emphasis on and significance of combating terrorism,
Congress should have the best available funding information to assist
in its oversight role. Since the enactment of the Homeland Security Act
of 2002, OMB has not been required to report on overseas combating
terrorism data. Moreover, OMB staff said that funding data for overseas
combating terrorism activities do not receive the same level of
scrutiny as funding data for homeland security activities. Thus, the
quality of the overseas combating terrorism data may degrade over time.
Reporting such data along with homeland security funding would greatly
improve the transparency of funding attributed to combating terrorism
activities across the federal government. Although OMB's analysis of
homeland security funding in the Analytical Perspectives of the
President's budget satisfies the current legal requirements under the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, it does not provide a complete
accounting of all funds allocated to combating terrorism activities.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
If Congress is interested in receiving data on overseas combating
terrorism funding as well as data on homeland security funding, then
Congress should consider requiring OMB to report on overseas combating
terrorism funding data in the Analytical Perspectives of the
President's budget along with homeland security funding.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ,
USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment.
OMB provided formal written comments on December 21, 2005, which are
presented in appendix VIII. OMB said it appreciates the in-depth
analyses in the report and the detailed review of the government's
homeland security spending levels, but objected to GAO including
information on overseas combating terrorism funding data. OMB
questioned the reliability of this information because it has not
reviewed agency submissions of overseas combating terrorism data since
fiscal year 2003. We believe the overseas combating terrorism data are
sufficient for the purposes of this report and therefore have included
them in appendix I. As discussed in this report, agencies in our review
that provide information on combating terrorism activities--including
those with overseas combating terrorism responsibilities--use OMB
criteria and their own internal monitoring and review processes to
categorize funding by activities. These agencies reported that they
have designed controls over the estimation process to help ensure the
reliability of the data. However, we agree that OMB's review would
provide an additional level of assurance, which is why we have made
this a matter for congressional consideration.
In addition to OMB's comments, GSA provided formal written comments on
a draft of this report on December 2, 2005, which are presented in
appendix IX. In commenting on the draft report, GSA noted that it
concurred with the contents of the report that discussed GSA. USDA,
DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the report. OMB, DHS, and DOJ
provided technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated as
appropriate. The National Security Council did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland
Security; the House Committee on Government Reform; the House Committee
on the Judiciary; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; the
Secretary of the Department of Defense; the Secretary of the Department
of Energy; the Attorney General; the Administrator of the General
Services Administration; the Secretary of Homeland Security; and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on
request.
In addition, the report will be available on GAO's Web site at
http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this
report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at
jonespl@gao.gov. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in
appendix X.
Signed by:
Paul L. Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities:
In this report, we use fiscal year 2002 as the base year for analyzing
trends in funding for combating terrorism for a number of reasons.
Although fiscal year 2001 may seem like the logical starting point,
fiscal year 2002 was the first full year in which decision making was
informed by the terrorist attacks in the United States.[Footnote 40]
Moreover, to make information comparable for the President's fiscal
year 2004 budget request, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
restructured fiscal years 2002 and 2003 budget data to reflect changes
that occurred with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) in 2003. This made fiscal year 2002 the earliest year that OMB's
MAX database[Footnote 41] captured funding for combating terrorism that
is, for the most part, in the current agency, bureau,[Footnote 42] and
account structure. In addition, OMB for the first time required
agencies to identify funding for homeland security and overseas
combating terrorism separately from other funding in an account.
Finally, fiscal year 2002 marked the earliest year in which OMB
presented information organized according to the National Strategy for
Homeland Security's six critical mission areas in its Annual Report to
Congress on Combating Terrorism (September 2003).
The information for homeland security and overseas combating terrorism
(OCT) is shown separately in the following tables. Tables 1 to 3
provide information on homeland security at progressively finer levels
of detail. However, none of these tables, or tables 4 and 5 include
funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for DHS' Project BioShield. OMB
asserts that including this information can distort year-over-year
comparisons. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 provided
$5.6 billion for this project to develop and procure tools to address
public health consequences of terrorism. Pursuant to that act, specific
amounts became available in fiscal year 2004 ($0.9 billion) and in
fiscal year 2005 ($2.5 billion). Tables 4 and 5 display how OMB and
agencies characterize funding according to the six critical mission
areas for homeland security. Unlike the appropriations account
structure, which is based in law, mission area categories and
activities can be modified to meet changing needs. OMB has stated that
"the Administration may refine definitions or mission area estimates
over time based on additional analysis or changes in the way specific
activities are characterized, aggregated, or disaggregated." Tables 6
and 7 provide unpublished OMB data on OCT. According to OMB officials,
they continue to collect these data from agencies, but do not review
agency information since OMB is no longer required to report on
overseas combating terrorism funding or activities.
All comparisons or trends are for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. We
have included the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request because
it contained the latest data available at the time of this review.
Homeland Security:
Homeland security activities are funded in over 200 appropriations
accounts in 32 agencies, and the District of Columbia. As shown in
table 1, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense (DOD), Health
and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Energy (DOE) account for
over 90 percent of governmentwide homeland security funding annually
since fiscal year 2003.
Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Summarized
Agency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee-
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department.
[End of table]
As shown in table 2, DHS has received the largest share of funding for
homeland security activities. The department's average annual funding
has been $22.1 billion, or about 54 percent of the total amount
available annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2005.[Footnote 43]
For fiscal year 2006, the President proposed $27.3 billion for DHS's
homeland security activities, or 55 percent of total spending.
DOD also received a large share of homeland security funding averaging
18 percent annually over the same period, with $9.5 billion requested
for fiscal year 2006. Most of DOD's homeland security funding is for
functions related to security at military installations domestically
and for research and development of antiterrorism technologies.
Homeland security-related funding for DOD is increasing at an annual
rate of about 18 percent, over 5 percent more than the rate of increase
for DHS.
HHS has had the largest percentage increase since fiscal year 2002,
with an average annual rate of about 30 percent. Funding has been
provided primarily to improve local response to catastrophic events and
for research at the National Institutes of Health to find new ways to
detect and combat biological agents.
Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee-
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department.
[End of table]
Table 3 provides homeland security data by agency, bureau, and account.
Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency,
Bureau, and Account:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department.
[End of table]
Trends in the Six Critical Mission Areas of Homeland Security:
OMB first started reporting information by the six critical mission
areas in its 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. See
appendix I for definitions of each of the critical mission areas laid
out in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. As shown in table
4, the distribution of funding across the six critical mission areas
has been fairly consistent during this period.
Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
Table 5 shows which agencies are responsible for activities covered
under the six mission areas. According to OMB data, the greatest share
of funding between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 has been associated with
border and transportation security, followed by funding for protecting
critical infrastructure and key assets. According to OMB data shown in
table 4, border and transportation security activities'--almost all of
which are located in DHS--received between 38 and 41 percent annually
of total funding. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposed funding
totaling $19.3 billion for these activities, of which $18.2 billion is
for activities in DHS. Nearly a third of all homeland security spending
for this period has been labeled as protecting critical infrastructure
and key assets. For fiscal years 2002 through 2005, DOD generally has
received 50 percent or more annually for activities in this critical
mission area. DHS and HHS activities are the primary recipients of
funding for activities associated with emergency preparedness and
response.
Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security Mission
Area:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee-
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department.
[End of table]
Overseas Combating Terrorism:
Prior to the September 11 attacks, OMB's annual report to Congress on
combating terrorism made no distinction between domestic and overseas
combating terrorism. With the development of policies and definitions
to support the newer concept of homeland security and the creation of
the Department of Homeland Security, "overseas combating terrorism"
became the term used to describe those activities associated primarily
with securing U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas and some
intelligence efforts. Tables 6 and 7 show funding for overseas
combating terrorism activities. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, these
amounts reflect estimates of gross budget authority that agencies
attributed to overseas combating terrorism activities and reported to
OMB. OMB then reviewed and validated these amounts--along with funding
associated with homeland security activities--and published them in its
annual report on combating terrorism. However, the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 required that only funding related to homeland security
activities be reported.[Footnote 44] Thus, while OMB continues to
collect information on funding associated with overseas combating
terrorism activities, it reported that the overseas combating terrorism
data for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 have not been reviewed or
validated. As a result, the overseas combating terrorism data for
fiscal years 2004-2006 did not receive the same level of scrutiny as
the homeland security data. Nevertheless, on the basis of funding data
agencies attributed to overseas combating terrorism, most of that
funding was provided to DOD.
Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by
Summarized Agency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as reported in OMB's MAX database.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee-
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
As shown in table 7, funding for the Administration's oversight of the
nation's intelligence programs grew at an average annual rate of 68
percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, according to agency data as
reported in OMB's MAX database. The second fastest growing category was
for international assistance programs, with an average annual growth
rate of 40 percent for the period under review. The latter primarily
supports foreign governments' efforts to combat terrorism and increase
law enforcement capability. In contrast to the DOD funding increase for
homeland security activities shown in table 1, DOD's funding for
activities defined as overseas combating terrorism has declined an
average of 7 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005.
Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by
Agency:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of agency data as reported in OMB's MAX database.
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee-
funded activities.
Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: The National Strategy for Homeland Security's Critical
Mission Areas:
The National Strategy for Homeland Security sets out a plan to improve
combating terrorism domestically through the cooperation and partnering
of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations on an array
of functions. The strategy organizes these functions into six critical
mission areas:
* Intelligence and warning involves the identification, collection,
analysis, and distribution of intelligence information appropriate for
preempting or preventing a terrorist attack.
* Border and transportation security emphasizes the efficient and
reliable flow of people, goods, and material across borders while
deterring terrorist activity.
* Domestic counterterrorism focuses on law enforcement efforts to
identify, halt, prevent, and prosecute terrorists in the United States.
* Protecting critical infrastructure and key assets stresses securing
the nation's interconnecting sectors and important facilities, sites,
and structures.
* Defending against catastrophic threats emphasizes the detection,
deterrence, and mitigation of terrorist use of weapons of mass
destruction.
* Emergency preparedness and response highlights damage minimization
and recovery from terrorist attacks.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face:
As part of our work, we examined the statutory changes in requirements
for reporting combating terrorism activities that occurred as the
result of the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.[Footnote
45] This appendix provides additional background on the act, as well as
the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking combating terrorism
activities and ensuring the transparency of related funding data.
Enacted on November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002
established the Department of Homeland Security and, among other
things, changed OMB's requirements for reporting funding data related
to combating terrorism.[Footnote 46] Section 889 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 repealed the NDAA reporting requirements in favor
of new reporting requirements. In particular, section 889 required the
President's budget to include an analysis of "homeland security
funding," which it defined by reference to OMB's 2002 report as
activities to detect, deter, protect against, and if needed, respond to
terrorist attacks occurring within the United States. OMB's definition
of homeland security activities included activities that the agency had
not previously treated as combating terrorism. Under section 889, OMB
is required to report only on funding for homeland security by agency,
budget function (i.e., functions that cover 17 areas of the government
such as agriculture and health),[Footnote 47] and initiative
areas.[Footnote 48] OMB staff said that although they do not report on
funding related to overseas combating terrorism data, they still
collect it as part of the annual budget. Because there is no longer a
requirement to report on overseas combating terrorism funding data, OMB
staff said that they are not reviewing the information that agencies
provide to them.[Footnote 49] In addition, the definition of overseas
combating terrorism activities in OMB Circular No. A-11 has not changed
since 2003. As a result, OMB staff said that data on overseas combating
terrorism funding data are not necessarily valid and could be
misleading.[Footnote 50]
In response to section 889's changes, OMB began showing homeland
security funding data by agency, by budget function, by account, and by
each of the six critical mission areas established in the National
Strategy for Homeland Security in the Analytical Perspectives of the
President's fiscal year 2005 budget. OMB also included narrative
descriptions of major activities and the administration's priorities in
this section of the Analytical Perspectives. To present funding data
for homeland security activities by critical mission area, OMB included
a table for each critical mission area displaying budget authority for
3 fiscal years (prior year, current year, and budget year request).
Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act also required OMB to include
the most recent risk assessment and summary of homeland security needs
in each initiative area in the President's annual budget.[Footnote 51]
OMB's prior reporting requirements required that OMB report on the
amounts expended by executive agencies on combating terrorism
activities, as well as the specific programs and activities for which
funds were expended, while section 889 explicitly mandates a risk
assessment and summary of resource needs in each initiative area.
According to OMB staff, OMB does not have the expertise or the staff to
conduct separate risk assessments, and it relies on the risk
assessments of each individual agency to determine areas of high risk
in order to meet this requirement.
In addition, section 889 required that OMB include in the President's
annual budget an estimate of the user fees collected by the federal
government to help offset expenses related to homeland security
activities, such as the Transportation Security Administration's
passenger security fees, which are added to airline passengers' ticket
costs. To meet this requirement, OMB included a table for users' fees
by major cabinet-level department displaying the related budget
authority in the Analytical Perspectives that accompanied the
President's fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budgets.
Finally, section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 accelerated
the timeline for reporting funding data by requiring OMB to report
funding data in the President's budget, which must be submitted to
Congress by the first Monday in February.[Footnote 52] Under its
previous reporting requirement, OMB was required to issue a separate
stand-alone report on combating terrorism to Congress by March 1 of
each year. OMB complied with the new timeline for the fiscal years 2005
and 2006 President's budget.
Despite these changes, OMB staff report still facing challenges in
tracking activities related to combating terrorism funding data and
ensuring the transparency of related funding data. OMB staff said that
the creation of DHS helped minimize the difficulties they face in
ensuring the transparency of related funding data and tracking
activities related to combating terrorism, since the creation of DHS
resulted in approximately 60 percent of homeland security funding being
merged into funding for one agency at the time DHS became operational.
Although OMB is no longer required to report on funding data related to
overseas combating terrorism activities, OMB staff said that many of
the difficulties cited in our 2002 report still apply and that they
will most likely always face these challenges.[Footnote 53] For
example, OMB staff reported that they are still challenged by the large
number of agencies involved in combating terrorism activities. To
obtain information needed to fulfill its reporting requirements related
to funding data, OMB has to interact with 32 other agencies and the
District of Columbia that have responsibilities to combat terrorism in
addition to DHS. OMB staff also said that it will always require
significant effort to identify funding for combating terrorism
activities, since such funding is often subsumed in budget accounts
that provide funding for other activities. In addition, OMB staff also
stated that they were challenged in tracking funding related to
combating terrorism, given the wide variety of missions represented,
including intelligence, law enforcement, health services, and
environmental protection, as well as the global nature of missions for
combating terrorism. However, OMB staff told us that they have worked
diligently to identify homeland security activities by monitoring
agency reviews of homeland security spending and developing an annual
crosscut review, which identifies projects with common themes across
agencies.[Footnote 54]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism
Activities:
Hundreds of budget accounts include activities related to combating
terrorism. The following summarizes 15 of the 34 accounts we reviewed.
The funding levels shown in these accounts represent the portion of the
account that supports combating terrorism efforts by critical mission
area as reflected in OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating
Terrorism database that supports the President's fiscal year 2006
budget request.[Footnote 55] Our summaries also include descriptions of
the combating terrorism activities within these accounts as well as the
agencies' estimates of budget authority that relate to these combating
terrorism activities. For purposes of this appendix, we selected one
account to display for the Department of Energy, General Services
Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We also
selected to display one account for each component office that we
contacted at the Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and
Justice--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) within the Department of
Agriculture (USDA); Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP), the Office of State and
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the United States Coast
Guard (USCG), the United States Secret Service (USSS), and the Science
and Technology Directorate of DHS; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) of the Department of Justice.
The activities included in all 34 of the accounts that we reviewed were
consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland security and overseas
combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular No. A-11.[Footnote 56]
Department of Homeland Security: Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection.
Critical Mission Area: Intelligence and Warning.
Assessment and Evaluation Account (024-90-0911).
The Assessment and Evaluation account provides funding for threat
analysis associated with collecting and fusing law enforcement,
intelligence, and other information to evaluate terrorist threats to
the homeland.
Component activities:
* Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk Assessment includes efforts to
provide analytic tools to promote communication, coordination,
collaboration, and cooperation to analyze intelligence information with
the Intelligence Community; law enforcement agencies; state, local, and
tribal authorities; the private sector; and other critical stakeholders
regarding existing threats to the homeland;
* Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) serves as the nation's
center for information sharing and domestic incident management. The
HSOC collects and fuses intelligence information from a variety of
sources every day to help deter, detect, and prevent terrorist acts.
Operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the HSOC is tasked with
providing real-time situational awareness and monitoring of the
homeland, and coordinates incidents and response activities;
* Analysis and Studies includes efforts by IAIP personnel to develop
threat databases, participate in exercises and crisis simulations, and
prepare products on threats. It also includes funding for an
independent evaluation of IAIP's risk assessment methodology;
* Threat Determination and Assessment includes efforts by IAIP
personnel to develop terrorist threat situational awareness, (i.e., the
analytical capability required to develop and integrate timely,
actionable, and valuable information based on analysis of terrorist
threat intelligence information and infrastructure vulnerability
assessments);
* Biosurveillance includes efforts by IAIP personnel to integrate
biosurveillance data from other federal agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control with threat information. These activities are
conducted to help IAIP become better positioned to provide information
to decision makers and others to aid in the response to threats and
incidents;
* Other Activities include fiscal year 2004 activities that were
restructured for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budget request. For
instance, in fiscal year 2004, activities to conduct risk assessments
were included under the activity, risk assessment division; whereas,
for the fiscal year 2006 budget request, these activities are now
included in analysis and studies and threat determination and
assessment as discussed above.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions).
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Intelligence and Warning.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security.
Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security.
Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-
0530).
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Customs and
Border Protection personnel efforts to enforce laws relating to border
security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections and
regulatory activities related to plant and animal imports; acquisition,
lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase and lease of
police-type vehicles; and contracting with individuals for personal
services abroad.
Component activities:
* Enforcement funds activities related to CBP personnel's efforts to
identify, investigate, apprehend, and remove criminal aliens; maintain
and update systems to track criminal and illegal aliens on the border
in areas with high apprehensions to deter illegal entry; repair,
maintain, and construct border facilities; and collect fines levied
against aliens for failure to depart the United States after being
ordered to do so;
* Border Protection funds activities by CBP personnel to enforce
various provisions of law that govern entry and presence in the United
States, including detecting and preventing terrorists and terrorists'
weapons from entering the United States, seizing illegal drugs and
other contraband, determining the admissibility of people and goods,
apprehending people who attempt to enter the country illegally,
protecting our agricultural interests from harmful pests and diseases,
collecting duties and fees, and regulating and facilitating
international trade;
* Small Airport Facilities includes the collection of user fees by CBP
personnel generated from inspection services that are provided to
participating small airports, including the airports located at
Lebanon, New Hampshire, Pontiac/Oakland, Michigan, and other small
airports designated by the Department of Treasury based on the volume
or value of business cleared through the airport from which commercial
or private aircraft arrive from a place outside the United States.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the
discretionary portion of the account that supports combating terrorism
efforts for the critical mission area Border and Transportation
Security. CBP determined that 67 percent of its discretionary funding
relates to combating terrorism efforts.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security
Administration.
Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security.
Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0550).
The Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses account provides
funding for TSA personnel's efforts to provide security services for
civil aviation. This account is funded through collections from
passenger security and air carrier fees (see descriptions below). These
fees offset TSA's appropriated funds as the fees are collected, thereby
reducing the general fund contribution. TSA received authority to
collect such fees under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.
Component activities:
* Aviation Security includes collections from passenger security and
air carrier fees. The passenger fee is added to each airline
passenger's ticket purchase and the air carrier fee is paid directly by
air carriers. TSA receives its full aviation security appropriation,
and these fees offset the appropriated funds as the fees are collected,
thereby reducing the general fund contribution for TSA personnel's
efforts to provide security services for civil aviation such as
passenger and baggage screening, and establishing Federal air marshals
on various commercial flights;
* Aviation Security Fee Proposal: In the fiscal year 2006 budget
request, the President proposed to increase the air passenger security
fee by $3.00, raising the fee on a typical flight to $5.50. For
passengers traveling multiple legs on a one-way trip, the President
proposed a maximum fee of $8.00. The budget states that such fee
increases will allow TSA to almost fully recover the costs of federal
airport screening operations, a subset of aviation security activities.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Border and Transportation Security.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard.
Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security.
Operating Expenses Account (024-60-0610)[A].
The Operating Expenses account provides funding for USCG personnel to
prevent terrorism by enforcing laws and securing U.S. borders while
protecting the public from acts of terrorism.
Component activities:
* Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security includes efforts by USCG to
conduct harbor patrols, vulnerabilities assessments, and intelligence
gathering and analysis to prevent terrorist attacks and minimize the
damage from any attacks that could occur. It also includes USCG's
efforts to escort and conduct security boardings of any vessel that may
pose a substantial security risk to U.S. ports because of the
composition of its crew, passengers, or cargo;
* Drug Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to interdict
illegal drug shipments by apprehending smugglers at sea attempting to
import illegal drugs into the United States and halting the destructive
influence of drug consumption by disrupting the drug supply and
preventing potential funding sources for terrorism;
* Migrant Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to maintain a
presence in migrant departure, and to prohibit or deter people who
attempt to enter the United States illegally via maritime routes;
* Defense Readiness includes efforts by USCG personnel to deploy
cutters and other boats in and around harbors to protect the Department
of Defense during military operations and meet requirements within the
national strategy for homeland security and the national security
strategy;
* Other Law Enforcement protects U.S. fishing grounds, and therefore
the nation's economic security, by keeping out those who mean to do
harm and ensuring that foreign fisherman do not illegally harvest U.S.
fish stocks.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Border and Transportation Security.
[B] Sum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2004 supplementals for these
activities totaling $90.6 million.
[C] Sum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2005 supplementals for these
activities totaling $15.8 million.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security.
Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-
50-0540).
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement personnel to conduct investigations to ensure
enforcement of immigration laws.
Component activities:
* Investigations: Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel conduct
investigations to uncover and eliminate vulnerabilities that terrorists
and other criminals exploit to harm our nation's citizens, national
security, and the economy through an array of investigative processes
in the area of smuggling, finance, and national security. Through these
investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel work to
identify the people, materials, and funding essential to sustaining
terrorist threats and criminal enterprises, and to disrupt and
dismantle those operations.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism.
[End of table]
Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives.
Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism.
Salaries and Expenses Account (011-14-0700)[A].
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' personnel to deter and
investigate violations of laws relating to firearms, explosives, arson,
and alcohol and tobacco diversion.
Component activities:
* Firearms includes efforts by ATF personnel to counter firearms
violence, including acts of terrorism, through enforcement of the
federal firearms laws, regulation of the firearms industry, and
participation in outreach efforts to leverage partnerships with
federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement in the fight against
terrorism;
* Arson and Explosives includes efforts by ATF personnel to enforce
federal explosives and arson laws, as well as the regulation of the
explosives industry and training through innovation to protect the
public from terrorists' use of explosives and acts of arson;
* Alcohol and Tobacco includes ongoing efforts by ATF personnel to
reduce the rising trend of illegal diversion of tobacco products that
may provide financial support to the causes of terrorist groups;
* Reduce Violent Crime includes efforts by ATF personnel to deny
terrorists access to firearms, explosives, and explosive materials,
such as the participation of ATF agents in various terrorism task
forces;
* Protect the Public includes efforts by ATF personnel to safeguard the
public from arson and explosives incidents.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
ATF Salaries and Expenses (011-14-0700).
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism.
[End of table]
Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrrorism.
Salaries and Expenses Account (011-10-0200)[A].
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for efforts for FBI
personnel to detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes by terrorists
against the United States.
Component activities:
* Counterterrorism Field Investigations includes efforts by the FBI to
lead investigations in countering the threat of terrorism and
preventing violent acts by terrorists;
* Equipment/Technology includes efforts by FBI personnel to provide
engineering services, technical support, and equipment to FBI field
offices; and to conduct research and development to adapt technology
for use against criminals and terrorists;
* Counterterrorism Headquarters Coordination includes activities by FBI
program managers in directing and guiding field investigators by
managing investigations and providing training in the latest terrorism
investigation techniques and methods;
* Terrorist Screening Center funds multi-agency efforts, including
components of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State,
to maintain a consolidated watch list of known or suspected terrorists;
* Miscellaneous Activities include a range of activities such as those
provided under the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). CIRG
responds to crimes which pose great dangers and require skills that are
not routinely available in law enforcement agencies. For example, CIRG
provides trained, experienced negotiators, crisis managers, and
tactical and aviation personnel to assist law enforcement agencies. A
portion of these activities are considered related to counterterrorism
investigations.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism.
[B] Sum includes the FBI's fiscal year 2004 supplemental for these
activities totaling $12.3 million.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service.
Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key
Assets.
Operating Expenses Account (024-40-0400)[A].
The Operating Expenses account provides funding to support efforts of
U.S. Secret Service personnel in providing protective services and
conducting investigations. Protective Services provide for the
protection of the President of the United States, immediate family
members, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next
in order of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice
President-elect and the members of their immediate families, a visiting
head of state and accompanying spouse, of a foreign state or foreign
government. Investigative Services provide for investigation of
counterfeiting of currency and securities; forgery and altering of
government checks and bonds; thefts and frauds relating to Treasury
electronic funds transfers; financial access device fraud,
telecommunications fraud, computer and telemarketing fraud; fraud
relative to federally insured financial institutions; and other
criminal and noncriminal cases.
Component activities:
* Domestic Protection of Persons includes activities conducted by
Secret Service officials to protect the President of the United States,
the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order
of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice President-
elect and the members of their immediate families, former Presidents,
their spouses and children under the age of 16, visiting heads of
foreign states or governments; and major presidential, vice
presidential candidates and their spouses. It also includes efforts
conducted by Secret Service officials to plan, coordinate, and
implement security operations at National Special Security Events, such
as Republican and Democratic National Conventions;
* Financial and Infrastructure Investigations includes activities by
Secret Service officials to protect the nation's financial and monetary
systems, and critical infrastructure that supports those systems, such
as the development of tools to combat cyber terrorism;
* Domestic Protection of Government Buildings includes activities
conducted by Secret Service officials to protect critical
infrastructure and key assets by providing a security perimeter and
building security at the White House/Treasury complex, the foreign
diplomatic community located within the Washington metropolitan area,
and at other Secret Service-secured sites.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
[End of table]
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration.
Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key
Assets.
Weapons Activities Account (019-05-0240)[A].
The Weapons Activities account provide for the maintenance and
refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety,
reliability, and performance; expansion of scientific, engineering, and
manufacturing capabilities to enable certification of the enduring
nuclear weapons stockpile; and manufacture of nuclear weapon components
under a comprehensive test ban. The weapons activities account also
provides for continuous maintenance and investment in DOE's enterprise
of nuclear stewardship, including maintaining the capability to return
to the design and production of new weapons and to underground nuclear
testing, if so directed by the President.
Component activities:
* National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Safeguards and
Security ensures the protection of NNSA personnel, nuclear weapons,
information, cyber infrastructure, and other materials at NNSA sites
and facilities;
* NNSA Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transportation of
nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, selected non-nuclear weapons
components, limited-life components, and any other DOE materials to and
from military locations, between nuclear weapons complex facilities,
and to other government locations within the continental United States;
* NNSA Safety and Security Cybersecurity provides a foundation to
facilitate detection of intrusions (hackers and other forms of
attacks), and conduct vulnerability assessments and take corrective
action at each NNSA site. It also includes actions to implement the
Department of Energy's and NNSA's cybersecurity policies and practices,
and continuously improve NNSA's network and computing systems. The
costs of these activities also include personnel time and acquisition
and maintenance of cybersecurity technology (hardware and software)
needed to maintain NNSA's cybersecurity posture while addressing
cybersecurity threats;
* National Nuclear Security Administration Safeguards and Security-HQ
Research and Development aids in the efforts to enhance physical
security at NNSA sites.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
[End of table]
General Services Administration.
Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key
Assets.
Federal Properties Activities/Fee Funded, Federal Buildings Fund
Account (023-05-4542)[A].
The Real Property Activities account provides funding for GSA personnel
efforts to implement security measures at federal buildings.
Component activities:
* New Construction includes efforts to implement security enhancements
to newly constructed federal buildings such as implementing a
structural design to ensure that support columns are sized, reinforced,
and protected so that a terrorist event will not cause collapse;
perimeter protection measures; and window systems design to mitigate
the hazardous effects of flying glass following an explosive event;
* Major Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with major
repairs and alteration projects (that is, requests for repairs and
alterations greater than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36
million in fiscal year 2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to
implement security measures to modify federal buildings for security
enhancements such as installing bollards;
* Building Operations includes studies conducted to determine the need
for retrofitting federal facilities against threats that will cause
building columns or structures to be critically damaged and collapse;
* Minor Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with minor
repair and alteration projects (that is, those requests costing less
than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36 million in fiscal year
2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to implement security
measures to modify federal buildings for security enhancements such as
installing bollards.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
[End of table]
United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works.
Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key
Assets.
Operation and Maintenance Account (202-00-3132)[A].
The Civil Works/Operation and Maintenance account provides funding for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer personnel to prepare for emergencies and
secure infrastructure owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the
United States Army Corps of Engineers, including administrative
buildings, facilities, and labs.
Component activities: Continuity of Operations funds USACE preparedness
planning, including exercises related to USACE emergency relocation as
a result of either a natural or a man-made disaster; Critical Project
Security provides funds for physical security upgrades such as fences
and cameras; guards hired to control access to critical project assets
such as hydropower generators; and protection of administrative
facilities and laboratories.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets.
[End of table]
Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service.
Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Threats.
Salaries and Expenses Account (005-18-1400)[A].
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Agricultural
Research Service personnel to conduct research that helps counter
agricultural bioterrorism including research that minimizes the risk of
agriculture to contamination (chemical, biological, or genetic), helps
ensure the security of the food supply, and allows Agricultural
Research Service personnel to provide scientific knowledge and
expertise in agriculture to support a response to a bioterrorism
attack.
Component activities:
* Research includes research activities conducted by Agricultural
Research Service personnel to help protect the nation's animal and
plant resources by preventing bioterrorism attacks on crops and animal
agriculture or providing rapid responses to thwart such attacks, and
developing rapid and accurate techniques to monitor the safety of the
food supply.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats.
[End of table]
Department of Agriculture: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service.
Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks.
Salaries and Expenses Account (005-32-1600)[A].
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funds for APHIS staff to
safeguard U.S. plant and animal resources against the introduction of
foreign diseases and pests before they cause significant economic or
environmental damage.
Component activities:
* Pest Detection/Animal Health Monitoring supports efforts by APHIS
staff to track plant and animal disease agents that could be used in
acts of bioterrorism;
* Overseas Activities supports efforts by APHIS staff to collect
information on and track foreign pests and animal diseases.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: Science and Technology.
Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks.
Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions Account (024-80-
0800)[A].
The Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions account
provides funds for Science and Technology personnel to conduct and
stimulate research, development, test, evaluation, and the timely
transition of domestic combating terrorism capabilities to federal,
state, and local agencies.
Component activities:
* Biological Countermeasures includes research activities on early
biowarning systems and their future implementation, as well as analysis
and countermeasures of biological threats;
* Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures includes activities
associated with radiological detection research and implementation,
analysis, and countermeasures of nuclear and radiological threats, and
the development of systems that will help to coordinate consequence
management and recovery;
* Research and Development Support to Department of Homeland Security
Agencies includes coordination and collaboration research and
development activities with the other components of the department to
assist and enhance their technical capabilities;
* Man-Portable Air Defense Systems Countermeasures Special Program
includes activities associated with the development of countermeasures
to mitigate threats posed by shoulder-fired missiles directed toward
commercial aircraft;
* Chemical Countermeasures includes a range of activities to address
chemical defense, such as studies to prioritize efforts for mitigating
threats among chemical threats and targets, and the development of new
chemical detection and forensic technologies;
* Miscellaneous Activities includes a range of activities such as
enhancing explosive detection equipment for aviation security,
providing funding to the academic community to provide support for
qualified students and faculty to conduct research and development, and
supporting studies and analysis to be conducted by the Homeland
Security Institute.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats.
[End of table]
Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness.
Critical Mission Area: Emergency Preparedness and Response.
State and Local Programs Account (024-10-0560)[A].
The State and Local Programs account provides funding for grants,
training, exercises, and technical assistance to enhance the terrorism
preparedness of first responders, including police, fire, rescue, and
emergency response.
Component activities:
* State Homeland Security Grants provide funding to support grants to
states for domestic combating terrorism activities such as training,
exercises, support costs, and Citizen Corps. Citizen Corps was created
to help coordinate volunteer activities that will make our communities
safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to any emergency
situation;
* High Threat Urban Area Grants provide funding to support grants to
states and localities for terrorism preparedness and infrastructure
protection in high threat urban areas;
* National Exercise Programs provide funding to support the Top
Officials Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise and other federally
administered terrorism exercises;
* Center for Domestic Preparedness provides funds to train state and
local first responders to operate within a live agent hazardous
environment;
* Miscellaneous Activities includes funding for a range of activities
such as the storage of emergency equipment located at certain National
Guard facilities and for emergency preparedness training through the
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (terrorism preparedness
training centers).
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions):
[See PDF for image]
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism
Database.
[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical
mission area Emergency Preparedness and Response.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology:
To identify the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their
annual appropriation that relates to combating terrorism, we met with
OMB officials to review OMB's efforts to define, categorize, and track
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding both prior
to and after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act. In addition,
we met with 7 agencies, including 12 directorates, offices, or bureaus
at those agencies that reported receiving funding for combating
terrorism activities. The seven agencies we contacted are the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Energy, the General Services Administration, and the
United Stated Department of Agriculture.
To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from
33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving
funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. We selected
DHS and DOD because they account for 73 percent of the gross budget
authority enacted for homeland security activities for fiscal year
2005, and DOD and DOE because they account for 69 percent of the gross
budget authority enacted for overseas combating terrorism activities
for fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 57] We also selected four agencies: two
agencies from a list of those with the most fiscal year 2005 budget
dollars related to combating terrorism activities--USDA and DOJ--and
two agencies from a list of those with the least enacted budget
authority related to combating terrorism activities--GSA and USACE--to
ensure we included agencies in our review that had a range of combating
terrorism funding. Because the selection we used was a nonprobability
sample, the information we obtained from these 7 agencies is not
generalizable to all agencies with similar funding for combating
terrorism activities.[Footnote 58]
We used a random sample number generator to select USDA, DOJ, GSA, and
USACE from the two categories we established, that is, agencies that
were moderately funded and those that were minimally funded. We
excluded DOD, DHS, and DOE when performing the random number
generation, since we had already included them in our selection. (We
also excluded the Postal Service because it did not estimate receiving
any funding to combat terrorism activities in fiscal year 2006 and 10
other agencies that each received less than 0.1 percent of combating
terrorism dollars--to ensure that our analysis included the more
significant of the minimally funded agencies).[Footnote 59]
Within the seven agencies, we selected directorates or offices that
received the most funding for combating terrorism activities. These
included the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the
Agricultural Research Service, within USDA; Customs and Border
Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the Transportation
Security Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the United
States Secret Service, and the Science and Technology Directorate of
DHS; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation of DOJ.
We also reviewed the activities contained in 34 budgetary accounts--
separate financial reporting units for which all transactions within
the budget are recorded--for these agencies designated as related to
combating terrorism. We selected accounts with the most combating
terrorism funding at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller
amounts to ensure we covered a range of funding. On the basis of our
selection, we reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency's estimated
gross budget authority related to combating terrorism activities as
reported in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request. While we
initially selected an additional 23 budgetary accounts to review at
DOD, we did not review these accounts because DOD does not enter its
combating terrorism activities--specific lines of work--into OMB's
Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism database. Although
OMB computed the portion of budget authority DOD receives to combat
terrorism and aligned DOD's budget authority related to homeland
security with the six critical mission areas, OMB staff said that they
did not enter information on activities conducted by DOD to combat
terrorism. Thus, we did not have any activity level-information to
review for DOD for the accounts we selected.
We interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our
review and OMB to determine how they identified, categorized, and
tracked homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities
and estimated the portion of their budget authority that relates to
such activities. To supplement interviews with agency budget officials,
we also reviewed relevant budget documentation from each agency and
asked agency budget officials to describe procedures the agency had in
place to ensure that their funding levels were developed in accordance
with OMB's guidelines and definitions.
To identify the status of recommendations from our November 2002
report, we met with OMB and attempted to meet with National Security
Council (NSC) officials to document what actions have been taken to
implement our recommendations and the reasons they did or did not
implement them.[Footnote 60] Additionally, we reviewed the National
Strategy for Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy for Homeland
Security, and the National Security Strategy of the United States and
conducted a literature search to determine if any updates or
supplements had been written that included governmentwide performance
goals and measures. We also interviewed agency officials at the seven
agencies included in our review and reviewed their performance plans to
determine whether these plans included performance goals and measures
that reflected their combating terrorism activities. To determine the
status of recommendations made in our 2002 report regarding an analysis
of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in
annual reporting on funding data associated with such activities and to
report this information in a timely manner to support congressional
budget decisions, we met with OMB to determine what actions have been
taken to implement our recommendations and the reasons it did or did
not implement them. We also reviewed the Analytical Perspectives
accompanying the President's fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budgets to
determine whether or not OMB included funding data information on
combating terrorism and whether this information was issued in a timely
manner.
In addition to pursuing our two main objectives, we also identified
funding patterns and trends for overseas combating terrorism activities
and for homeland security activities between fiscal year 2002 and what
is proposed for fiscal year 2006. We extracted, summarized, and
analyzed combating terrorism data from the database used to prepare the
Budget of the United States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To
ensure that the database we received was consistent with published
sources, we conducted electronic data testing and determined that the
data was sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We also analyzed the effects of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on
reporting requirements for funding data related to combating terrorism
activities since our 2002 report[Footnote 61] by reviewing the act and
comparing it with prior reporting requirements under the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as amended by the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.[Footnote 62]
To supplement this information, we also reviewed OMB's 2003 Report to
Congress on Combating Terrorism and the Analytical Perspectives of the
President's budget from fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify
Activities as Combating Terrorism:
Officials at five of the seven agencies[Footnote 63] we contacted--
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the
Department of Energy, the General Services Administration, and the
United Stated Department of Agriculture--most commonly reported using
guidance from OMB, the Homeland Security Act of 2002,[Footnote 64] and
agency-specific guidance to identify their combating terrorism
activities. Officials at all five of these agencies said they use OMB
Circular No. A-11, which includes definitions for homeland security and
overseas combating terrorism activities, and instructions for
submitting information on funding data related to homeland security and
overseas combating terrorism to OMB.[Footnote 65] In addition,
officials from four of the seven agencies in our review reported that
they consulted with OMB to determine which of their agency's activities
are related to combating terrorism.
Three of the seven agencies we contacted--DHS, USDA, and the United
States Army Corps of Engineers--have developed additional guidance,
which provides details specific to each agency to help determine
combating terrorism activities. For example, to supplement OMB Circular
A-11 guidance, DHS established an internal directive, Planning,
Programming, Budgeting and Execution, which helps establish policy,
procedures, and responsibilities relative to the planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution process at DHS. The objective of the directive
is to articulate DHS's goals, objectives, and priorities while guiding
the development of the department's budget request and establishing
parameters and guidelines for implementing and executing the current
budget.
Furthermore, officials in four of DHS's components told us that they
refer to information included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to
determine which of their activities relate to homeland security. For
example, section 888 of the Homeland Security Act designated 5 of the
U.S. Coast Guard's 11 missions as homeland security and the remaining 6
as non-homeland security.[Footnote 66] Similarly, Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) officials at DHS stated that they
categorized all of their activities as related to homeland security,
since section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 only authorized
IAIP to conduct activities related to homeland security.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of
Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data:
This appendix discusses the status of recommendations made in our 2002
report for the Office of Management and Budget to (1) include an
analysis of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism
activities in its annual reporting of funding data associated with such
activities and (2) report this information in a timely manner to
support congressional budget decisions.[Footnote 67]
To improve the usefulness of OMB's Annual Report to Congress on
Combating Terrorism, we recommended that OMB include, as required by
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, an
analysis of areas where overlap in programs could result in unnecessary
duplication of effort.[Footnote 68] We also recommended that OMB
publish the report by the required annual March 1 deadline to provide
information in time for congressional budget deliberations.
Although OMB has not implemented our recommendation that it include an
analysis of unnecessary duplication of effort in its annual combating
terrorism report, this requirement no longer exists. Our November 2002
report was issued concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002.[Footnote 69] Section 889 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 repealed OMB's prior reporting requirements, including the
duplication analysis.
OMB staff stated that they did not include an analysis of duplication
in any of the agency's prior reports primarily because they perform an
analysis of homeland security initiatives and related resource needs
across all federal agencies as part of the annual budget preparation
process, and that they take action to address duplication prior to the
publication of the President's budget. Therefore, OMB staff said that
they believe any issue of duplication is addressed in the President's
budget, specifically through his recommendations related to funding
needs.
Our recommendation that OMB improve the usefulness of its Annual Report
to Congress on Combating Terrorism by publishing the report by the then-
required March 1 annual deadline was also superseded by section 889 of
the Homeland Security Act. This section requires that OMB report on
funding data for homeland security activities in the President's
budget. Because the President must submit his budget by the first
Monday in February,[Footnote 70] the Homeland Security Act of 2002
accelerated the timeline for reporting funding data on homeland
security activities. OMB complied with this reporting requirement in
fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET:
WASHINGTON DC 20503:
December 21, 2005:
Mr. Paul Jones:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Division:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G St, NW:
Washington, DC 20549:
Dear Mr. Jones:
Thank you for the opportunity to Comment on GAO's draft report entitled
`Methods for Determining Federal Funding Related to Combating Terrorism
Activities" (GAO-06-161). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
appreciates the in-depth analyses provided in the report, and the
detailed review of the government's "Homeland Security" spending
levels.
Included within the draft report however. GAO also publishes funding
estimates for "Overseas Combating Terrorism" (OCT) activities that were
extracted from the MAX budget database maintained by OMB. We are
concerned about the accuracy of this data, and recommend that OCT
estimates be deleted from the final report.
As OMB staff explained to the GAO authors of this report several times
during the research phase of the project, OMB no longer uses the OCT
measure as the basis for analysis of funding levels. Since November
2002 the relevant statute has not required reporting on this basis.
Therefore, for over three years, OMB has not reviewed for consistency
the methodologies used to compile the estimates, nor confirmed the
accuracy of the data submitted. As a result the estimates included in
the draft GAO report should not be considered an accurate
representation of funding spent an combating terrorism overseas. OMB
strongly urges that the final GAO report not include the OCT estimates,
and we also recommend that these figures not be used as the basis for
any further analysis or decision making given the outstanding questions
about their accuracy.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with GAO on this issue and thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft report on
this important issue.
Sincerely.
Signed by:
David J. Haum:
Deputy Associate Director:
Transportation, Homeland, Justice and Services Division:
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration:
GSA Office of the Chief Financial Officer:
DEC 2 2005:
The Honorable David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Walker:
The General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates this opportunity
to review and provide comments to the Government Accountability
Office's draft report, "COMBATING TERRORISM: Methods for Determining
Federal Funding Related to Combating Terrorism Activities", GAO-06-161.
We concur with the sections discussing GSA in the draft report.
Questions regarding the draft report may be directed to Mr. David A.
Morris, Acting Director, Budget and Performance Integration, at (202)
501-4159 or davida.morris@gsa.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Kathleen M. Turco:
Chief Financial Officer:
U.S. General Services Administration:
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Paul L. Jones (202) 512-8777:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Debra B. Sebastian, Assistant
Director, Grace A. Coleman, Christine F. Davis, Gerard DeBie, Denise M.
Fantone, Michele Fejfar, Jacob Hauskens, Laura R. Helm, Dawn Locke,
Sara R. Margraf, and John W. Mingus, and made key contributions to this
report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Global War on Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for
the War when Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005.
Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the Reliability of Cost
Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control Costs, GAO-05-882.
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005.
Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information
for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9,
2005.
A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP.
Washington, D.C.: September 2005.
Protection of Chemical and Water Infrastructure: Federal Requirements,
Actions of Selected Facilities, and Remaining Challenges. GAO-05-327.
Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2005.
Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning Process
Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability. GAO-05-300. Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005.
Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a
Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214.
Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2005.
Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges
Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security. GAO-05-33.
Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005.
Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal
Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices. GAO-
05-49. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004.
Military Operations: Fiscal Year 2004 Costs for the Global War on
Terrorism Will Exceed Supplemental, Requiring DOD to Shift Funds from
Other Uses. GAO-04-915. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004.
Homeland Security: Transformation Strategy Needed to Address Challenges
Facing the Federal Protective Service. GAO-04-537. Washington, D.C.:
July 14, 2004.
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation
for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-594T. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31,
2004.
Coast Guard: Relationship between Resources Used and Results Achieved
Needs to Be Clearer. GAO-04-432. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2004.
Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees. GAO-04-
406R. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2004.
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National
Strategies Related to Terrorism. GAO-04-408T. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3,
2004.
Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. GAO-04-174.
Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004:
Homeland Security: Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland
Security in Balancing its Border Security and Trade Facilitation
Missions. GAO-03-902T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2003.
Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be
Improved. GAO-03-170. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2002.
Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. GAO-
02-927T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002.
National Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and
Private Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy
for Homeland Security. GAO-02-621T. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National
Preparedness Strategy. GAO-02-549T. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002.
Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness
Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001.
Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach. GAO-02-
150T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations.
GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20. 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism
Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 19, 2001.
IRS Modernization: IRS Should Enhance Its Performance Management
System. GAO-01-234. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2001.
Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based
Management and Accountability. GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 28, 1998.
Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management
Issues. GAO/AIMD-98-11. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1997.
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: June
2, 1997.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Since combating terrorism activities exclude direct military
action, this report does not include those activities associated with
the Global War on Terrorism. The Global War on Terrorism includes (1)
Operation Noble Eagle--military operations to defend the United States
from terrorist attacks, (2) Operation Enduring Freedom--overseas
military operations to defend the United States from terrorist attacks
that have principally taken place in Afghanistan, and (3) Operation
Iraqi Freedom--military operations to change the government in Iraq.
For work GAO recently completed on costs associated with the Global War
on Terrorism, see GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve
the Reliability of Cost Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control
Costs, GAO-05-882 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005), and Global War on
Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for the War when
Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767 (Washington, D.C.:
Sept. 28, 2005).
[2] In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, OMB reviewed and reported on what
agencies estimated to be the portion of their budget authority that
related to both homeland security--$33 billion and $43 billion,
respectively--and overseas combating terrorism funding--$11.5 billion
and $12 billion, respectively. While OMB continued to collect data on
both homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities
since fiscal year 2003, OMB staff said that they have not reviewed
funding data on overseas combating terrorism since OMB is no longer
required to report this information. Thus, they said that data on
overseas combating terrorism funding are not subject to the same level
of scrutiny as funding data on homeland security and may not be as
reliable as homeland security funding data. However, we have included
the overseas combating terrorism data that agencies continue to report
to OMB in appendix I.
[3] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, section 889, 116
Stat. 2135, 2251 (2002). Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 applies only to homeland security activities, not overseas
activities related to combating terrorism. In this report, the generic
term "combating terrorism" includes both homeland security and overseas
combating terrorism activities. Our definitions comport with OMB's
definitions in Circular No. A-11, which agencies use in classifying
their funding data. See Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and
Execution of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). For additional
information on budget functions, see GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in
the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September
2005).
[4] The President issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security in
July 2002. The strategy sets forth overall objectives to prevent
terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce vulnerability to
terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from
attacks that may occur.
[5] In general, the Analytical Perspectives contains information that
highlights specific subject areas, such as funding data on homeland
security, or provides other significant context and perspective for the
budget.
[6] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress
Should Be Improved, GAO-03-170 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2002). At
the time of this report, which we issued the day after the President
signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, OMB's required report to
Congress included both homeland security and overseas combating
terrorism activities.
[7] We define "performance objective" as a performance goal that sets a
target level of performance over time expressed as a tangible,
measurable goal, against which actual achievement can be compared,
including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate.
It is composed of a performance measure with targets and time frames.
Performance measures are a means to quantify an agency's progress
toward achieving its objectives.
[8] See GAO-03-170.
[9] Accounts are separate financial reporting units used for budget,
management, or accounting purposes. Budget accounts are used to record
all budgetary transactions. See GAO-05-734SP.
[10] Gross budget authority represents budgetary totals from which
offsetting collections have not been deducted. Offsetting collections
are collections by government accounts from other government accounts
and any collections from the public that are of a business type or
market-oriented nature.
[11] See GAO-03-170.
[12] See appendix VII for a detailed discussion of how the Homeland
Security Act of 2002 superseded two of the recommendations made in our
prior report.
[13] Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts awarded,
services received, and similar transactions during a given period that
will require payments during the same or a future period.
[14] PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that is used to rate
the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus on
program results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a 5-
year period beginning in fiscal year 2002 using the PART tool.
[15] To satisfy this requirement, OMB provided a classified annex to
its unclassified report. The unclassified report provided unclassified
information, where possible, on funding for the national security
community (i.e., the Department of Defense and the Intelligence
Community), while the classified annex provided additional, classified
funding details for the national security community.
[16] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA
for FY 1998), Pub. L. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (Nov. 18, 1997) as
amended by the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999), Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920,
2168 (Oct. 17, 1998).
[17] Prior to 2002, OMB used different classifications to report
combating terrorism funding, such as antiterrorism (defensive measures
to combat terrorism) and counterterrorism (offensive measures to combat
terrorism).
[18] After OMB approves agency funding levels to be included in the
President's budget request, agencies then determine the portion of
their funding levels that are related to combating terrorism activities
and report those amounts to OMB.
[19] DOD staff said that they do not report funding levels associated
with combating terrorism activities to OMB.
[20] GSA is not responsible for overseas combating terrorism
activities. Real property activities related to homeland security at
GSA include actions taken to enhance building security. The Federal
Buildings Fund finances GSA's Public Buildings Service, which provides
space and services for federal agencies in a relationship similar to
that of landlord and tenant. The Federal Protective Service--
authorized, among other things, to enforce laws and regulations aimed
at protecting federal property and persons on such property--was
originally located within GSA's Public Building Service and a portion
of the Federal Protective Service's budget authority was associated
with homeland security issues. The Federal Protective Service was moved
to the Department of Homeland Security effective March 1, 2003.
Therefore, GSA's fiscal year 2006 budget authority for the portion of
Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings Fund that relate
to homeland security activities does not include funding levels
associated with the Federal Protective Service. For additional
information on GSA's real property activities, see appendix IV.
[21] USSS does not conduct overseas combating terrorism activities.
[22] Protective Services provide for the protection of individuals
including the President of the United States, immediate family members,
the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order
of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice President-
elect and the members of their immediate families, the protection of a
visiting head of state and accompanying spouse, or a foreign state or
foreign government. Investigative Services provide for investigation of
counterfeiting of currency and securities; forgery and altering of
government checks and bonds; thefts and frauds relating to Treasury
electronic funds transfers; financial access device fraud,
telecommunications fraud, computer and telemarketing fraud; fraud
relative to federally insured financial institutions; and other
criminal and noncriminal cases.
[23] The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does not conduct
overseas combating terrorism activities.
[24] According to USACE officials, they do not align their homeland
security activities with the critical mission areas when entering their
homeland security data into OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas
Combating Terrorism database.
[25] Since there is no longer a requirement to report on overseas
combating terrorism funding data, OMB staff said that they have not
kept the definition of overseas combating terrorism activities in OMB
Circular No. A-11 updated.
[26] OMB staff stated that the change in the overseas combating
terrorism reporting requirement was not sought by the Administration
and OMB was not aware of legislative history explaining Congress's
reasons for the change. We were unable to find legislative history
explaining why section 889 excluded overseas combating terrorism
reporting requirements.
[27] Before fiscal year 2005, OMB staff said they conducted informal
discussions with agency officials regarding potential changes.
[28] See GAO-03-170.
[29] See GAO-03-170.
[30] See GAO-03-170.
[31] In an alternative scenario, GAO assumed that the share of
unobligated balances was equal to the share of budget authority coded
as homeland security. That is, if an account is labeled 80 percent
homeland security, then 80 percent of the available balances are also
assumed to be related to homeland security. This analysis produced the
following results: fiscal year 2002 ($3.4 billion), fiscal year 2003
($5.4 billion), fiscal year 2004 ($4.6 billion). Our analysis indicated
that many of the unobligated balances were in accounts with mainly
grant activities or in accounts where the mission was accomplished
through contracts.
[32] Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),
OMB is required to prepare an annual governmentwide performance plan
and to submit it to Congress with the President's budget beginning in
fiscal year 1999: 31 U.S. C. 1105(a)(28). Congress enacted GPRA to
promote a government focus on managing by results. Finding that waste
and inefficiency in federal programs were undermining confidence in
government, Congress sought to hold federal agencies accountable for
the results of federal spending through regular and systematic
performance planning measurement and reporting. With the implementation
of GPRA, federal agencies are required to set goals, measure
performance, and report on their accomplishments. The act requires that
federal agencies establish long-term goals, as well as annual goals.
Agencies must then measure their performance against the goals they set
and report publicly on how well they are doing. For a fuller discussion
of the framework, see GAO, Managing for Results: The Statutory
Framework for Performance-Based Management and Accountability,
GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
[33] While governmentwide performance measures have not been developed
for combating terrorism, DHS is working to develop such measures for
homeland security activities related to critical infrastructure.
According to DHS's Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan,
IAIP officials have identified a set of basic metrics that can be used
to evaluate performance across the 13 critical infrastructure sectors-
-agriculture, banking and finance, chemical, defense industrial base,
emergency services, energy, food, government, information and
telecommunications, postal and shipping, public health, transportation,
and water sectors. IAIP is working with agencies responsible for these
sectors to develop a supplemental set of measures for each sector. The
intent of this process is to provide DHS and the sector-specific
agencies with feedback on where and how they should focus their
resources to be most effective. According to IAIP officials, IAIP and
the sector-specific agencies have not completed the performance
measures but some have developed target dates for their completion.
[34] Established by Section 5 of Executive Order 13228 (Oct. 8, 2001),
the Homeland Security Council is composed of more than 20 members who
are responsible for advising and assisting the President with respect
to all aspects of homeland security. The council serves as the
mechanism for ensuring coordination of homeland security-related
activities of executive departments and agencies and effective
development and implementation of homeland security policies.
[35] For purposes of this report, we are defining existing strategies
as the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the National Security
Strategy of the United States, and the National Strategy for Combating
Terrorism. The President issued the National Security Strategy of the
United States in September 2002. It provides a broad framework for
strengthening U.S. security in the future and identifies the national
security goals of the United States, describes the foreign policy and
military capabilities necessary to achieve those goals, evaluates the
current status of these capabilities, and explains how national power
will be structured to utilize these capabilities. The President issued
the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism in February 2003
elaborating on the terrorism aspects of the national security strategy
by expounding on the need to destroy terrorist organizations, win the
"war of ideas," and strengthen security at home and abroad, focusing on
identifying and defusing threats before they reach the borders of the
United States.
[36] See GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's
Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-
174 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).
[37] GSA officials told us that they do not have performance goals or
measures related to homeland security within the Public Buildings
Service section of GSA's 2002 Strategic Plan because they believe the
level of homeland security activities the agency conducts does not
warrant the development of separate performance goals or measures.
[38] According to DOD, the antiterrorism program is a collective,
proactive effort to deter, detect, prevent, defend against, respond to,
defeat, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD personnel and their
families, selected DOD contractors, installations, infrastructure, and
key assets essential to mission accomplishment. Furthermore, it
mitigates the effects of terrorism to sustain essential military
operations.
[39] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Action Needed to Improve DOD
Antiterrorism Program Implementation and Management, GAO-01-909
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2001).
[40] September 11 coincided with departments' and agencies' submissions
to OMB for fiscal year 2003 and occurred 3 weeks before the start of
fiscal year 2002. Supplemental funds enacted in fiscal year 2001 (P.L
107-38) were for the most part not available for agency obligations
until fiscal year 2002. In addition, a second supplemental
appropriations bill was signed into law on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107-
206).
[41] OMB uses its MAX database to prepare the President's annual
budget, and it is the source of data for this appendix.
[42] "Bureau" is defined as the principal subordinate organizational
unit of an agency, such as the Transportation Security Administration
in DHS or the Agricultural Research Service in the Department of
Agriculture.
[43] Although the Department of Homeland Security did not exist in
fiscal year 2002, the amounts shown include activities and funding that
were subsequently transferred into DHS in fiscal year 2003. The amounts
shown under the department were constructed after the fact for data
comparability.
[44] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, section 889, 116
Stat. 2135, 2251 (2002).
[45] Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
[46] Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department of
Homeland Security was established. When the Department of Homeland
Security became operational in March 2003, the activities of 22
entities were consolidated and approximately 60 percent of homeland
security funding was merged under one department.
[47] There are 17 budget functions for the U.S. government--National
Defense; International Affairs; General Science Space and Technology;
Energy; Natural Resources and Environment; Agriculture; Commerce and
Housing Credit; Transportation; Community and Regional Development;
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services; Health; Medicare;
Income Security; Social Security, Veterans Benefits and Services;
Administration of Justice; and General Government.
[48] According to OMB staff responsible for preparing this analysis on
behalf of the President, OMB has determined the initiative areas to be
the six critical mission areas captured in the National Strategy for
Homeland Security--Intelligence and Warning, Border and Transportation
Security, Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure
and Key Assets, Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency
Preparedness and Response. (See app. II for a detailed description of
each critical mission area.)
[49] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
[50] OMB staff stated that the change in the overseas combating
terrorism reporting requirement was not sought by the Administration
and OMB was not aware of legislative history explaining Congress's
reasons for the change. We were unable to find legislative history
explaining why section 889 excluded overseas combating terrorism
reporting requirements.
[51] Assessing risks for specific assets is defined by two conditions:
(1) probability--the likelihood, quantitative or qualitative, that an
adverse event would occur; and (2) consequences--the damage resulting
from the event, should it occur. Thus, the most severe risks are those
that have both the greatest probability of occurring and would cause
the greatest damage. Actual risk reflects the combination of the two
factors. Risks may be managed by reducing the probability, the
consequence, or, where possible, both.
[52] 31 U.S.C. 1105 (a).
[53] See GAO-03-170.
[54] According to OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) guidance,
a crosscut review is a review that looks at programs across multiple
agencies and can identify exemplary goals and practices, common
measures of performance, possible trade-offs in management and budget
decisions, and opportunities for better coordination among programs.
The results of crosscutting analyses can summarize common strengths and
opportunities for improvement.
[55] An account with combating terrorism activities may include funding
associated with more than one critical mission area. For example, as
part of its fiscal year 2006 budget request, DHS's Information Analysis
and Infrastructure Protection Assessment and Evaluation Account (024-
90-0911) has funding associated with the following critical mission
areas: Intelligence and Warning, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and
Key Assets, and Emergency Preparedness and Response.
[56] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
[57] Gross budget authority is budgetary totals from which offsetting
collections have not been deducted. Offsetting collections are
collections by government accounts from other government accounts and
any collections from the public that are of a business type or a market-
oriented nature.
[58] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample some
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown
chance of being selected as part of the sample.
[59] In the fiscal year 2005 Analytical Perspective, 9 agencies and the
District of Columbia use less than 0.1 percent of homeland security
dollars and, together, make up 0.26 percent of total homeland security
funding (about $121 million of the $46 billion homeland security
dollars). These 9 agencies included the Executive Office of the
President, Corporation for National and Community Service, National
Archives and Records Administration, United States Holocaust Memorial
Museum, Department of Education, Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Personnel Management, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, and the Federal Communications Commission.
[60] National Security Council officials declined to meet with us or to
confirm that the Administration had not yet issued any updates or
revisions to the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the National
Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and the National Security Strategy of
the United States. In addition, National Security Council officials
declined to provide us with information on the status of any future
plans for issuing updates to these strategies.
[61] See GAO-03-170.
[62] Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1638, 1889(1997) as amended by Pub.
L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1930, 2168(1998).
[63] Officials at the Department of Defense reported that OMB
determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating terrorism.
[64] Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
[65] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005).
[66] OMB staff said that while the current methodology for computing
USCG homeland security funding includes the five missions from section
888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, they do not recognize section
888 as the basis for making that determination.
[67] See GAO-03-170.
[68] Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (1997).
[69] Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
[70] 31 U.S.C. 1005(a).
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
