Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal Funding
Data (17-JAN-06, GAO-06-161).
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.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-06-161
ACCNO: A44917
TITLE: Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal
Funding Data
DATE: 01/17/2006
SUBJECT: Budget activities
Counterterrorism
Data collection
Federal funds
Funds management
Homeland security
Performance measures
Regulatory agencies
Reporting requirements
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-06-161
* 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
* Homeland Security
* Trends in the Six Critical Mission Areas of Homeland Security
* Overseas Combating Terrorism
* Order by Mail or Phone
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
January 2006
COMBATING TERRORISM
Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data
Combating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating Terrorism
GAO-06-161
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 9
Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the
Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities 10
Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional
Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance 20
Conclusions 26
Matter for Congressional Consideration 26
Agency Comments 26
Appendix I Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities 29
Appendix II The National Strategy for Homeland Security's Critical Mission
Areas 67
Appendix III Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face 68
Appendix IV A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism
Activities 72
Appendix V Scope and Methodology 88
Appendix VI Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify
Activities as Combating Terrorism 92
Appendix VII Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of
Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data 94
Appendix VIII Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 96
Appendix IX Comments from the General Services Administration 97
Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 98
Related GAO Products 99
Tables
Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security-by Summarized Agency
32
Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security-by Agency 36
Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security-by Agency, Bureau,
and Account 40
Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area 55
Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security Mission
Area 56
Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism-by
Summarized Agency 64
Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism-by Agency
66
Figures
Figure 1: GSA's Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget Authority
Associated with Real Property Activities That Relate to Homeland Security
12
Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of
Budget Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to
Homeland Security 14
Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity
Relates to Homeland Security 16
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
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. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
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.
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. 2
1Since 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).
2In 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.
3Homeland 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).
4The 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.
5In 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.
6See 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.
7We 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.
8See GAO-03-170 .
9Accounts 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 .
10Gross 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.
11See GAO-03-170 .
12See appendix VII for a detailed discussion of how the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 superseded two of the recommendations made in our prior
report.
13Obligations 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.
14PART 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.
15To 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.
16The 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).
17Prior 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).
18After 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.
19DOD staff said that they do not report funding levels associated with
combating terrorism activities to OMB.
20GSA 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.
21USSS does not conduct overseas combating terrorism activities.
22Protective 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.
23The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does not conduct overseas
combating terrorism activities.
24According 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.
25Since 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.
26OMB 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.
27Before fiscal year 2005, OMB staff said they conducted informal
discussions with agency officials regarding potential changes.
28See GAO-03-170 .
29See GAO-03-170 .
30See GAO-03-170 .
31In 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.
32Under 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).
33While 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.
34Established 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.
35For 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.
36See 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).
37GSA 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.
38According 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.
39See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Action Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism
Program Implementation and Management, GAO-01-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
19, 2001).
1September 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).
2OMB uses its MAX database to prepare the President's annual budget, and
it is the source of data for this appendix.
3"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.
4Although 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.
5Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, section 889, 116 Stat.
2135, 2251 (2002).
1Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
2Under 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.
3There 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.
4According 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.)
5Circular 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).
6OMB 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.
7Assessing 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.
831 U.S.C. 1105 (a).
9See GAO-03-170 .
10According 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.
1An 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.
2Circular 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).
1Gross 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.
2Results 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.
3In 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.
4National 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.
5See GAO-03-170 .
6Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1638, 1889(1997) as amended by Pub. L.
105-261, 112 Stat. 1930, 2168(1998).
1Officials at the Department of Defense reported that OMB determines how
much of DOD's funding relates to combating terrorism.
2Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
3Circular 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).
4OMB 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.
1See GAO-03-170 .
2Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (1997).
3Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002).
431 U.S.C. 1005(a).
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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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?
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. 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. 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.
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. 12 In
our 2002 report, we recommended that OMB include agencies' obligation data
in its annual report on combating terrorism. 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. 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 15 on funding to combat terrorism. 16 Under the
NDAA reporting requirements, OMB's annual report addressed funding for
combating terrorism without differentiating between homeland security and
overseas activities. 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. 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. 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. 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
aNew 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.
bAccording 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.
cAccording 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.
dMajor 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.
eAccording 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.
fGlass 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.
gMinor 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.
hBuilding 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.
iThe $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.
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. 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. 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
aAccording 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.
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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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,
38 DOD developed an Antiterrorism Strategic Plan. 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.
Paul L. Jones Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities 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. 1 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 2 captured
funding for combating terrorism that is, for the most part, in the current
agency, bureau, 3 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
Dollars in millions
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a
Agency Grossbudget Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent
authority of total budget of total budget of
authority authority total
Department of 17,380 53 23,063 54 22,925 56
Homeland
Securityb
Department of 5,159 16 8,442 20 7,025 17
Defense
Department of 1,220 4 1,409 3 1,363 3
Energy
Department of 1,913 6 4,144 10 4,060 10
Health and
Human Services
Department of 2,144 7 2,349 6 2,181 5
Justice
Other agencies 5,068 15 3,042 7 3,283 8
Total $32,884 100 $42,449 100 $40,837 100
Estimated FY 2005a Requested FY
2006
Gross budget Percent of Gross budget Percent of Average annual change
authority total authority total 2002-2005
24,887 54 27,331 55 12.71
8,566 19 9,513 19 18.41
1,562 3 1,664 3 8.59
4,229 9 4,407 9 30.27
2,679 6 3,104 6 7.71
4,092 9 3,923 8 -6.88
$46,015 100 $49,942 100
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.
aExcludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
bDHS 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.
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. 4 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
Dollars in millions
FY 2002 FY 2003
Agency Gross budget Percent of Gross budget Percent of
authority total authority total
Department of Homeland 17,380 53 23,063 54
Securityb
Department of Defense 5,159 16 8,442 20
Department of Agriculture 552 2 411 1
Department of Commerce 118 0 111 0
Department of Education 0 0 6 0
Department of Energy 1,220 4 1,409 3
Department of Health and 1,913 6 4,144 10
Human Services
Department of Housing and 1 0 2 0
Urban Development
Department of Justice 2,144 7 2,349 6
Department of Labor 78 0 70 0
Department of State 477 1 634 1
Department of 1,420 4 382 1
Transportation
Department of Veterans 49 0 154 0
Affairs
Department of the 108 0 54 0
Interior
Department of the 116 0 80 0
Treasury
Corporation for National 29 0 17 0
and Community Service
Corps of Engineers-Civil 139 0 75 0
Works
District of Columbia 213 1 25 0
Environmental Protection 187 1 134 0
Agency
Executive Office of the 140 0 41 0
President
Federal Communications 0 0 1 0
Commission
General Services 97 0 67 0
Administration
Intelligence Community 0 0 0 0
Management Account
National Aeronautics and 223 1 205 0
Space Administration
National Archives and 10 0 10 0
Records Administration
FY 2004a Estimated Requested
FY 2005a FY 2006
Gross budget Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent Average
authority of total budget of total budget of total annual
authority authority change
2002-2005
22,925 56 24,887 54 27,331 55 12.71
7,025 17 8,566 19 9,513 19 18.41
411 1 601 1 703 1 2.88
124 0 167 0 184 0 12.27
8 0 25 0 23 0 0
1,363 3 1,562 3 1,664 3 8.59
4,060 10 4,229 9 4,407 9 30.27
2 0 2 0 2 0 25.99
2,181 5 2,679 6 3,104 6 7.71
53 0 56 0 47 0 -10.46
697 2 824 2 938 2 19.99
285 1 182 0 192 0 -49.58
272 1 281 1 300 1 78.99
82 0 65 0 57 0 -15.57
91 0 102 0 111 0 -4.2
23 0 17 0 20 0 -16.31
102 0 89 0 72 0 -13.81
19 0 15 0 15 0 -58.7
131 0 107 0 185 0 -16.98
35 0 30 0 22 0 -40.16
1 0 2 0 4 0 0
79 0 65 0 80 0 -12.49
1 0 72 0 56 0 0
207 1 218 0 205 0 -0.75
16 0 17 0 20 0 19.35
Dollars in millions
FY 2002 FY 2003
Gross budget Percent of Gross budget Percent of
authority total authority total
National Capital Planning 1 0 0 0
Commission
National Science 259 1 285 1
Foundation
Nuclear Regulatory 43 0 47 0
Commission
Office of Personnel 2 0 3 0
Management
Postal Service 587 2 0 0
Securities and Exchange 0 0 5 0
Commission
Smithsonian Institution 91 0 83 0
Social Security 121 0 132 0
Administration
United States Holocaust 7 0 8 0
Memorial Museum
Total $32,884 100 $42,449 100
FY 2004 Estimated Requested
FY 2005 FY 2006
Gross Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent Average annual
budget of total budget of total budget of total change
authority authority authority 2002-2005
0 0 0 0 0 0 -100
340 1 342 1 344 1 9.71
67 0 59 0 61 0 11.12
3 0 3 0 4 0 14.47
0 0 503 1 0 0 -5.02
5 0 5 0 5 0 0
78 0 75 0 87 0 -6.24
143 0 160 0 177 0 9.76
8 0 8 0 9 0 4.55
$40,837 100 $46,015 100 $49,942 100
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.
aExcludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
bDHS 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.
Table 3 provides homeland security data by agency, bureau, and account.
Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security-by Agency, Bureau,
and Account
Dollars in millions
Gross budget
authority
Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a Estimated FY Requested FY
2005a 2006
Department of Border and Acquisition, 28 25 25 25 27
Homeland Transportation construction,
Security b Security improvement and
related expenses
Air and marine 0 122 140 173 196
interdiction,
operations,
maintenance, and
procurement
Automation 0 217 219 225 229
modernization,
Customs and Border
Protection
Automation 0 0 40 40 40
modernization,
Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement
Aviation security 0 0 3,724 4,577 4,985
Construction, 0 235 89 92 93
Customs and Border
Protection
Construction, 0 27 27 26 27
Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement
Customs and border 5,180 0 0 0 0
protection
Federal Protective 0 418 451 478 487
Service
Federal air 0 466 622 663 689
marshals
Immigration and 2,240 0 0 0 0
Customs
Enforcement
Office for 868 0 0 0 0
Domestic
Preparedness
Refunds, 0 0 85 89 98
transfers, and
expenses of
operation, Puerto
Rico
Salaries and 88 95 106 96 116
expenses
Salaries and 0 4,928 4,569 4,728 4,940
expenses, Customs
and Border
Protection
Department of Border and Salaries and 0 1,560 1,892 2,322 2,759
Homeland Transportation expenses,
Security b Security Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement
Salaries and 0 0 0 0 848
expenses, Office
of Screening,
Coordination and
Operations
Surface 0 0 261 115 32
transportation
security
Transportation 3,677 5,393 0 0 0
Security
Transportation 0 0 593 712 545
security support
United States 0 380 328 340 0
visitor and
immigrant status
indicator
technology
Citizenship and Citizenship and 37 3 0 0 0
Immigration Immigration
Services Services
Departmental Counterterrorism 40 160 10 8 10
Management Fund
Department-wide 69 47 131 156 213
technology
investments
Departmental 72 16 142 176 253
Operations
Firefighter 0 0 0 0 500
assistance grants
State and local 0 3,466 3,268 3,090 2,895
programs
Emergency Administrative and 0 0 30 48 62
Preparedness regional
and Response operations
Operating Expenses 1,257 218 0 0 0
Preparedness, 0 0 0 35 50
mitigation,
response, and
recovery
Public health 0 0 84 34 34
programs
Information Operating Expenses 153 185 0 0 0
Analysis and
Infrastructure
Protection
Assessments and 0 0 710 762 669
evaluation
Department of Information Management and 0 0 124 132 204
Homeland Analysis and administration
Security b Infrastructure
Protection
Science and Research, 152 521 874 1,047 1,296
Technology development,
acquisitions and
operations
United States Operating Expenses 1,878 2,568 2,230 2,460 2,625
Coast Guard
Acquisition, 0 443 544 555 734
construction, and
improvements
Capital 387 0 0 0 0
Acquisitions
Research, 0 9 8 5 0
development, test,
and evaluation
Reserve training 0 48 44 54 56
Retired Pay 366 506 493 526 499
United States Salaries and 885 1,004 1,059 1,095 1,117
Secret Service expenses
Acquisition, 3 3 3 3 3
construction,
improvements, and
related expenses
Department of Military Military 0 170 31 16 40
Defense Construction construction, Air
Force
Military 0 185 23 0 0
construction, Army
Military 0 0 3 0 0
construction, Army
National Guard
Military 1 6 8 15 31
construction,
Defense-wide
Military 54 363 63 58 76
construction, Navy
Military Military 876 1,017 1,245 1,478 1,540
Personnel personnel, Air
Force
Military 558 525 568 637 659
personnel, Army
Military 378 420 473 553 579
personnel, Marine
Corps
Military 238 494 506 514 556
personnel, Navy
National Guard 135 135 143 101 105
personnel, Air
Force
Department of Military National Guard 105 100 526 592 624
Defense Personnel personnel, Army
Reserve personnel, 75 76 42 5 5
Air Force
Reserve personnel, 370 367 350 377 391
Army
Reserve personnel, 4 4 3 4 4
Marine Corps
Reserve personnel, 55 79 85 80 92
Navy
Operation and Defense health 17 18 10 17 16
Maintenance program
Office of the 4 4 4 6 6
Inspector General
Operation and 278 1,064 324 168 151
maintenance, Air
Force
Operation and 0 1 38 51 50
maintenance, Air
Force Reserve
Operation and 45 55 48 49 51
maintenance, Air
National Guard
Operation and 444 502 575 551 697
maintenance, Army
Operation and 28 48 83 108 168
maintenance, Army
National Guard
Operation and 31 43 42 41 61
maintenance, Army
Reserve
Operation and 118 118 131 634 762
maintenance,
Defense-wide
Operation and 59 259 68 78 77
maintenance,
Marine Corps
Operation and 425 1,001 728 745 797
maintenance, Navy
Operation and 9 72 28 41 27
maintenance, Navy
Reserve
Department of Procurement Aircraft 72 0 0 0 0
Defense procurement, Army
Other procurement, 231 202 121 395 415
Air Force
Other procurement, 111 553 105 208 125
Army
Other procurement, 124 217 191 334 481
Navy
Procurement of 0 32 38 42 74
ammunition, Navy
and Marine Corps
Procurement, 10 62 105 168 247
Defense-wide
Procurement, 32 9 5 11 8
Marine Corps
Weapons 0 29 45 127 205
procurement, Navy
Research, Research, 17 7 6 18 18
Development, development, test,
Test, and and evaluation,
Evaluation Air Force
Research, 0 42 28 0 0
development, test,
and evaluation,
Army
Research, 238 140 185 312 334
development, test,
and evaluation,
Defense-wide
Research, 14 23 48 32 41
development, test,
and evaluation,
Navy
Revolving and National defense 3 0 0 0 0
Management stockpile
Funds transaction fund
Department of Agricultural Salaries and 60 12Emergency 21 0.0 300.0 690.0
Agriculture Research expenses Preparedness
Service and Response
National
Archives and
Records
Administration
1.1 Buildings and 115Protecting 14310.0 10 10.1 12116.0 6217.1
facilities Critical
Infrastructure and
Key Assets
Animal and Salaries and 256$10.0 197$10.1 303 $16.0 368$17.1 436$20.2
Plant Health expenses Total
Inspection
Service
National Buildings and 14Protecting 01.0 0 0.0 00.0 00.0
Capital facilities Critical
Planning Infrastructure and
Commission Key Assets
Department of Cooperative Extension 0$1.0 320.0 31 0.0 310.0 310.0
Agriculture State Research, activities Total
Education, and
Extension
Service
National Integrated 0Protecting 0250.6 8 257.5 9312.9 30315.3
Science activities Critical
Foundation Infrastructure and
Key Assets
Research and 09.0 027.0 0 27.0 027.0 527.0
education
activities
Defending Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Departmental Agriculture 6 $284.5 8$339.9 8 $342.3 8$344.2 14
Administration buildings and
Total facilities $259.6
Departmental 10.0 10.2 3 0.6 20.6 20.6
administration
Emergency
Preparedness and
Response
Economic Economic Research 037.9 050.0 1 39.6 139.2 1
Research Service 42.9
Service
Protecting
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending Executive Executive 016.2 019.0 0 21.2 1 1
Against Operations 0.0 operations 8.9
Catastrophic
Threats
$42.9 $47.0 Office of the 4$59.2 9$61.0 13 11Office of 13
Chief Information Personnel
Officer $66.8 Management
Emergency Food Safety and Salaries and 152.5 92.5 13 3.3 19 39
Preparedness Inspection expenses 0.0
and Response Service 0.8
1.8 Office of the Office of the 810.5 00.5 0 0 0Total
Secretary 3.0 Secretary 0.5
Department of Departmental Salaries and 9$3.8 11 9 Postal Service 10 10
Commerce $3.0 Management $3.0 expenses $3.0
Office of the 0 0 1 Emergency 1180.5 10.0
Inspector General Preparedness and
Response
0.0 0.0 Working capital 8 9Protecting 10 406.5 80.0 90.0
fund Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
0.0 Bureau of Operations and 58Total 64$587.0 60 0.0 610.0 70$503.0
Industry and administration
Security
International Operations and 1 0Protecting 0 0.0 05.0 05.0
Trade administration Critical
Administration Infrastructure
Securities and and Key Assets
Exchange
Commission
5.0 National Scientific and 21Total 160.0 17 $5.0 59$5.0 63$5.0
Institute of technical research
Standards and and services
Technology
National Operations, 9 9Protecting 6 90.4 1482.8 1978.3
Oceanic and research, and Critical
Atmospheric facilities Infrastructure
Administration and Key Assets
Smithsonian
Institution
86.6 Procurement, 10Total 2$90.4 21 $82.8 14$78.3 12$75.0
acquisition, and
construction
Department of U.S. Patent and Salaries and 2 0Emergency 0 0.0 00.0 00.3
Commerce Trademark expenses Preparedness
Office Social and Response
Security
Administration
Department of Departmental Office of the 0Protecting 0121.0 0 132.0 1142.1 1155.0
Education 0.7 Management Inspector General Critical
Infrastructure and
Key Assets
Office for Civil 00.0 00.0 1 1.0 33.7 24.2
Rights Domestic
Counterterrorism
Total Program 0$132.0 6$143.4 6 $159.4 15$177.5 15
administration
$121.0
Student Federal direct 07.0 08.0 0 8.0 38.0 08.7
Financial student loan
Assistance program account
Protecting
Critical
Infrastructure and
Key Assets
Total Student aid 0$8.0 0$8.0 1 $8.0 3$8.7 5
administration$7.0
Department of Departmental Departmental 0 31 26 26 35
Energy Administration administration
13,576.2 Energy Programs Energy supply 017,566.1 019,285.7 0 25 12Emergency
17,030.0 15,931.5 Preparedness and
Response
6,145.4 6,003.0 Federal Energy 26,121.9 1 1 1Protecting 19,944.1
Regulatory Critical
Commission 5,765.6 Infrastructure
and Key Assets
12,281.7 14,940.2 Science 15,632.5 50 49 47 Domestic 673,557.8 693,031.8
Counterterrorism
3,944.7 Environmental Defense 208 265Defending 0 570.7 02,629.5 02,974.9
and Other environmental Against
Defense restoration and Catastrophic
Activities waste management Threats
4,468.8
3,898.3 Defense site 54Intelligence and 55114.7 295 211.2 263242.3 287349.9
acceleration Warning
completion
Other defense 107258.6 93118.3 159 9.6 136 49.8 143104.5
activities Other
National Defense nuclear 0$42,447.9 84$40,834.7 0 $46,015.6 8$49,943.7 63
Nuclear nonproliferation
Security $32,882.8
Administration
Total
Notes: Gross Percentages may Weapons activities 789bDHS was not 819Overseas 820 Prior to the 1,020Table 6: 1,039Dollars in
budget not add to 100 aExcludes amounts established until Combating September 11 Gross Budget millions
authority percent because in fiscal years fiscal year 2003. Terrorism attacks, OMB's Authority for
includes of rounding. 2004 ($0.9 Fiscal year 2002 annual report to Overseas
offsetting billion) and 2005 data shown for DHS Congress on Combating
collections ($2.5 billion) for represents funding combating Terrorism-by
from fee-funded DHS's Project for agency programs terrorism made Summarized
activities. BioShield. and activities that no distinction Agency
eventually were between domestic
transferred to the and overseas
new department. 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.5 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.
Power Marketing Bonneville Power 7 10 11 11FY 2002 11
Administration Administration
fund
FY 2004 Construction, 3 2Gross budget 4 Percent of 5 4Gross budget
rehabilitation, authority total authority
operation and
maintenance,
Western Area Power
Administration
Department of Departmental General 1,515 2,287Department 2,114 9,012 2,17079 2,308
Health and Management departmental of Defense
Human Services Gross budget management Percent
authority of total
71 Administration Children and 171 1 1 Department of 1316 13
for Children families services Energy
and Families programs 8,255
Department of Centers for Disease control, 16255 202 20 21Other 212,137
Health and Disease Control research, and agencies
Human Services and Prevention training
253 2
Centers for Federal hospital 26 103,116 11 27 8 9Total
Medicare and insurance trust
Medicaid fund 27
Services 3,248
100 Food and Drug Salaries and 164100 165 183 $11,626 223100 253
Administration expenses $12,129
Health Health resources 1 1Estimated FY 1 1Requested FY 1
Resources and and services 2005 2006
Services
Administration
Indian Health Indian Health 15 13Gross budget 13 Percent of 17 17Average annual
Services Gross Services Percent authority total percentagechange
budget of total 2002-2005
authority
7,358 National National 1617,861 1,63367 1,703 1,774-6.54 1,781
Institutes of Institutes of
Health 67 Health
3 Program Support HHS service and 143 14 14 1.46 14 163,375
Center supply fund 373
Department of Management and Salaries and 1 216.45 2 2$11,063 2100
Housing and Administration expenses 30
Urban 3,511
Development
Department of Bureau of Salaries and 365 359 352 Source: GAO 351Notes: 370Percentages
Justice $11,745 Alcohol, expenses analysis of Gross budget may not add to
Tobacco, agency data as authority 100 percent
Firearms and reported in includes because of
Explosives 100 OMB's MAX offsetting rounding.
database. collections
from
fee-funded
activities.
Table 7: Gross Drug Salaries and 24 40FY 2002 22 22FY 2003 22
Budget Enforcement expenses
Authority for Administration
Overseas Dollars in
Combating millions
Terrorism-by
Agency
Federal Bureau Salaries and 1,158Requested FY 1,397 1,253 1,736 2,099Gross
of expenses 2006 budget authority
Investigation
Estimated FY
2005
Gross budget Construction 0 0Gross budget 0 Percent of 3 4Gross budget
authority Percent of total authority total authority
Gross budget Foreign terrorist 0Average annual 62 61 Department of 09,012 079
authority tracking task percentage change Defense
force Percent of 2002-2005
total
8,628 Federal Prison Salaries and 328,255 3571 37 387,358 3967
System 71 expenses
Department of General Salaries and 18 20Department of 14 316 253 35
Justice 7,861 Administration expenses -6.54 Energy
67
2 Administrative 52 13 15 330 153 16
review and appeals
255
3 1.46 Counterterrorism 5Department of 211,547 0 13 0 01,560
fund State
1,677 Justice 18 251,728 24 16 25 842,078
information
sharing technology
14
Department of General Narrowband 840 640 102 992 1290
Justice 3.76 Administration communications
Executive Office
of the President
2 0 Office of 02 40 3 30 30
Inspector General
Legal Salaries and 190 35 35 56 380 42
Activities and expenses, General
U.S. Marshals Legal Activities
Intelligence 19
Community
Management
Account
0 Salaries and 721 78 78 82 991 8667.94
expenses, United
States Attorneys
90
International 571 Salaries and 44 721,630 64 13 74 851,419
Assistance expenses, United
Programs States Marshals
Service 5
Office of Community oriented 3 781,351 88 12 9939.65 0
Justice policing services
Programs 1,555 14
$11,465 100 Justice assistance 46$12,129 46100 30 39$11,626 90100
$11,063 100 State and local 251$11,745 0100 3 13 0Source: GAO
law enforcement analysis of
assistance agency data as
reported in
OMB's MAX
database.
Department of Departmental Salaries and 45The National 27 o 13 15 o Border 11
Labor Management expenses Appendix Strategy for Intelligence and
Percentages may II: The National Homeland Security and warning transportation
not add to 100 Strategy for sets out a plan to involves the security
percent because Homeland improve combating identification, emphasizes the
of rounding. Security's terrorism collection, efficient and
Critical Mission domestically analysis, and reliable flow
Areas Appendix II: through the distribution of of people,
The National cooperation and intelligence goods, and
Strategy for partnering of information material
Homeland federal, state, appropriate for across borders
Security's local, and private preempting or while
Critical Mission sector preventing a deterring
Areas organizations on an terrorist terrorist
array of functions. attack. activity.
The strategy
organizes these
functions into six
critical mission
areas:
o Protecting Office of the 1 o Defending 0 0 o Emergency 0 0
critical Inspector General against preparedness and
infrastructure catastrophic response
and key assets threats emphasizes highlights
stresses the detection, damage
securing the deterrence, and minimization and
nation's mitigation of recovery from
interconnecting terrorist use of terrorist
sectors and weapons of mass attacks.
important destruction.
facilities,
sites, and
structures.
Appendix III: As part of our Working capital 0In response to 4Section 889 of 15 In addition, 18Finally, 14Despite these
Reporting work, we fund Enacted on section 889's the Homeland section 889 section 889 of changes, OMB
Changes as a examined the November 25, 2002, changes, OMB began Security Act required that the Homeland staff report
Result of the statutory the Homeland showing homeland also required OMB include in Security Act still facing
Homeland changes in Security Act of security funding OMB to include the President's of 2002 challenges in
Security Act of requirements 2002 established data by agency, by the most recent annual budget an accelerated tracking
2002 and for reporting the Department of budget function, by risk assessment estimate of the the timeline activities
Challenges OMB combating Homeland Security account, and by and summary of user fees for reporting related to
Reports terrorism and, among other each of the six homeland collected by the funding data combating
Continuing to activities that things, changed critical mission security needs federal by requiring terrorism
Face Appendix occurred as the OMB's requirements areas established in each government to OMB to report funding data and
III: Reporting result of the for reporting in the National initiative area help offset funding data ensuring the
Changes as a passage of the funding data Strategy for in the expenses related in the transparency of
Result of the Homeland related to Homeland Security President's to homeland President's related funding
Homeland Security Act of combating in the Analytical annual budget.7 security budget, which data. OMB staff
Security Act of 2002.1 This terrorism.2 Perspectives of the OMB's prior activities, such must be said that the
2002 and appendix Section 889 of the President's fiscal reporting as the submitted to creation of DHS
Challenges OMB provides Homeland Security year 2005 budget. requirements Transportation Congress by helped minimize
Reports additional Act of 2002 OMB also included required that Security the first the difficulties
Continuing to background on repealed the NDAA narrative OMB report on Administration's Monday in they face in
Face the act, as reporting descriptions of the amounts passenger February.8 ensuring the
well as the requirements in major activities expended by security fees, Under its transparency of
challenges OMB favor of new and the executive which are added previous related funding
continues to reporting administration's agencies on to airline reporting data and
face in requirements. In priorities in this combating passengers' requirement, tracking
tracking particular, section of the terrorism ticket costs. To OMB was activities
combating section 889 Analytical activities, as meet this required to related to
terrorism required the Perspectives. To well as the requirement, OMB issue a combating
activities and President's budget present funding specific included a table separate terrorism, since
ensuring the to include an data for homeland programs and for users' fees stand-alone the creation of
transparency of analysis of security activities activities for by major report on DHS resulted in
related funding "homeland security by critical mission which funds cabinet-level combating approximately 60
data. funding," which it area, OMB included were expended, department terrorism to percent of
defined by a table for each while section displaying the Congress by homeland
reference to OMB's critical mission 889 explicitly related budget March 1 of security funding
2002 report as area displaying mandates a risk authority in the each year. OMB being merged
activities to budget authority assessment and Analytical complied with into funding for
detect, deter, for 3 fiscal years summary of Perspectives the new one agency at
protect against, (prior year, resource needs that accompanied timeline for the time DHS
and if needed, current year, and in each the President's the fiscal became
respond to budget year initiative fiscal years years 2005 and operational.
terrorist attacks request). area. According 2005 and 2006 2006 Although OMB is
occurring within to OMB staff, budgets. President's no longer
the United States. OMB does not budget. required to
OMB's definition have the report on
of homeland expertise or funding data
security the staff to related to
activities conduct overseas
included separate risk combating
activities that assessments, terrorism
the agency had not and it relies activities, OMB
previously treated on the risk staff said that
as combating assessments of many of the
terrorism. Under each individual difficulties
section 889, OMB agency to cited in our
is required to determine areas 2002 report
report only on of high risk in still apply and
funding for order to meet that they will
homeland security this most likely
by agency, budget requirement. always face
function (i.e., these
functions that challenges.9 For
cover 17 areas of example, OMB
the government staff reported
such as that they are
agriculture and still challenged
health),3 and by the large
initiative areas.4 number of
OMB staff said agencies
that although they involved in
do not report on combating
funding related to terrorism
overseas combating activities. To
terrorism data, obtain
they still collect information
it as part of the needed to
annual budget. fulfill its
Because there is reporting
no longer a requirements
requirement to related to
report on overseas funding data,
combating OMB has to
terrorism funding interact with 32
data, OMB staff other agencies
said that they are and the District
not reviewing the of Columbia that
information that have
agencies provide responsibilities
to them.5 In to combat
addition, the terrorism in
definition of addition to DHS.
overseas combating OMB staff also
terrorism said that it
activities in OMB will always
Circular No. A-11 require
has not changed significant
since 2003. As a effort to
result, OMB staff identify funding
said that data on for combating
overseas combating terrorism
terrorism funding activities,
data are not since such
necessarily valid funding is often
and could be subsumed in
misleading.6 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.10
Appendix IV: A Bureau of Labor Salaries and 7 9 8 9 9
Summary of Statistics expenses The
Selected Hundreds of activities
Accounts with budget accounts included in all 34
Combating include of the accounts
Terrorism activities that we reviewed
Activities related to were consistent
Appendix IV: A combating with OMB's
Summary of terrorism. The definitions of
Selected following homeland security
Accounts with summarizes 15 and overseas
Combating of the 34 combating
Terrorism accounts we terrorism as
Activities reviewed. The defined in OMB
funding levels Circular No.
shown in these A-11.2
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.1 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.
Employee Salaries and Combating 1 1 0 0
benefits expenses Terrorism0Combating
security TerrorismCombating
administration TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating
Terrorism
Employment Salaries and 5 8 6 6 4
Standards expenses
Administration
Employment and Program 8 3 0 2 2
Training administration
Administration
Employment and State unemployment 0 8 0 0 0
Training insurance and
Administration employment service
operations
Mine Safety and Salaries and 3 2 2 1 1
Health expenses
Administration
Department of Occupational Salaries and 4 4 5 2 2
Labor Safety and expenses
Health
Administration
Pension Benefit Pension benefit 5 4 3 3 4
Guaranty guaranty
Corporation corporation fund
Department of Administration Capital investment 0 0 0 0 3
State of Foreign fund
Affairs
Centralized 0 0 0 3 0
information
technology
modernization
program
Diplomatic and 452 634 682 806 923
consular programs
Educational and 0 0 0 0 2
cultural exchange
programs
Other International 25 0 15 15 10
narcotics control
and law
enforcement
Department of Office of the Salaries and 2 7 13 9 9
Transportation Secretary expenses
Federal Facilities and 393 236 86 60 63
Aviation equipment (Airport
Administration and airway trust
fund)
Grants-in-aid for 175 0 0 0 0
airports (Airport
and airway trust
fund)
Operations 463 94 145 111 118
Research, 103 0 0 0 0
engineering, and
development
(airport and
airway trust fund)
Trust fund share 200 0 0 0 0
of FAA operations
Federal Motor Border enforcement 19 0 0 0 0
Carrier Safety program
Administration
Federal Safety and 6 1 1 1 1
Railroad operations
Administration
Federal Transit Administrative 1 1 1 1 1
Administration expenses
Capital investment 1 2 2 0 0
grants
Department of Federal Transit Formula grants 51 34 34 0 0
Transportation Administration
Transit planning 2 5 1 0 0
and research
Pipeline and Research and 3 2 2 0 0
Hazardous special programs
Materials
Safety
Administration
Saint Lawrence Operations and 1 0 0 0 0
Seaway maintenance
Development
Corporation
Department of Departmental General 2 4 5 7 8
Veterans Administration administration
Affairs
Benefits Burial 0 1 1 1 1
Programs administration
Disability 0 3 4 4 5
compensation
administration
Disability 1 0 0 0 0
compensation
benefits
Education 0 0 1 1 1
administration
Housing program 0 1 1 2 2
account
Pensions 0 1 1 1 1
administration
Vocational 0 0 1 1 1
rehabilitation and
employment
administration
Medical Medical 0 0 243 243 250
Programs administration
Medical facilities 0 0 0 4 15
Medical services 46 144 15 17 16
Department of Departmental Salaries and 8 1 0 1 1
the Interior Management expenses
Bureau of Land Management of 1 1 0 0 0
Management lands and
resources
Bureau of Water and related 33 25 23 26 18
Reclamation resources
National Park Construction and 22 6 24 0 0
Service major maintenance
Operation of the 14 7 13 14 14
national park
system
Department of National Park United States Park 27 13 20 21 22
the Interior Service Police
United States Resource 1 0 0 0 0
Fish and management
Wildlife
Service
United States Surveys, 2 1 2 3 2
Geological investigations,
Survey and research
Department of Departmental Salaries and 10 11 11 13 17
the Treasury Offices expenses
Departmentwide 4 5 5 5 6
systems and
capital
investments
programs
Treasury Inspector 4 3 5 5 5
General for Tax
Administration
Financial Salaries and 4 6 9 15 17
Crimes expenses
Enforcement
Network
Financial Salaries and 9 9 10 11 12
Management expenses
Service
Internal Information 29 8 0 0 0
Revenue Service systems
Processing, 21 15 0 0 0
assistance, and
management
Tax administration 35 23 51 53 54
and operations
Corporation for Corporation for Domestic volunteer 11 8 13 9 7
National and National and service programs,
Community Community operating expenses
Service Service
Corporation for Corporation for National and 18 9 10 8 13
National and National and community service
Community Community programs,
Service Service operating expenses
Corps of Corps of Flood control, 0 1 0 0 0
Engineers-Civil Engineers-Civil Mississippi River
Works Works and tributaries,
Arkansas,
Illinois,
Kentucky,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri, and
Tennessee
Corps of Corps of Operation and 139 74 102 89 72
Engineers-Civil Engineers-Civil maintenance
Works Works
District of District of Federal payment 213 15 11 15 15
Columbia Columbia for emergency
General and planning and
Special security cost in
Payments the District of
Columbia
Federal support 0 10 8 0 0
for economic
development and
management reforms
in the District
Environmental Environmental Buildings and 0 11 11 11 12
Protection Protection facilities
Agency Agency
Environmental 42 8 20 21 23
programs and
management
Hazardous 45 89 43 37 51
substance
superfund
Science and 95 21 52 33 94
technology
State and tribal 5 5 5 5 5
assistance grants
Executive Executive Office of National 0 0 0 0 1
Office of the Office of the Drug Control
President President Policy
Office of Science 0 0 1 1 0
and Technology
Policy
The White House 140 41 34 29 21
Federal Federal Salaries and 0 1 1 2 4
Communications Communications expenses
Commission Commission
General General Operating expenses 4 2 2 2 3
Services Activities
Administration
Governmentwide 0 4 4 4 4
policy
Real Property Federal buildings 93 61 73 59 73
Activities fund
Intelligence Intelligence Intelligence 0 0 1 72 56
Community Community Community
Management Management Management Account
Account Account
National National Exploration 0 0 119 130 113
Aeronautics and Aeronautics and capabilities
Space Space
Administration Administration
Human space flight 150 122 0 0 0
Science, 73 83 0 0 0
Aeronautics, and
Technology
Science, 0 0 88 88 92
aeronautics, and
exploration
National National Operating expenses 9 10 16 17 20
Archives and Archives and
Records Records
Administration Administration
Repairs and 1 0 0 0 0
restoration
National National Salaries and 1 0 0 0 0
Capital Capital expenses
Planning Planning
Commission Commission
National National Salaries and 0 2 3 2 5
Science Science expenses
Foundation Foundation
Education and 30 12 16 14 10
human resources
Research and 229 271 321 326 329
related activities
Nuclear Nuclear Salaries and 43 47 67 59 61
Regulatory Regulatory expenses
Commission Commission
Office of Office of Salaries and 2 3 3 3 4
Personnel Personnel expenses
Management Management
Postal Service Postal Service Payment to Postal 587 0 0 503 0
Service fund
Securities and Securities and Salaries and 0 5 5 5 5
Exchange Exchange expenses
Commission Commission
Smithsonian Smithsonian Salaries and 60 61 48 50 52
Institution Institution expenses
Construction, JFK 5 1 5 1 0
Center for the
Performing Arts
Facilities capital 2 0 2 0 11
Smithsonian Smithsonian Operations and 7 3 4 4 4
Institution Institution maintenance, JFK
Center for the
Performing Arts
Salaries and 17 18 19 20 20
expenses, National
Gallery of Art
Social Security Social Security Office of the 0 0 1 4 4
Administration Administration Inspector General
Limitation on 121 132 142 156 173
administrative
expenses
United States United States Holocaust Memorial 7 8 8 8 9
Holocaust Holocaust Museum
Memorial Museum Memorial Museum
Total $32,884 $42,449 $40,837 $46,015 $49,942
Dollars $22,923.4 $24,886.6 $27,332.3 Total $23,063.5
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
Dollars
in
millions
$17,380.2
Bureau Account Account FY 2002FY FY 2003FY FY 2004aFY Estimated FY Requested FY
Bureau Account Account 2002FY 2003FY 2004aFY 2005aEstimated 2006Requested
Bureau Account Account 2002FY 2003FY 2004aFY FY FY
Bureau Account 2002FY 2003FY 2004aFY 2005aEstimated 2006Requested
Bureau Emergency 2002FY 2003FY 2004aFY FY FY
Bureau Preparedness and 2002FY 2003FY 2004aFY 2005aEstimated 2006Requested
Bureau Response 2002242.0 2003213.0 2004a333.5 FY FY
2005aEstimated 2006Requested
FY FY
2005aEstimated 2006Requested
FY FY
2005aEstimated 2006Requested
FY 2005a469.0 FY 2006651.4
Department of Homeland Securityb
Border and 11,770.0 16,028.2 15,032.4 16,576.4 18,207.2
Transportation
Security
Emergency 2,099.4 3,256.0 3,049.0 2,655.8 2,725.8
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 1,163.7 1,990.0 2,128.3 2,585.9 2,820.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Domestic 1,994.4 1,184.3 1,703.7 1,867.0 2,008.8
Counterterrorism
Defending 147.0 491.0 774.0 936.1 1,212.1
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Intelligence and 102.7 86.4 236.0 226.4 262.4
Warning
Other 103.0 27.6 0.0 39.0 96.0
Department of Defense
Protecting 4,784.0 8,124.0 6,543.8 7,916.9 8,700.8
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 133.0 105.0 146.8 178.2 158.9
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.4
Total $5,159.0 $8,442.0 $7,024.1 $8,570.1 $9,513.5
Department of Agriculture
Border and 92.7 143.2 147.9 163.1 164.2
Transportation
Security
Emergency 47.0 50.8 57.3 57.2 70.9
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 412.3 60.5 36.8 150.6 129.3
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 0.0 154.6 168.2 222.7 317.1
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Intelligence and 0.6 0.8 0.8 6.3 22.3
Warning
Total $552.6 $409.9 $411.0 $599.9 $703.8
Department of Commerce
Emergency 17.5 15.2 32.2 32.5 35.7
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 40.6 32.5 32.4 60.9 62.9
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 57.5 63.9 60.0 73.4 84.7
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Total $115.6 $111.6 $124.6 $166.8 $183.3
Department of Education
Emergency 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 0.0 5.0 7.7 23.4 22.2
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total 0.0 $5.7 $8.0 $23.7 $22.8
Department of Energy
Emergency 116.3 120.9 107.6 98.4 122.1
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 1,088.9 1,203.4 1,256.3 1,456.1 1,481.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 0.0 84.0 0.0 7.5 62.8
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Other 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total $1,220.2 $1,408.3 $1,363.9 $1,562.0 $1,665.9
Department of Health and Human Services
Emergency 1,515.4 2,297.8 2,145.4 2,160.4 2,264.8
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 206.9 182.3 162.8 168.4 170.3
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 192.4 1,664.4 1,754.1 1,901.9 1,971.5
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Total $1,914.7 $4,144.5 $4,062.3 $4,230.7 $4,406.6
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Emergency 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 1.9
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $1.0 $1.6 $1.7 $2.0 $1.9
Department of Justice
Border and 14.1 25.4 20.1 34.5 20.8
Transportation
Security
Emergency 259.2 11.0 97.4 111.0 10.2
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 337.2 354.8 411.7 455.8 566.1
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Domestic 1,507.4 1,805.9 1,620.8 1,999.1 2,372.8
Counterterrorism
Defending 16.1 30.7 28.6 33.5 43.0
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Intelligence and 9.2 121.7 2.0 44.2 90.9
Warning
Total $2,143.2 $2,349.5 $2,180.6 $2,678.1 $3,103.8
Department of Labor
Emergency 5.4 5.3 6.3 6.9 7.7
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 71.8 64.3 46.4 49.3 40.4
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $77.2 $69.6 $52.7 $56.2 $48.1
Department of State
Border and 451.0 591.8 663.9 778.2 878.4
Transportation
Security
Emergency 1.0 8.0 1.0 6.8 19.6
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 13.8 34.3 31.6 39.2 40.2
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Defending 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Total $476.8 $634.1 $696.5 $824.2 $938.2
Department of Transportation
Border and 1,240.4 241.4 67.2 13.9 15.1
Transportation
Security
Emergency 18.7 12.4 15.2 10.8 13.2
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 136.3 128.1 180.1 137.0 141.2
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Domestic 19.0 1.0 21.0 20.0 22.0
Counterterrorism
Defending 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Total $1,419.1 $382.9 $283.5 $181.7 $191.5
Department of Veterans Affairs
Emergency 19.2 54.3 32.1 37.6 36.6
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 29.8 100.0 239.2 242.8 262.3
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $49.0 $154.3 $271.3 $280.4 $298.9
Department of the Interior
Emergency 3.5 3.6 1.6 4.0 4.0
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 103.7 51.1 81.4 61.1 53.3
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $107.2 $54.7 $83.0 $65.1 $57.3
Department of the Treasury
Border and 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Transportation
Security
Emergency 36.4 15.1 30.7 34.5 37.3
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 33.1 21.9 12.0 11.5 11.7
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Domestic 37.0 40.6 45.2 54.9 61.0
Counterterrorism
Intelligence and 2.2 2.3 2.5 0.6 0.6
Warning
Total $116.7 $79.9 $90.4 $101.5 $110.6
Corporation for National and Community Service
Emergency 29.0 16.3 22.8 17.0 20.4
Preparedness and
Response
Total $29.0 $16.3 $22.8 $17.0 $20.4
Corps of Engineers-Civil Works
Emergency 39.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 100.0 75.0 101.5 88.0 71.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $139.0 $75.0 $101.5 $89.0 $72.0
District of Columbia
Emergency 187.0 25.0 19.0 15.0 15.0
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $213.0 $25.0 $19.0 $15.0 $15.0
Environmental Protection Agency
Emergency 42.5 38.0 41.5 35.6 68.7
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 144.3 45.3 89.0 70.0 114.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Other 0.6 49.7 0.6 1.3 1.7
Total $187.4 $133.0 $131.1 $106.9 $184.4
Executive Office of the President
Emergency 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.2
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 0.0 0.0 24.0 24.0 14.8
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Other 140.0 41.0 9.0 3.5 4.4
Total $140.0 $41.0 $35.0 $29.5 $22.4
Federal Communications Commission
Emergency 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 3.5
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total 0.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.6 $3.5
General Services Administration
Emergency 0.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.6
Preparedness and
Response
Protecting 96.5 65.3 76.9 62.8 77.1
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $97.4 $67.1 $78.9 $65.2 $79.7
Intelligence Community Management Account
Intelligence and 0.0 0.0 1.0 72.4 55.8
Warning
Total 0.0 0.0 $1.0 $72.4 $55.8
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Protecting 223.0 205.0 207.0 218.0 205.0
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Total $223.0 $205.0 $207.0 $218.0 $205.0
Gross budget authority
Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a Estimated FY Requested FY
2005a 2006
Gross budget authority Gross budget authority Gross budget authority Gross
budget authority Gross budget authority Gross budget authority Gross
budget authority
Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency Agency
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from
fee-funded activities.
aExcludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield.
bDHS 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.
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
Dollars in millions
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Estimated FY 2005 Requested
FY 2006
Gross Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent Gross Percent
budget budget budget budget budget
authority authority authority authority authority
Border and 13,576.2 41 17,030.0 40 15,931.5 39 17,566.1 38 19,285.7 39
Transportation
Security
Protecting 9,944.1 30 13,281.7 31 12,281.7 30 14,940.2 32 15,632.5 31
Critical
Infrastructure
and Key Assets
Emergency 4,860.7 15 6,145.4 15 6,003.0 15 5,765.6 13 6,121.9 12
Preparedness and
Response
Domestic 3,557.8 11 3,031.8 7 3,391.7 8 3,944.7 9 4,468.8 9
Counterterrorism
Defending 570.7 2 2,629.5 6 2,974.9 7 3,399.3 7 3,898.3 8
Against
Catastrophic
Threats
Intelligence and 114.7 0 211.2 0 242.3 1 349.9 1 432.0 1
Warning
Other 258.6 1 118.3 0 9.6 0 49.8 0 104.5 0
Total $32,882.8 100 $42,447.9 100 $40,834.7 100 $46,015.6 100 $49,943.7 100
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.
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
0.0
19.1
0.0
317.2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Total
Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets
$2.6
0.0
503.0
0.0
5.0
$5.0
75.0
$86.6
0.7
172.6
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Total
Border and Transportation Security
4,860.7
13,281.7
3,391.7
3,399.3
432.0
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
FY 2003
Percent of total
8,628
19
$11,465
330
31
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.
FY 2004
Percent of total
Percent of total
253
373
13
18
0
18
12
Total
Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from
fee-funded activities.
o Domestic counterterrorism focuses on law enforcement efforts to
identify, halt, prevent, and prosecute terrorists in the United States.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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).
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
IAIP Assessment and
Evaluation (024-90-0911)
Infrastructure Vulnerability 0.0 71.1 74.4
and Risk Assessment
Homeland Security Operations 0.0 35.0 52.1
Center
Analysis and Studies 0.0 18.4 34.5
Threat Determination and 0.0 21.9 19.9
Assessment
Biosurveillance 0.0 11.0 11.2
Other Activities 145.9 0.0 0.0
Total $145.9 $157.4 $192.1
Combating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating TerrorismCombating
TerrorismCombating Terrorism
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY2004enacted FY 2005estimate FY 2006request
CBP Salaries and
Expenses Account
(024-50-0530)
Enforcement 2,179.0 2,283.0 2,377.0
Border Protection 1,388.0 1,459.0 1,519.0
Small Airports 5.0 5.0 5.0
Total $3,572.0 $3,747.0 $3,901.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005estimate FY 2006request
TSA Discretionary Fee
Funded, Salaries and
Expenses Account
(024-50-0550)
Aviation Security 1,884.0 2,330.0 2,410.0
Aviation Security Fee 0.0 0.0 1,479.0
Proposal
Total $1,884.0 $2,330.0 $3,889.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005estimate FY 2006request
US Coast Guard Operating
Expenses Account
(024-60-0610)
Ports, Waterways, and 1,264.9 1,495.6 1,576.2
Coastal Security
Drug Interdiction 586.8 655.7 720.3
Migrant Interdiction 145.7 168.7 181.0
Defense Readiness 166.1 93.6 99.1
Other Law Enforcement 66.0 45.9 48.3
Total $2,229.5b $2,459.5c $2,624.9
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
bSum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2004 supplementals for these
activities totaling $90.6 million.
cSum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2005 supplementals for these
activities totaling $15.8 million.
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:
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005estimate FY 2006request
ICE Salaries and
Expenses Account
(024-50-0540)
Investigations 868.0 1,146.0 1,236.0
Total $868.0 $1,146.0 $1,236.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the
account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission
area Domestic Counterterrorism.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o Protect the Public includes efforts by ATF personnel to safeguard
the public from arson and explosives incidents.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
ATF Salaries and Expenses
(011-14-0700)
Firearms 0.0 266.7 280.5
Arson and Explosives 0.0 72.7 76.5
Alcohol and Tobacco 0.0 6.9 7.3
Reduce Violent Crime 322.5 0.0 0.0
Protect the Public 28.5 0.0 0.0
Total $351.0 $346.3 $364.3
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the
account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission
area Domestic Counterterrorism.
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:
o Counterterrorism Field Investigations includes efforts by the FBI to
lead investigations in countering the threat of terrorism and
preventing violent acts by terrorists.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
FBI Salaries and Expenses
(011-10-0200)
Counter Terrorism Field 475.3 639.3 813.6
Investigations
Equipment/Technology 159.7 186.2 185.6
Counter Terrorism Headquarters 79.2b 153.6 162.9
Coordination
Terrorist Screening Center 0.0 29.0 104.0
Miscellaneous Activities 288.2 389.9 471.9
Total $1,002.4 $1,398.0 $1,738.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the
account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission
area Domestic Counterterrorism.
bSum includes the FBI's fiscal year 2004 supplemental for these activities
totaling $12.3 million.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006 request
estimate
Operating Expenses Account
(024-40-0400)
Domestic Protection of 773.0 792.0 797.2
Persons
Financial and 215.3 232.5 248.0
Infrastructure
Investigations
Domestic Protection of 6.5 6.6 6.7
Government Buildings
Total $994.8 $1,031.1 $1,051.9
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
National Nuclear Security
Administration Weapons
Activities (019-05-0240)
NNSA Safeguards and Security 472.5 615.5 628.7
NNSA Secure Transportation 159.8 199.7 212.1
Asset
NNSA Safety and Security 80.0 99.3 77.8
Cybersecurity
NNSA Safeguards and 0.0 7.2 2.0
Security-HQ Research and
Development
Total $712.3 $921.7 $920.6
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
Federal Properties
Activities/Fee Funded,
Federal Buildings Fund
(023-05-4542)
New Construction 27.0 30.6 26.8
Major Repairs and 21.1 4.8 20.9
Alterations
Building Operations 19.2 19.2 19.2
Minor Repairs and 5.5 4.0 6.0
Alterations
Total $72.8 $58.6 $72.9
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
.
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:
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
Civil Works/Operation and
Maintenance, General
(202-00-3132)
Continuity of Operations 0.0 1.0 1.0
Critical Project Security 101.5 88.0 71.0
Total $101.5 $89.0 $72.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
Agricultural Research
Service, Salaries and
Expenses (005-18-1400)
Research 20.8 30.2 65.6
Total $20.8 $30.2 $65.6
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o Overseas Activities supports efforts by APHIS staff to collect
information on and track foreign pests and animal diseases.
Gross budget authority (dollars in millions)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
Salaries and Expenses
(005-32-1600)
Pest Detection/Animal 139.5 184.62 232.8
Health Monitoring
Overseas Activities 7.9 7.88 18.8
Total $147.4 $192.5 $251.6
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o Biological Countermeasures includes research activities on early
biowarning systems and their future implementation, as well as analysis
and countermeasures of biological threats.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006
estimate request
Science and Technology
Research, Development,
Operations, and Acquisitions
Account (024-80-0800)
Biological Countermeasures 286.5 397.7 362.3
Radiological and Nuclear 127.0 122.6 246.4
Countermeasures
Research and Development 34.0 54.7 220.1
Support to DHS Agencies
Man-Portable Air Defense 60.0 61.0 110.0
Systems Countermeasures Special
Programs
Chemical Countermeasures 52.0 53.0 102.0
Additional Activities with 214.5 247.2 171.3
Fiscal Year 2006 requests of
less than $100 million
Total $774.0 $936.2 $1,212.1
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
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:
o 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.
o 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.
o National Exercise Programs provide funding to support the Top
Officials Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise and other federally
administered terrorism exercises.
o Center for Domestic Preparedness provides funds to train state and
local first responders to operate within a live agent hazardous
environment.
o 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)
FY 2004enacted FY 2005 FY 2006 request
estimate
State and Local Programs
Account (024-10-0560)
State Homeland Security 1,729.0 1,115.0 870.0
Grants
High Threat Urban Area 721.0 885.0 820.0
Grants
National Exercise Programs 46.0 59.0 59.0
Center for Domestic 55.0 55.0 50.0
Preparedness
Miscellaneous Activities 220.0 261.0 96.0
Total $2,771.0 $2,375.0 $1,895.0
Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Database.
aThe 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.
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology 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. 1 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. 2
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). 3
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. 4
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 5 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. 6 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.
Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify
Activities as Combating Terrorism Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most
Commonly Report Using to Identify Activities as Combating Terrorism
Officials at five of the seven agencies 1 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, 2 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. 3 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. 4 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.
Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to DuplicationEffort
and Timely Reporting of Funding D 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. 1
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. 2
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. 3 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, 4 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.
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget Appendix
VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration Appendix
IX: Comments from the General Services Administration
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.
Related GAO Products 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.
(440370)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
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.
Highlights of GAO-06-161 , a report to congressional requesters
January 2006
COMBATING TERRORISM
Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data
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 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.
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.
*** End of document. ***