This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-161 
entitled 'Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal 
Funding Data' which was released on January 17, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

January 2006: 

Combating Terrorism: 

Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data: 

GAO-06-161: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-161, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Presidentís 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 GAOís 2002 report. 

What GAO Found: 

Seven of 34 agencies that reported receiving funding related to 
combating terrorism activities to OMB used different methodologies to 
estimate the portion of their authorized funding that supports such 
activities. These 7 agencies account for about 90 percent of the total 
fiscal year 2006 budget request that the 34 agencies estimate relate to 
combating terrorism. All of these methods involve some level of 
professional judgment. Agencies stated this process is managed through 
OMB oversight and supervisory review. OMB staff said they do not review 
the overseas component of combating terrorism funding data since they 
are no longer required to report it. As a result, Congress does not 
receive OMB-reviewed data on the entirety of counterterrorism funding. 

Three recommendations from GAOís 2002 report have not been implemented. 
The first recommendation requests that OMB include agenciesí obligation 
data in its annual reporting of funding data on combating terrorism. 
OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data but 
said they might consider reporting obligation information for a 
targeted set of accounts. Without obligation data, it is difficult for 
Congress to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still 
available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) whether the 
rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what 
the size of the program is for a particular year and over time. The 
second recommendation was for OMB to direct relevant departments to 
develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures 
and include such measures in the governmentwide plan. Three of the 
seven agencies told us that OMB had not directed them to develop 
performance measures or enhance such measures for combating terrorism 
activities. However, four of the seven agencies had developed such 
measures. OMB staff said they are working with agencies to improve 
performance measurement of government programs related to combating 
terrorism. The development of such measures would assist Congress in 
determining whether funding increases have improved performance 
results. The third recommendation calls for the inclusion of national-
level and federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance 
measures in supplements to existing strategies and their future 
revisions. There have been no supplements or revisions to the existing 
strategies that include governmentwide or national-level combating 
terrorism measures. 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO continues to believe its prior recommendations are still valid and, 
if implemented, would provide OMB and Congress with additional insights 
for budget decisions and help them determine whether funding increases 
for combating terrorism have improved performance results. In 
commenting on a draft of the report, OMB objected to the use of 
overseas combating terrorism funding data because they do not review 
it. Congress should consider requiring OMB to report on overseas 
combating terrorism funding data. Other agencies commenting on the 
draft report had no comment, concurred, or provided technical comments. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-161. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones at (202) 
512-8777 or jonespl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the 
Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities: 

Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional 
Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance: 

Conclusions: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and 
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities: 

Appendix II: The National Strategy for Homeland Security's Critical 
Mission Areas: 

Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face: 

Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism 
Activities: 

Appendix V: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify 
Activities as Combating Terrorism: 

Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of 
Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Summarized 
Agency: 

Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency: 

Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency, 
Bureau, and Account: 

Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area: 

Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security Mission 
Area: 

Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by 
Summarized Agency: 

Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by 
Agency: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: GSA's Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget 
Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That Relate to 
Homeland Security: 

Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of 
Budget Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to 
Homeland Security: 

Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity 
Relates to Homeland Security: 

Abbreviations: 

APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

ARS: Agricultural Research Service: 

ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

DOJ: Department of Justice: 

FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

IAIP: Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection: 

ICE: Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act: 

NSC: National Security Council: 

OCT: Overseas Combating Terrorism: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool: 

SLGCP: Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
Preparedness: 

TSA: Transportation Security Administration: 

USACE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

USCG: U.S. Coast Guard: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

USSS: United States Secret Service: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Washington, DC 20548: 

January 17, 2006: 

The Honorable Jon Kyl: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on the Judiciary: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby: 
United States Senate: 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration 
and Congress have increased funding in support of combating terrorism 
both at home and abroad. According to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), combating terrorism includes efforts to secure the 
homeland (that is, homeland security activities to detect, deter, 
protect against, and, if needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring 
within the United States) and those to combat terrorism overseas (those 
activities occurring outside the United States and its territories), 
excluding direct military action.[Footnote 1] Between fiscal years 2002 
and 2005, funding attributed to homeland security activities increased 
39 percent, from $33 billion in fiscal year 2002 to $46 billion for 
fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the President requested nearly 
$50 billion for activities associated with homeland security. In 
addition, Congress appropriated funding that agencies also attributed 
to overseas combating terrorism activities. However, OMB is no longer 
required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding 
data.[Footnote 2] 

In response to the September 11 attacks and the resulting emphasis 
placed on combating terrorism, Congress took legislative action to 
revise reporting requirements related to federal funding for combating 
terrorism activities. Under section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002, the President's annual budget is required to include an analysis 
of homeland security funding.[Footnote 3] This analysis is to be 
organized by budget function (i.e., functions that cover 17 areas of 
the government such as agriculture and health), agency, and initiative 
area. According to OMB staff responsible for preparing this analysis on 
behalf of the President, OMB adopted the six critical mission areas 
captured in the National Strategy for Homeland Security--Intelligence 
and Warning, Border and Transportation Security, Domestic 
Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets, 
Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency Preparedness and 
Response--to represent initiative areas in its analysis. (See app. II 
for a detailed description of each critical mission area).[Footnote 4] 
This funding analysis appears in the Analytical Perspectives, which 
accompanies the President's budget and provides information on 
requested funding levels related to homeland security.[Footnote 5] Much 
of the funding for combating terrorism activities is embedded within 
appropriation accounts that finance programs that are not primarily 
homeland security or overseas combating terrorism related. This makes 
it difficult to identify activities and track funding without such an 
analysis. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) receives the 
majority of its appropriations through its Operating Expenses Account. 
This funding supports the USCG's operations both for combating 
terrorism activities such as securing ports, waterways, and the coast 
and for non-combating terrorism activities such as ice-breaking 
operations to facilitate navigation through waterways. Because 
combating terrorism funding is embedded within appropriation accounts, 
agencies provide OMB with information on the portion of funding that is 
attributable to combating terrorism activities--both homeland security 
and overseas combating terrorism. OMB then uses this information to 
report funding information on homeland security activities in the 
Analytical Perspectives. 

In November 2002, we reported on the difficulty the executive branch 
faced in identifying and tracking combating terrorism funding and other 
challenges associated with reporting such data to Congress.[Footnote 6] 
Among these other challenges was the difficulty the executive branch 
faced in measuring the effective use of funds for combating terrorism 
since clearly defined federal and national performance objectives and 
measures for assessing programs' progress had not been 
established.[Footnote 7] This report updates the information contained 
in our 2002 report by responding to the following questions: 

1. How do agencies determine what portion of their annual 
appropriations relates to combating terrorism? 

2. What is the status of the recommendations from our 2002 
report?[Footnote 8] 

In addition, we also identified patterns and trends in funding for 
combating terrorism activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 as 
well as the President's budget request for fiscal year 2006. This 
information is discussed in appendix I. Further, we examined how 
section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 affected the reporting 
of funding data and the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking 
activities--specific lines of work--related to combating terrorism and 
ensuring the transparency of related funding data. The impact of 
section 889 on the reporting of funding data and the challenges OMB 
continues to face in tracking activities is discussed in appendix III. 
Finally, we reviewed combating terrorism activities that were funded 
through 34 budgetary accounts to determine whether the activities were 
consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland security and overseas 
combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular No. A-11.[Footnote 9] 
The information on combating terrorism activities funded through these 
34 accounts is included in appendix IV. 

To address our objectives, we met with staff from OMB and with 
officials from 7 agencies that conduct a range of combating terrorism 
activities--the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), 
Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the General Services Administration 
(GSA). To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies 
from 33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving 
funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. The 7 
agencies we selected account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal 
year 2006 budget request that the 33 agencies and the District of 
Columbia estimate relate to combating terrorism. Because we obtained 
information from a nonprobability sample of 7 agencies and their 
directorates and offices with combating terrorism responsibilities, the 
information we obtained cannot be generalized to all agencies with 
combating terrorism responsibilities. We reviewed activities in 34 
budgetary accounts for the agencies in our review to determine whether 
the activities were consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland 
security and overseas combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular 
No. A-11. We selected accounts with the most funding for combating 
terrorism at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller amounts. 
By reviewing the activities in these 34 accounts, we reviewed at least 
70 percent of each agency's estimated gross budget authority related to 
combating terrorism activities as reported in the President's fiscal 
year 2006 budget request.[Footnote 10] Although we initially selected 
budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review these accounts 
because neither DOD nor OMB maintains information on activities 
conducted by DOD to combat terrorism at the account level. For 
illustrative purposes, we have included a description of some of these 
accounts as well as the activities funded through each account and the 
related budget authority in appendix IV. We also analyzed combating 
terrorism data from the database used to prepare the Budget of the 
United States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To ensure that the 
database we received was consistent with published sources, we 
conducted electronic data testing and determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix V contains more detailed information on our scope and 
methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

The seven agencies we contacted developed different methodologies to 
estimate their portion of the federal budget that relates to combating 
terrorism activities. These methods all involve some level of 
professional judgment, which is inherent in any estimation process. 
Although OMB provides guidance to agencies to help them determine the 
portion of their budget authority that relates to combating terrorism 
activities, it does not prescribe how agencies should make these 
determinations. Officials at one agency--DOD--reported that OMB 
determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating terrorism. 
Officials at five of the other six agencies we contacted that make 
their own determinations reported being challenged in making such 
determinations because either (1) their activities have multiple 
purposes that require them to use their judgment in determining how 
much of an activity should be attributed to homeland security, overseas 
combating terrorism, or non-combating terrorism or (2) they must 
interpret OMB's combating terrorism definition to identify which of 
their activities relate to combating terrorism. For example, GSA 
officials said that they conduct upgrades to GSA-managed buildings' 
fire alarm enhancement systems that could be used to alert employees to 
a fire--a non-combating terrorism activity--and also to alert employees 
to stay in the building in the event of a terrorist attack--a combating 
terrorism activity. Consequently, GSA is challenged in categorizing 
upgrades to GSA-managed fire alarm enhancement systems as a homeland 
security activity because the application of these upgrades is not 
exclusively related to homeland security. Agencies also reported having 
to use professional judgment when interpreting accepted definitions of 
combating terrorism to identify which of their activities relate to 
combating terrorism. A DOE official told us that it can be problematic 
to categorize activities that are associated with the Defense Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Program. For example, one activity under this program 
is to assist the Russians in converting surplus plutonium into fuel for 
commercial reactors. After its conversion, this material is no longer 
suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. The amount spent in Russia for 
the conversion to fuel of already well protected materials is not 
reported as combating terrorism, although the argument could be made 
that the program's eventual effect may be to take potential ammunition 
away from future terrorists. DOE cites this as one example of the fact 
that the decision of whether an activity is considered combating 
terrorism or non-combating terrorism is a judgment call based on 
interpretation of the definition. Agencies report that they manage the 
process of estimating combating terrorism funding levels through OMB 
oversight and supervisory review. However, under section 889 of the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, OMB is no longer required to report on 
overseas combating terrorism funding data. As a result, OMB staff said 
that they do not review or validate estimates of overseas combating 
terrorism funding that they continue to collect from federal agencies. 
Therefore, Congress receives OMB-reviewed data on only the homeland 
security portion of combating terrorism funding rather than on both 
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding. Reporting 
on both would provide more information to the Congress about the full 
range of combating terrorism funding as currently defined. 

Three recommendations from our 2002 report related to providing 
additional information on spending and performance results have not 
been implemented.[Footnote 11] We made two other recommendations in our 
prior report based on reporting requirements that were subsequently 
repealed by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, thus rendering these two 
recommendations moot.[Footnote 12] In our 2002 report, we recommended 
that OMB include agencies' obligation data in its annual report on 
combating terrorism.[Footnote 13] Without this information, it is 
difficult for congressional decision makers to know how much funding 
provided in prior years may be available to help reduce new spending 
requests; whether agencies are delivering their programs as expected, 
that is, at the rate of spending that they have claimed in earlier 
budget requests; or what the level of effort is for a particular year. 
Although OMB staff continue to be concerned about the effort required 
to report these data, they said they might consider reporting 
obligation information for a targeted set of accounts that receive 
multiyear funding and carry balances for homeland security programs 
from year to year. We continue to believe that our prior recommendation 
on this issue is relevant and should be implemented. In our 2002 
report, we also recommended that OMB direct relevant departments to 
develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures 
and include such measures in the governmentwide plan to assist in 
determining whether funding increases have improved performance 
results. Three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB had 
not directed them to develop performance measures or enhance combating 
terrorism performance goals and measures specifically for combating 
terrorism activities. However, four of the seven agencies in our review 
have developed performance measures for combating terrorism activities. 
OMB staff said that they are working with agencies through initiatives 
such as the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to improve 
performance measurement of government programs, including those that 
relate to homeland security.[Footnote 14] However, OMB has not yet 
completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to these activities 
or done either a crosscutting combating terrorism or homeland security 
PART review that could address the appropriateness of performance 
measures in this larger context. Our 2002 report also recommended that 
national-level as well as federal governmentwide performance measures 
be included in supplements to existing strategies and in future 
revisions to strategies for homeland security and the combating of 
terrorism overseas. OMB staff said that governmentwide performance 
goals and measures have not been developed because they are focusing 
their efforts on the development of combating terrorism performance 
measures at the agency level, primarily with DHS. Thus, supplements or 
updates to the national strategies that include governmentwide or 
national level performance measures (i.e., goals and measures to track 
progress of the numerous efforts by the federal, state, and local 
governments and private sector to combat terrorism) have not been 
issued. Without governmentwide goals and measures, the Administration 
has no effective means of articulating to Congress or the American 
people the federal government's progress, as a whole, related to 
combating terrorism. Therefore, we continue to believe that our prior 
recommendations on this issue have merit and should be implemented. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ, 
USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment. 

OMB objected to GAO including information on overseas combating 
terrorism funding data because it has not been reviewed by OMB since 
fiscal year 2003. In addition, GSA provided formal written comments on 
a draft of this report and concurred with its contents. Copies of OMB's 
letter and GSA's letter are presented in appendix VIII and appendix IX, 
respectively. USDA, DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the report. 
OMB, DHS, and DOJ provided technical comments that we incorporated as 
appropriate and the National Security Council did not provide comments. 

Background: 

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA for 
FY 1998), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999) required OMB to issue both a 
classified and an unclassified report[Footnote 15] on funding to combat 
terrorism.[Footnote 16] Under the NDAA reporting requirements, OMB's 
annual report addressed funding for combating terrorism without 
differentiating between homeland security and overseas 
activities.[Footnote 17] However, in its 2002 unclassified report, OMB, 
for the first time, explicitly distinguished between overseas combating 
terrorism activities coordinated by the National Security Council and 
homeland security activities coordinated by the President's Office of 
Homeland Security. 

Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 repealed the NDAA 
reporting requirements in favor of new reporting requirements. In 
particular, section 889 required the President's budget to include an 
analysis of "homeland security funding," which it defined by reference 
to OMB's 2002 report as activities to detect, deter, protect against, 
and if needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United 
States. OMB's definition of homeland security activities included 
activities that the agency had not previously treated as combating 
terrorism. 

The 2003 annual report on combating terrorism was the last combating 
terrorism report issued under the NDAA reporting requirements. OMB's 
next report to Congress was published as part of the President's fiscal 
year 2005 budget, which was issued in February 2004 and reflected the 
changes called for in that act for the first time. In its final 2003 
unclassified annual report on combating terrorism, OMB categorized the 
government's homeland security activities into the six critical mission 
areas discussed in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. 

Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the 
Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities: 

The seven agencies we contacted use different methods to estimate the 
portion of their authorized funding that supports combating terrorism 
activities.[Footnote 18] Although OMB provides guidance to agencies, it 
does not prescribe a specific methodology for how agencies should 
determine the portion of their budget authority that relates to 
combating terrorism activities. One agency we contacted--DOD--reported 
that OMB determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating 
terrorism. While OMB staff said that they expect most executive 
agencies to provide them with funding data related to combating 
terrorism activities, they said that they make these determinations for 
DOD. DOD officials said that they enter budget data into OMB's central 
database and then OMB staff review the data and extract information 
that they find consistent with OMB's definition of combating terrorism. 

Six of the other seven agencies we reviewed developed their own 
methodologies using guidance, such as OMB Circular No. A-11, which 
includes definitions for combating terrorism activities and 
instructions for submitting information on funding data related to 
combating terrorism activities to OMB.[Footnote 19] Because these 
methodologies involve estimations, some level of professional judgment 
is inherent throughout the process. To implement these methodologies, 
agencies first identify their combating terrorism activities and then 
estimate their related funding levels. (See app. VI for guidance 
agencies most commonly use to identify combating terrorism activities.) 

Officials from two of these six agencies--GSA and DHS--reported that 
they used methods involving formulas to determine their funding levels 
that are related to combating terrorism. Officials from GSA told us 
that they use a formula-driven methodology for estimating its budget 
authority for the portion of Real Property Activities within its 
Federal Buildings Fund that relate to homeland security 
activities.[Footnote 20] To derive this methodology, GSA officials from 
its Office of Budget said GSA consulted with OMB and reviewed all 
activities conducted under the Federal Buildings Fund, looked at 
historical trends related to homeland security activities associated 
with the fund, and applied their professional judgment. Figure 1 
illustrates GSA's methodology and demonstrates how the agency applied 
its methodology in estimating its fiscal year 2006 budget authority for 
the portion of Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings 
Fund that relate to homeland security activities. 

Figure 1: GSA's Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget 
Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That Relate to 
Homeland Security: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] New construction costs includes costs associated with GSA's efforts 
to implement security measures, such as installing perimeter protection 
measures (such as cameras or fences) to newly constructed buildings. 

[B] According to GSA officials, GSA makes budgetary requests for 
repayments to the Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) Judgment Fund 
for money that Treasury disbursed on behalf of GSA when a contractor 
made a claim against GSA and successfully sued the government. Treasury 
will notify GSA when such a payment took place, and GSA will request 
budget authority within the next fiscal year to reimburse Treasury's 
Judgment Fund. Thus, all such requests are included as adjustments to 
the total new construction costs. 

[C] According to GSA officials, GSA determined that 5 percent of its 
new construction costs was a reasonable estimate related to homeland 
security activities when they initially developed their methodology. 
They reported reviewing all activities conducted under the Federal 
Buildings Fund, looking at historical trends related to homeland 
security activities associated with the fund, and applying their 
professional judgment to derive this percentage. 

[D] Major repairs and alterations costs include costs GSA incurs in 
implementing security enhancements to modify federal buildings where 
the total project is estimated to cost more than $2.41 million in 
fiscal year 2006. The $2.41 million is based on GSA's budget request 
and may change once Congress appropriates funds to GSA. 

[E] According to GSA officials, GSA determined that 1 percent of its 
major repair and alterative costs was a reasonable estimate related to 
homeland security activities when they initially developed their 
methodology. They reported reviewing all activities conducted under the 
Federal Buildings Fund, looking at historical trends related to 
homeland security activities associated with the fund, and applying 
their professional judgment to derive this percentage. 

[F] Glass fragmentation costs are costs GSA incurs in installing window 
systems in federal buildings designed to mitigate the hazardous effects 
of flying glass following an explosive event. 

[G] Minor repairs and alterations are costs GSA incurs in implementing 
security enhancements to modify federal buildings where the total 
project is estimated to cost less than $2.41 million per project in 
fiscal year 2006. The $2.41 million is based on GSA's budget request 
and may change once Congress appropriates funds to GSA. 

[H] Building operations costs associated with homeland security 
activities are those costs GSA incurs to conduct progressive collapse 
studies. These studies help determine an appropriate structural design 
that will mitigate the effects of progressive collapse. For instance, 
if a terrorist bomb were to cause the local failure of one column and a 
major collapse within one structural bay, a design mitigating 
progressive collapse would preclude the additional loss of primary 
structural members beyond the localized damage zone. 

[I] The $79.2 million does not include an estimate of security costs 
associated with GSA's leased facilities. In fiscal year 2006, GSA 
requested $4 billion for leasing facilities. GSA officials acknowledged 
that they have not estimated the portion of their leased costs that 
relate to homeland security efforts, but plan to discuss with OMB the 
possibility of doing so in future years. 

[End of figure] 

Officials from DHS's component offices with whom we met--Customs and 
Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State 
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the 
Transportation Security Administration, USCG, the United States Secret 
Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate--told us 
that they also derived formula-driven methodologies for determining 
their homeland security funding levels. For example, officials from 
USSS said that they derived a quantitative methodology for determining 
the portion of their appropriation for Operating Expenses that relates 
to homeland security.[Footnote 21] They said that to develop this 
methodology, USSS reviewed all of its programs, activities, and related 
staff hours conducted under its two missions--Protective Services and 
Investigative Services--to determine those activities that related to 
homeland security.[Footnote 22] See figure 2 for the USSS methodology. 

Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of 
Budget Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to 
Homeland Security: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] According to USSS officials, USSS determined that 100 percent of 
its protective services and 75 percent of its investigative services 
were related to homeland security activities when they initially 
developed their methodology. They reported reviewing all of USSS's 
programs, activities, and related staff hours conducted under their two 
missions--Protective Services and Investigative Services--to determine 
those activities that related to homeland security and calculated 
related percentages. 

[End of figure] 

USSS officials told us that they discussed their methodology with OMB 
and received OMB's approval to implement it. USSS officials told us 
that they have been using this methodology to estimate the portion of 
their operating expenses budget authority related to homeland security 
since 2003. 

The other four agencies--DOE, USDA, USACE, and DOJ--reported having 
methodologies in place to determine their funding levels for combating 
terrorism activities that are less formula driven. For example, using 
the definitions contained in OMB Circular No. A-11, a DOE official told 
us that DOE personnel review the agency's programs and activities to 
determine which are related to homeland security or overseas combating 
terrorism. Then, a DOE official consults with OMB to determine whether 
OMB would like the agency to make any revisions to the activities it 
has designated as combating terrorism. Once DOE finalizes its 
determination that an activity is categorized as a combating terrorism 
activity, 100 percent of that activity's budget authority is attributed 
to combating terrorism. Additionally, officials from the component 
offices in USDA we met with--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) and the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)--told us 
that they used qualitative methods for determining their homeland 
security funding levels. For example, APHIS officials said that they 
developed a set of six questions to determine whether their activities 
relate to homeland security.[Footnote 23] In reviewing these 
activities, APHIS officials told us that if any of the questions in 
figure 3 apply, they will consider the activity related to homeland 
security, and then 100 percent of that activity's budget authority will 
be attributed to homeland security. 

Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity 
Relates to Homeland Security: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

In addition to estimating funding levels for combating terrorism 
activities, OMB also requires agencies to align their homeland security 
activities with the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for 
Homeland Security. Officials at four of the six agencies we visited 
that estimate their combating terrorism funding levels said that they 
used their professional judgment to determine which critical mission 
area best aligns with their homeland security activities by comparing 
those activities with the definitions of the national strategy's 
critical mission areas.[Footnote 24] 

As previously discussed, to estimate funding levels, agencies first 
identify their combating terrorism activities. Officials at two of the 
six agencies we contacted said that activities with multiple or dual 
purposes pose a particular challenge to them when determining their 
combating terrorism activities because they must apply professional 
judgment to determine which purpose to emphasize. As a result, 
determining funding levels for combating terrorism activities and 
aligning homeland security activities to critical mission areas cannot 
be precise. For example, as previously noted, GSA officials told us 
that they conduct upgrades to buildings' fire alarm enhancement systems 
that could be used to alert employees to a fire. However, these 
officials also said the same system could also be used to alert 
employees to stay in the building in the event of a terrorist attack. 
Consequently, GSA cannot definitively categorize its fire alarm 
enhancement systems as a homeland security activity because the efforts 
within this activity are not exclusively related to homeland security. 
DHS officials also reported facing similar challenges. For example, 
SLGCP has multi-use grants that could be used for both combating 
terrorism and other goals. SLGCP staff cited the fact that the chemical 
protection suits provided under the Firefighter Assistance Grant 
program could be used in the field for a fuel spill or for a terrorist 
incident such as a dirty bomb. Consequently, DHS believes the process 
of categorizing combating terrorism activities is an estimation 
exercise, for which the department's staff must apply their 
professional judgment. 

Furthermore, agency officials at three agencies we visited said that an 
additional challenge in determining whether an activity should be 
considered a combating terrorism activity involves interpreting OMB's 
combating terrorism definitions. For example, a DOE official told us 
that it can be problematic to categorize activities that are associated 
with the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program such as efforts to 
assist the Russians in converting surplus plutonium into fuel for 
commercial reactors. After its conversion, this material is no longer 
suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. Although the argument could be 
made that the program's eventual effect may be to take potential 
ammunition away from future terrorists, the amount spent in Russia for 
the conversion to fuel of already well protected materials is not 
reported as combating terrorism. DOE cites this as one example of the 
fact that the decision of whether an activity is considered combating 
terrorism or non-combating terrorism is a judgment call based on 
interpretation of the definition. 

Agencies in our review manage the process of estimating funding levels 
for combating terrorism activities through OMB oversight and 
supervisory review. According to OMB, the responsibility of ensuring 
that homeland security activities are properly categorized is a joint 
effort made by OMB and the agencies involved. For their part, OMB staff 
perform reviews of activities determined to be related to homeland 
security to ensure that they are in accordance with the homeland 
security definition. OMB staff told us that there is no written 
guidance for such a review. Instead, OMB staff rely on the definition 
in OMB Circular No. A-11 and their judgment to decide if the activity 
has been reasonably categorized. 

OMB staff said that they currently do not review agency estimates of 
funding data for overseas combating terrorism activities because OMB is 
no longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding 
data.[Footnote 25] Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
repealed the NDAA reporting requirements in favor of new reporting 
requirements. The section 889 reporting requirement applies only to 
homeland security activities, not overseas activities related to 
combating terrorism.[Footnote 26] Although OMB still collects overseas 
combating terrorism funding data, OMB staff said that they have not 
reviewed or validated this information since fiscal year 2003. As a 
result, the overseas combating terrorism data for fiscal years 2004- 
2006 has not received the same level of scrutiny as the homeland 
security data. Similarly, without any future legislative action, OMB 
does not plan to review or validate future funding estimates related to 
overseas combating terrorism activities. As a result, Congress does not 
receive reports on both the homeland security and overseas combating 
terrorism portions of combating terrorism funding. 

In addition to reviewing homeland security data, OMB also reports 
taking steps to ensure that agencies have properly aligned their 
homeland security activities with the six critical mission areas 
outlined in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. OMB staff told 
us that annually, they examine the activities agencies aligned with 
each critical mission area to ensure consistency across all federal 
agencies and determine if the activities have been properly aligned 
based on the definitions of the critical mission areas in the National 
Strategy for Homeland Security. Such alignments can help inform 
congressional decision makers about the amount of funding that has been 
allocated to any one critical mission area. 

In addition to undertaking the previously mentioned reviews, each year 
since 2002, OMB has provided agencies with an opportunity to make 
changes to the activities they report as homeland security. In fiscal 
year 2005, OMB formalized this process by asking agencies to complete a 
form outlining the agency's proposed changes prior to official 
submission of annual budget requests. OMB staff said that OMB's 
examiners use the definition for homeland security in its Circular No. 
A-11 to review each agency's request, and then the examiners discuss 
the agencies' request with staff from OMB's Homeland Security Branch, 
as well as the agency to decide if the activity has been reasonably 
categorized.[Footnote 27] 

Officials at all six of the agencies we contacted who make their own 
determinations of funding related to combating terrorism reported 
having controls in place to help ensure that the agency's combating 
terrorism activities are appropriately identified and categorized as 
either homeland security or overseas combating terrorism. For example, 
DHS officials said that DHS budget desk officers within the Chief 
Financial Officer's Budget Division review activities its components 
recommend as combating terrorism and check for activities that may have 
been categorized incorrectly. Then, another budget desk officer, within 
the same division, reviews the data for unusual fluctuations or trends. 
If necessary, the budget desk officer and component representatives are 
to contact OMB to resolve any potential disagreements. After agencies 
submit information to OMB, OMB program examiners review the data and 
approve the activities or request the agencies to make revisions 
according to their instruction. 

Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional 
Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance: 

OMB has not implemented three recommendations from our 2002 report that 
would have and still could provide OMB and Congress with additional 
information for making budget decisions and help them understand 
performance results.[Footnote 28] In our 2002 report, we recommended 
that OMB require agencies to provide information on obligations in the 
database used by OMB to produce the President's annual budget request-
-and that OMB should include obligations as reported in this database 
in its annual report on combating terrorism. We made this 
recommendation to help Congress obtain information on spending that 
supports the President's annual budget request related to combating 
terrorism activities and to provide decision makers with insights as to 
whether programs are being run according to plans established by their 
budget projections.[Footnote 29] Without including obligation data in 
the Analytical Perspectives, along with funding levels authorized by 
Congress for agencies' homeland security activities, it is difficult 
for decision makers to know (1) how much funding from prior years is 
still available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) 
whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, 
or (3) what the level of effort (i.e., size of the program) is for a 
particular year as well as for a program over time. 

OMB staff told us that OMB has not substantially changed its position 
on this recommendation since we published our 2002 report.[Footnote 30] 
OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data. 
While OMB staff acknowledged that OMB examiners use obligation data in 
assessing the appropriateness of agency budget requests overall, they 
have felt that budget authority data provide the most insight into 
combating terrorism programs and facilitate follow up on areas of 
concern. OMB staff also said that including obligation information in 
its funding analysis is not necessary because at the end of the fiscal 
year, most agencies with homeland security activities have already 
obligated the majority of their budget authority. However, OMB staff 
also said that they might consider reporting obligation information for 
a targeted set of accounts that receive multiyear funding and might 
carry balances for homeland security programs from year to year, unlike 
the majority of accounts that receive funding with only 1 year of 
availability. A conservative analysis suggests that unobligated 
balances associated with funding for homeland security activities for 
fiscal years 2002 through 2004 could be between $2 billion and $3.4 
billion. Although it would be important to understand how agencies plan 
to use these balances, information on what funding is unobligated--and 
in which accounts--is potentially useful for congressional 
deliberations on the President's budget request.[Footnote 31] We 
recognize that collecting these data would create an additional 
workload for both OMB and agency budget officials, but we continue to 
believe that such an effort is warranted for congressional oversight 
because of the high priority placed on combating terrorism. Therefore, 
we continue to believe that our prior recommendation on this issue from 
our 2002 report is relevant and should be implemented. 

Similarly, implementation of our 2002 recommendation that OMB direct 
relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism 
performance goals and measures and include such measures in the 
governmentwide plan would assist in determining whether funding 
increases have improved performance results.[Footnote 32] 

Although three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB did 
not direct them to develop performance measures for combating 
terrorism, OMB staff said that they are working with agencies on the 
development of combating terrorism performance measures at the agency 
level, primarily with DHS. OMB staff also said that they have not yet 
taken any action to prepare measures on a governmentwide 
basis.[Footnote 33] Additionally, OMB has not yet prepared a 
governmentwide plan that could include such measures related to 
combating terrorism. OMB staff said that the Homeland Security Council-
-which provides advice to the President on homeland security issues-- 
DHS, and OMB are coordinating and planning for the future development 
of governmentwide performance measures related to combating 
terrorism.[Footnote 34] However, OMB staff said that they have not yet 
established a timeline for developing such measures. 

Implementation of our 2002 recommendation to include national-level and 
federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures as a 
supplement to existing strategies and their future revisions would help 
to assess and improve preparedness at the federal and national levels. 
As previously discussed, federal governmentwide performance measures 
related to combating terrorism have not yet been developed. Moreover, 
there have been no supplements or revisions to the existing national 
strategies that include federal governmentwide or national-level 
combating terrorism performance goals and measures.[Footnote 35] 
Without goals and measures from the federal and national levels, it is 
difficult to organize a coordinated and effective combating terrorism 
effort. Because numerous agencies are responsible for combating 
terrorism, federal governmentwide performance planning could better 
facilitate the integration of federal and national activities to 
achieve federal goals in that they could provide a cohesive perspective 
on the goals of the federal government. Furthermore, without 
governmentwide combating terrorism goals and measures, the 
Administration does not have an effective means of articulating to 
Congress or the American people the governmentwide accomplishments 
related to combating terrorism. 

While OMB has not yet developed governmentwide performance goals and 
measures, OMB established a formal assessment tool for the budget 
formulation process in fiscal year 2002--the Program Assessment Rating 
Tool to help measure program performance. However, OMB has not yet 
completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to combating 
terrorism activities, or done a crosscutting combating terrorism or 
homeland security PART review that could address the appropriateness of 
performance measures in the larger context. In our recommendation from 
an earlier report, we stated that targeting PART could help focus 
decision makers' attention on the most pressing policy and program 
issues.[Footnote 36] Furthermore, we recommended that such an approach 
could facilitate the use of PART assessments to review the relative 
contributions of similar programs to common or crosscutting goals and 
outcomes. 

It is critical that the federal government, as the steward of the 
taxpayers' money, ensure that such funds are managed to maximize 
results. Governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures that 
support the national strategies would allow the Administration and 
Congress to more effectively assess the federal government's progress 
in combating terrorism initiatives, and better determine how 
effectively the government is using valuable resources. Furthermore, 
they would provide a more effective means of holding agencies 
accountable for achieving results. 

Notwithstanding a lack of progress in developing governmentwide 
performance measures, some agencies have performance goals and measures 
that reflect priorities for combating terrorism. Performance measures 
can provide information on many things, such as outputs, which provide 
the number of activities, and outcomes, which demonstrate achievement 
of intended results. Four of the seven agencies we contacted--DHS, DOE, 
USDA, and DOJ--developed performance measures for combating terrorism 
activities as part of their efforts under the Government Performance 
and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 37] An example of a DOE output 
performance measure, designed to help achieve its goal of protecting 
National Nuclear Security Administration personnel, facilities, and 
nuclear weapons is as follows: "Replace, upgrade, re-certify 15 percent 
of emergency response equipment by 2009." 

To help DHS evaluate its efforts related to preventing entry of 
unauthorized individuals and those that pose a threat to the nation, 
DHS created the following performance measure: "Determine the 
percentage of foreign nationals entering the United States who have 
biometric and biographic information on file prior to entry, including 
the foreign nationals who are referred for further inspection actions 
and with fraudulent documents identified." This is an output-related 
performance measure that provides information about the number of 
foreign nationals who enter the country requiring further inspection. 

Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency is required to develop 
strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the 
fiscal year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least 
every 3 years. Under this act, strategic plans are the starting point 
for agencies to set annual performance goals and to measure program 
performance in achieving those goals. Although GPRA does not 
specifically require executive agencies to develop strategic plans 
related to combating terrorism, DOD has initiated efforts to develop 
strategic plans that incorporate performance measures for combating 
terrorism. In response to our previous recommendation that DOD develop 
a framework for the antiterrorism program that would provide the 
department with a vehicle to guide resource allocations and measure the 
results of improvement efforts,[Footnote 38] DOD developed an 
Antiterrorism Strategic Plan.[Footnote 39] This preliminary framework 
includes, among other things, a collective effort to defend against, 
respond to, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD personnel. 
According to DOD officials, the strategic goals established in DOD's 
Antiterrorism Strategic Plan directly align with OMB's definitions of 
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. One of DOD's 
strategic goals is to conduct effective antiterrorism training and 
execute realistic antiterrorism exercises. DOD officials reported that 
they intend to collect antiterrorism performance data from all DOD 
components and plan to issue the first performance report on 
antiterrorism in the second quarter of fiscal year 2006. While we have 
not yet fully evaluated the effectiveness of this framework or plan, 
such efforts represent important steps taken by an agency to develop 
performance measures and, consequently, a results-oriented management 
framework specifically related to combating terrorism activities. 

Currently, because governmentwide performance measures have not been 
developed, the executive branch does not have a means to effectively 
measure and link resources expended and performance achieved related to 
combating terrorism efforts on a governmentwide basis. Without a clear 
understanding of this linkage, the executive branch and Congress may be 
missing opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency to ensure 
the best use of taxpayer funds. Therefore, we continue to believe that 
our prior recommendations on this issue from our 2002 report are 
important and should be implemented. 

In our 2002 report, we also made recommendations to OMB concerning an 
analysis of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism 
activities and the timely reporting of information to support 
congressional budget deliberations. Our November 2002 report was issued 
concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, 
which repealed OMB's prior reporting requirements, including the 
duplication analysis, and accelerated the timeline for OMB to report 
funding data on homeland security activities. The status of these 
recommendations is discussed further in appendix VII. 

Conclusions: 

Given the recent emphasis on and significance of combating terrorism, 
Congress should have the best available funding information to assist 
in its oversight role. Since the enactment of the Homeland Security Act 
of 2002, OMB has not been required to report on overseas combating 
terrorism data. Moreover, OMB staff said that funding data for overseas 
combating terrorism activities do not receive the same level of 
scrutiny as funding data for homeland security activities. Thus, the 
quality of the overseas combating terrorism data may degrade over time. 
Reporting such data along with homeland security funding would greatly 
improve the transparency of funding attributed to combating terrorism 
activities across the federal government. Although OMB's analysis of 
homeland security funding in the Analytical Perspectives of the 
President's budget satisfies the current legal requirements under the 
Homeland Security Act of 2002, it does not provide a complete 
accounting of all funds allocated to combating terrorism activities. 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

If Congress is interested in receiving data on overseas combating 
terrorism funding as well as data on homeland security funding, then 
Congress should consider requiring OMB to report on overseas combating 
terrorism funding data in the Analytical Perspectives of the 
President's budget along with homeland security funding. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ, 
USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment. 

OMB provided formal written comments on December 21, 2005, which are 
presented in appendix VIII. OMB said it appreciates the in-depth 
analyses in the report and the detailed review of the government's 
homeland security spending levels, but objected to GAO including 
information on overseas combating terrorism funding data. OMB 
questioned the reliability of this information because it has not 
reviewed agency submissions of overseas combating terrorism data since 
fiscal year 2003. We believe the overseas combating terrorism data are 
sufficient for the purposes of this report and therefore have included 
them in appendix I. As discussed in this report, agencies in our review 
that provide information on combating terrorism activities--including 
those with overseas combating terrorism responsibilities--use OMB 
criteria and their own internal monitoring and review processes to 
categorize funding by activities. These agencies reported that they 
have designed controls over the estimation process to help ensure the 
reliability of the data. However, we agree that OMB's review would 
provide an additional level of assurance, which is why we have made 
this a matter for congressional consideration. 

In addition to OMB's comments, GSA provided formal written comments on 
a draft of this report on December 2, 2005, which are presented in 
appendix IX. In commenting on the draft report, GSA noted that it 
concurred with the contents of the report that discussed GSA. USDA, 
DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the report. OMB, DHS, and DOJ 
provided technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated as 
appropriate. The National Security Council did not provide comments. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Senate Committee on the 
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland 
Security; the House Committee on Government Reform; the House Committee 
on the Judiciary; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers; the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; the 
Secretary of the Department of Defense; the Secretary of the Department 
of Energy; the Attorney General; the Administrator of the General 
Services Administration; the Secretary of Homeland Security; and other 
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on 
request. 

In addition, the report will be available on GAO's Web site at 
http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this 
report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at 
jonespl@gao.gov. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in 
appendix X. 

Signed by: 

Paul L. Jones: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and 
Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities: 

In this report, we use fiscal year 2002 as the base year for analyzing 
trends in funding for combating terrorism for a number of reasons. 
Although fiscal year 2001 may seem like the logical starting point, 
fiscal year 2002 was the first full year in which decision making was 
informed by the terrorist attacks in the United States.[Footnote 40] 
Moreover, to make information comparable for the President's fiscal 
year 2004 budget request, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
restructured fiscal years 2002 and 2003 budget data to reflect changes 
that occurred with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) in 2003. This made fiscal year 2002 the earliest year that OMB's 
MAX database[Footnote 41] captured funding for combating terrorism that 
is, for the most part, in the current agency, bureau,[Footnote 42] and 
account structure. In addition, OMB for the first time required 
agencies to identify funding for homeland security and overseas 
combating terrorism separately from other funding in an account. 
Finally, fiscal year 2002 marked the earliest year in which OMB 
presented information organized according to the National Strategy for 
Homeland Security's six critical mission areas in its Annual Report to 
Congress on Combating Terrorism (September 2003). 

The information for homeland security and overseas combating terrorism 
(OCT) is shown separately in the following tables. Tables 1 to 3 
provide information on homeland security at progressively finer levels 
of detail. However, none of these tables, or tables 4 and 5 include 
funding in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 for DHS' Project BioShield. OMB 
asserts that including this information can distort year-over-year 
comparisons. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 provided 
$5.6 billion for this project to develop and procure tools to address 
public health consequences of terrorism. Pursuant to that act, specific 
amounts became available in fiscal year 2004 ($0.9 billion) and in 
fiscal year 2005 ($2.5 billion). Tables 4 and 5 display how OMB and 
agencies characterize funding according to the six critical mission 
areas for homeland security. Unlike the appropriations account 
structure, which is based in law, mission area categories and 
activities can be modified to meet changing needs. OMB has stated that 
"the Administration may refine definitions or mission area estimates 
over time based on additional analysis or changes in the way specific 
activities are characterized, aggregated, or disaggregated." Tables 6 
and 7 provide unpublished OMB data on OCT. According to OMB officials, 
they continue to collect these data from agencies, but do not review 
agency information since OMB is no longer required to report on 
overseas combating terrorism funding or activities. 

All comparisons or trends are for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. We 
have included the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request because 
it contained the latest data available at the time of this review. 

Homeland Security: 

Homeland security activities are funded in over 200 appropriations 
accounts in 32 agencies, and the District of Columbia. As shown in 
table 1, the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense (DOD), Health 
and Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Energy (DOE) account for 
over 90 percent of governmentwide homeland security funding annually 
since fiscal year 2003. 

Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Summarized 
Agency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee- 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5 
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield. 

[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002 
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and 
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 2, DHS has received the largest share of funding for 
homeland security activities. The department's average annual funding 
has been $22.1 billion, or about 54 percent of the total amount 
available annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2005.[Footnote 43] 
For fiscal year 2006, the President proposed $27.3 billion for DHS's 
homeland security activities, or 55 percent of total spending. 

DOD also received a large share of homeland security funding averaging 
18 percent annually over the same period, with $9.5 billion requested 
for fiscal year 2006. Most of DOD's homeland security funding is for 
functions related to security at military installations domestically 
and for research and development of antiterrorism technologies. 
Homeland security-related funding for DOD is increasing at an annual 
rate of about 18 percent, over 5 percent more than the rate of increase 
for DHS. 

HHS has had the largest percentage increase since fiscal year 2002, 
with an average annual rate of about 30 percent. Funding has been 
provided primarily to improve local response to catastrophic events and 
for research at the National Institutes of Health to find new ways to 
detect and combat biological agents. 

Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee- 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5 
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield. 

[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002 
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and 
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department. 

[End of table] 

Table 3 provides homeland security data by agency, bureau, and account. 

Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security--by Agency, 
Bureau, and Account: 

[See PDF for image] 

[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5 
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield. 

[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002 
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and 
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department. 

[End of table] 

Trends in the Six Critical Mission Areas of Homeland Security: 

OMB first started reporting information by the six critical mission 
areas in its 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. See 
appendix I for definitions of each of the critical mission areas laid 
out in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. As shown in table 
4, the distribution of funding across the six critical mission areas 
has been fairly consistent during this period. 

Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

Table 5 shows which agencies are responsible for activities covered 
under the six mission areas. According to OMB data, the greatest share 
of funding between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 has been associated with 
border and transportation security, followed by funding for protecting 
critical infrastructure and key assets. According to OMB data shown in 
table 4, border and transportation security activities'--almost all of 
which are located in DHS--received between 38 and 41 percent annually 
of total funding. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposed funding 
totaling $19.3 billion for these activities, of which $18.2 billion is 
for activities in DHS. Nearly a third of all homeland security spending 
for this period has been labeled as protecting critical infrastructure 
and key assets. For fiscal years 2002 through 2005, DOD generally has 
received 50 percent or more annually for activities in this critical 
mission area. DHS and HHS activities are the primary recipients of 
funding for activities associated with emergency preparedness and 
response. 

Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security Mission 
Area: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee- 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[A] Excludes amounts in fiscal years 2004 ($0.9 billion) and 2005 ($2.5 
billion) for DHS's Project BioShield. 

[B] DHS was not established until fiscal year 2003. Fiscal year 2002 
data shown for DHS represents funding for agency programs and 
activities that eventually were transferred to the new department. 

[End of table] 

Overseas Combating Terrorism: 

Prior to the September 11 attacks, OMB's annual report to Congress on 
combating terrorism made no distinction between domestic and overseas 
combating terrorism. With the development of policies and definitions 
to support the newer concept of homeland security and the creation of 
the Department of Homeland Security, "overseas combating terrorism" 
became the term used to describe those activities associated primarily 
with securing U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas and some 
intelligence efforts. Tables 6 and 7 show funding for overseas 
combating terrorism activities. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, these 
amounts reflect estimates of gross budget authority that agencies 
attributed to overseas combating terrorism activities and reported to 
OMB. OMB then reviewed and validated these amounts--along with funding 
associated with homeland security activities--and published them in its 
annual report on combating terrorism. However, the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 required that only funding related to homeland security 
activities be reported.[Footnote 44] Thus, while OMB continues to 
collect information on funding associated with overseas combating 
terrorism activities, it reported that the overseas combating terrorism 
data for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 have not been reviewed or 
validated. As a result, the overseas combating terrorism data for 
fiscal years 2004-2006 did not receive the same level of scrutiny as 
the homeland security data. Nevertheless, on the basis of funding data 
agencies attributed to overseas combating terrorism, most of that 
funding was provided to DOD. 

Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by 
Summarized Agency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data as reported in OMB's MAX database. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee- 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 7, funding for the Administration's oversight of the 
nation's intelligence programs grew at an average annual rate of 68 
percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, according to agency data as 
reported in OMB's MAX database. The second fastest growing category was 
for international assistance programs, with an average annual growth 
rate of 40 percent for the period under review. The latter primarily 
supports foreign governments' efforts to combat terrorism and increase 
law enforcement capability. In contrast to the DOD funding increase for 
homeland security activities shown in table 1, DOD's funding for 
activities defined as overseas combating terrorism has declined an 
average of 7 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005. 

Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating Terrorism--by 
Agency: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of agency data as reported in OMB's MAX database. 

Notes: Gross budget authority includes offsetting collections from fee- 
funded activities. 

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: The National Strategy for Homeland Security's Critical 
Mission Areas: 

The National Strategy for Homeland Security sets out a plan to improve 
combating terrorism domestically through the cooperation and partnering 
of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations on an array 
of functions. The strategy organizes these functions into six critical 
mission areas: 

* Intelligence and warning involves the identification, collection, 
analysis, and distribution of intelligence information appropriate for 
preempting or preventing a terrorist attack. 

* Border and transportation security emphasizes the efficient and 
reliable flow of people, goods, and material across borders while 
deterring terrorist activity. 

* Domestic counterterrorism focuses on law enforcement efforts to 
identify, halt, prevent, and prosecute terrorists in the United States. 

* Protecting critical infrastructure and key assets stresses securing 
the nation's interconnecting sectors and important facilities, sites, 
and structures. 

* Defending against catastrophic threats emphasizes the detection, 
deterrence, and mitigation of terrorist use of weapons of mass 
destruction. 

* Emergency preparedness and response highlights damage minimization 
and recovery from terrorist attacks. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face: 

As part of our work, we examined the statutory changes in requirements 
for reporting combating terrorism activities that occurred as the 
result of the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.[Footnote 
45] This appendix provides additional background on the act, as well as 
the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking combating terrorism 
activities and ensuring the transparency of related funding data. 

Enacted on November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
established the Department of Homeland Security and, among other 
things, changed OMB's requirements for reporting funding data related 
to combating terrorism.[Footnote 46] Section 889 of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 repealed the NDAA reporting requirements in favor 
of new reporting requirements. In particular, section 889 required the 
President's budget to include an analysis of "homeland security 
funding," which it defined by reference to OMB's 2002 report as 
activities to detect, deter, protect against, and if needed, respond to 
terrorist attacks occurring within the United States. OMB's definition 
of homeland security activities included activities that the agency had 
not previously treated as combating terrorism. Under section 889, OMB 
is required to report only on funding for homeland security by agency, 
budget function (i.e., functions that cover 17 areas of the government 
such as agriculture and health),[Footnote 47] and initiative 
areas.[Footnote 48] OMB staff said that although they do not report on 
funding related to overseas combating terrorism data, they still 
collect it as part of the annual budget. Because there is no longer a 
requirement to report on overseas combating terrorism funding data, OMB 
staff said that they are not reviewing the information that agencies 
provide to them.[Footnote 49] In addition, the definition of overseas 
combating terrorism activities in OMB Circular No. A-11 has not changed 
since 2003. As a result, OMB staff said that data on overseas combating 
terrorism funding data are not necessarily valid and could be 
misleading.[Footnote 50] 

In response to section 889's changes, OMB began showing homeland 
security funding data by agency, by budget function, by account, and by 
each of the six critical mission areas established in the National 
Strategy for Homeland Security in the Analytical Perspectives of the 
President's fiscal year 2005 budget. OMB also included narrative 
descriptions of major activities and the administration's priorities in 
this section of the Analytical Perspectives. To present funding data 
for homeland security activities by critical mission area, OMB included 
a table for each critical mission area displaying budget authority for 
3 fiscal years (prior year, current year, and budget year request). 

Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act also required OMB to include 
the most recent risk assessment and summary of homeland security needs 
in each initiative area in the President's annual budget.[Footnote 51] 
OMB's prior reporting requirements required that OMB report on the 
amounts expended by executive agencies on combating terrorism 
activities, as well as the specific programs and activities for which 
funds were expended, while section 889 explicitly mandates a risk 
assessment and summary of resource needs in each initiative area. 
According to OMB staff, OMB does not have the expertise or the staff to 
conduct separate risk assessments, and it relies on the risk 
assessments of each individual agency to determine areas of high risk 
in order to meet this requirement. 

In addition, section 889 required that OMB include in the President's 
annual budget an estimate of the user fees collected by the federal 
government to help offset expenses related to homeland security 
activities, such as the Transportation Security Administration's 
passenger security fees, which are added to airline passengers' ticket 
costs. To meet this requirement, OMB included a table for users' fees 
by major cabinet-level department displaying the related budget 
authority in the Analytical Perspectives that accompanied the 
President's fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budgets. 

Finally, section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 accelerated 
the timeline for reporting funding data by requiring OMB to report 
funding data in the President's budget, which must be submitted to 
Congress by the first Monday in February.[Footnote 52] Under its 
previous reporting requirement, OMB was required to issue a separate 
stand-alone report on combating terrorism to Congress by March 1 of 
each year. OMB complied with the new timeline for the fiscal years 2005 
and 2006 President's budget. 

Despite these changes, OMB staff report still facing challenges in 
tracking activities related to combating terrorism funding data and 
ensuring the transparency of related funding data. OMB staff said that 
the creation of DHS helped minimize the difficulties they face in 
ensuring the transparency of related funding data and tracking 
activities related to combating terrorism, since the creation of DHS 
resulted in approximately 60 percent of homeland security funding being 
merged into funding for one agency at the time DHS became operational. 
Although OMB is no longer required to report on funding data related to 
overseas combating terrorism activities, OMB staff said that many of 
the difficulties cited in our 2002 report still apply and that they 
will most likely always face these challenges.[Footnote 53] For 
example, OMB staff reported that they are still challenged by the large 
number of agencies involved in combating terrorism activities. To 
obtain information needed to fulfill its reporting requirements related 
to funding data, OMB has to interact with 32 other agencies and the 
District of Columbia that have responsibilities to combat terrorism in 
addition to DHS. OMB staff also said that it will always require 
significant effort to identify funding for combating terrorism 
activities, since such funding is often subsumed in budget accounts 
that provide funding for other activities. In addition, OMB staff also 
stated that they were challenged in tracking funding related to 
combating terrorism, given the wide variety of missions represented, 
including intelligence, law enforcement, health services, and 
environmental protection, as well as the global nature of missions for 
combating terrorism. However, OMB staff told us that they have worked 
diligently to identify homeland security activities by monitoring 
agency reviews of homeland security spending and developing an annual 
crosscut review, which identifies projects with common themes across 
agencies.[Footnote 54] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism 
Activities: 

Hundreds of budget accounts include activities related to combating 
terrorism. The following summarizes 15 of the 34 accounts we reviewed. 
The funding levels shown in these accounts represent the portion of the 
account that supports combating terrorism efforts by critical mission 
area as reflected in OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating 
Terrorism database that supports the President's fiscal year 2006 
budget request.[Footnote 55] Our summaries also include descriptions of 
the combating terrorism activities within these accounts as well as the 
agencies' estimates of budget authority that relate to these combating 
terrorism activities. For purposes of this appendix, we selected one 
account to display for the Department of Energy, General Services 
Administration, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We also 
selected to display one account for each component office that we 
contacted at the Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and 
Justice--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the 
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) within the Department of 
Agriculture (USDA); Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP), the Office of State and 
Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), the United States Coast 
Guard (USCG), the United States Secret Service (USSS), and the Science 
and Technology Directorate of DHS; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
(FBI) of the Department of Justice. 

The activities included in all 34 of the accounts that we reviewed were 
consistent with OMB's definitions of homeland security and overseas 
combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular No. A-11.[Footnote 56] 

Department of Homeland Security: Information Analysis and 
Infrastructure Protection. 

Critical Mission Area: Intelligence and Warning. 

Assessment and Evaluation Account (024-90-0911). 

The Assessment and Evaluation account provides funding for threat 
analysis associated with collecting and fusing law enforcement, 
intelligence, and other information to evaluate terrorist threats to 
the homeland. 

Component activities: 
* Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk Assessment includes efforts to 
provide analytic tools to promote communication, coordination, 
collaboration, and cooperation to analyze intelligence information with 
the Intelligence Community; law enforcement agencies; state, local, and 
tribal authorities; the private sector; and other critical stakeholders 
regarding existing threats to the homeland; 
* Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) serves as the nation's 
center for information sharing and domestic incident management. The 
HSOC collects and fuses intelligence information from a variety of 
sources every day to help deter, detect, and prevent terrorist acts. 
Operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the HSOC is tasked with 
providing real-time situational awareness and monitoring of the 
homeland, and coordinates incidents and response activities; 
* Analysis and Studies includes efforts by IAIP personnel to develop 
threat databases, participate in exercises and crisis simulations, and 
prepare products on threats. It also includes funding for an 
independent evaluation of IAIP's risk assessment methodology; 
* Threat Determination and Assessment includes efforts by IAIP 
personnel to develop terrorist threat situational awareness, (i.e., the 
analytical capability required to develop and integrate timely, 
actionable, and valuable information based on analysis of terrorist 
threat intelligence information and infrastructure vulnerability 
assessments); 
* Biosurveillance includes efforts by IAIP personnel to integrate 
biosurveillance data from other federal agencies such as the Centers 
for Disease Control with threat information. These activities are 
conducted to help IAIP become better positioned to provide information 
to decision makers and others to aid in the response to threats and 
incidents; 
* Other Activities include fiscal year 2004 activities that were 
restructured for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budget request. For 
instance, in fiscal year 2004, activities to conduct risk assessments 
were included under the activity, risk assessment division; whereas, 
for the fiscal year 2006 budget request, these activities are now 
included in analysis and studies and threat determination and 
assessment as discussed above. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions). 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Intelligence and Warning. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security. 

Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security. 

Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50- 
0530). 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Customs and 
Border Protection personnel efforts to enforce laws relating to border 
security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections and 
regulatory activities related to plant and animal imports; acquisition, 
lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase and lease of 
police-type vehicles; and contracting with individuals for personal 
services abroad. 

Component activities: 
* Enforcement funds activities related to CBP personnel's efforts to 
identify, investigate, apprehend, and remove criminal aliens; maintain 
and update systems to track criminal and illegal aliens on the border 
in areas with high apprehensions to deter illegal entry; repair, 
maintain, and construct border facilities; and collect fines levied 
against aliens for failure to depart the United States after being 
ordered to do so; 
* Border Protection funds activities by CBP personnel to enforce 
various provisions of law that govern entry and presence in the United 
States, including detecting and preventing terrorists and terrorists' 
weapons from entering the United States, seizing illegal drugs and 
other contraband, determining the admissibility of people and goods, 
apprehending people who attempt to enter the country illegally, 
protecting our agricultural interests from harmful pests and diseases, 
collecting duties and fees, and regulating and facilitating 
international trade; 
* Small Airport Facilities includes the collection of user fees by CBP 
personnel generated from inspection services that are provided to 
participating small airports, including the airports located at 
Lebanon, New Hampshire, Pontiac/Oakland, Michigan, and other small 
airports designated by the Department of Treasury based on the volume 
or value of business cleared through the airport from which commercial 
or private aircraft arrive from a place outside the United States. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the 
discretionary portion of the account that supports combating terrorism 
efforts for the critical mission area Border and Transportation 
Security. CBP determined that 67 percent of its discretionary funding 
relates to combating terrorism efforts. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security 
Administration. 

Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security. 

Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0550). 

The Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses account provides 
funding for TSA personnel's efforts to provide security services for 
civil aviation. This account is funded through collections from 
passenger security and air carrier fees (see descriptions below). These 
fees offset TSA's appropriated funds as the fees are collected, thereby 
reducing the general fund contribution. TSA received authority to 
collect such fees under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. 

Component activities: 
* Aviation Security includes collections from passenger security and 
air carrier fees. The passenger fee is added to each airline 
passenger's ticket purchase and the air carrier fee is paid directly by 
air carriers. TSA receives its full aviation security appropriation, 
and these fees offset the appropriated funds as the fees are collected, 
thereby reducing the general fund contribution for TSA personnel's 
efforts to provide security services for civil aviation such as 
passenger and baggage screening, and establishing Federal air marshals 
on various commercial flights; 
* Aviation Security Fee Proposal: In the fiscal year 2006 budget 
request, the President proposed to increase the air passenger security 
fee by $3.00, raising the fee on a typical flight to $5.50. For 
passengers traveling multiple legs on a one-way trip, the President 
proposed a maximum fee of $8.00. The budget states that such fee 
increases will allow TSA to almost fully recover the costs of federal 
airport screening operations, a subset of aviation security activities. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Border and Transportation Security. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard. 

Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security. 

Operating Expenses Account (024-60-0610)[A]. 

The Operating Expenses account provides funding for USCG personnel to 
prevent terrorism by enforcing laws and securing U.S. borders while 
protecting the public from acts of terrorism. 

Component activities: 
* Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security includes efforts by USCG to 
conduct harbor patrols, vulnerabilities assessments, and intelligence 
gathering and analysis to prevent terrorist attacks and minimize the 
damage from any attacks that could occur. It also includes USCG's 
efforts to escort and conduct security boardings of any vessel that may 
pose a substantial security risk to U.S. ports because of the 
composition of its crew, passengers, or cargo; 
* Drug Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to interdict 
illegal drug shipments by apprehending smugglers at sea attempting to 
import illegal drugs into the United States and halting the destructive 
influence of drug consumption by disrupting the drug supply and 
preventing potential funding sources for terrorism; 
* Migrant Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to maintain a 
presence in migrant departure, and to prohibit or deter people who 
attempt to enter the United States illegally via maritime routes; 
* Defense Readiness includes efforts by USCG personnel to deploy 
cutters and other boats in and around harbors to protect the Department 
of Defense during military operations and meet requirements within the 
national strategy for homeland security and the national security 
strategy; 
* Other Law Enforcement protects U.S. fishing grounds, and therefore 
the nation's economic security, by keeping out those who mean to do 
harm and ensuring that foreign fisherman do not illegally harvest U.S. 
fish stocks. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Border and Transportation Security. 

[B] Sum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2004 supplementals for these 
activities totaling $90.6 million. 

[C] Sum includes the USCG's fiscal year 2005 supplementals for these 
activities totaling $15.8 million. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security. 

Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-
50-0540). 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement personnel to conduct investigations to ensure 
enforcement of immigration laws. 

Component activities: 
* Investigations: Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel conduct 
investigations to uncover and eliminate vulnerabilities that terrorists 
and other criminals exploit to harm our nation's citizens, national 
security, and the economy through an array of investigative processes 
in the area of smuggling, finance, and national security. Through these 
investigations, Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel work to 
identify the people, materials, and funding essential to sustaining 
terrorist threats and criminal enterprises, and to disrupt and 
dismantle those operations. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 
Explosives. 

Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism. 

Salaries and Expenses Account (011-14-0700)[A]. 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for the Bureau of 
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' personnel to deter and 
investigate violations of laws relating to firearms, explosives, arson, 
and alcohol and tobacco diversion. 

Component activities: 
* Firearms includes efforts by ATF personnel to counter firearms 
violence, including acts of terrorism, through enforcement of the 
federal firearms laws, regulation of the firearms industry, and 
participation in outreach efforts to leverage partnerships with 
federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement in the fight against 
terrorism; 
* Arson and Explosives includes efforts by ATF personnel to enforce 
federal explosives and arson laws, as well as the regulation of the 
explosives industry and training through innovation to protect the 
public from terrorists' use of explosives and acts of arson; 
* Alcohol and Tobacco includes ongoing efforts by ATF personnel to 
reduce the rising trend of illegal diversion of tobacco products that 
may provide financial support to the causes of terrorist groups; 
* Reduce Violent Crime includes efforts by ATF personnel to deny 
terrorists access to firearms, explosives, and explosive materials, 
such as the participation of ATF agents in various terrorism task 
forces; 
* Protect the Public includes efforts by ATF personnel to safeguard the 
public from arson and explosives incidents. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

ATF Salaries and Expenses (011-14-0700). 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism. 

[End of table] 

Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrrorism. 

Salaries and Expenses Account (011-10-0200)[A]. 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for efforts for FBI 
personnel to detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes by terrorists 
against the United States. 

Component activities: 
* Counterterrorism Field Investigations includes efforts by the FBI to 
lead investigations in countering the threat of terrorism and 
preventing violent acts by terrorists; 
* Equipment/Technology includes efforts by FBI personnel to provide 
engineering services, technical support, and equipment to FBI field 
offices; and to conduct research and development to adapt technology 
for use against criminals and terrorists; 
* Counterterrorism Headquarters Coordination includes activities by FBI 
program managers in directing and guiding field investigators by 
managing investigations and providing training in the latest terrorism 
investigation techniques and methods; 
* Terrorist Screening Center funds multi-agency efforts, including 
components of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State, 
to maintain a consolidated watch list of known or suspected terrorists; 
* Miscellaneous Activities include a range of activities such as those 
provided under the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG). CIRG 
responds to crimes which pose great dangers and require skills that are 
not routinely available in law enforcement agencies. For example, CIRG 
provides trained, experienced negotiators, crisis managers, and 
tactical and aviation personnel to assist law enforcement agencies. A 
portion of these activities are considered related to counterterrorism 
investigations. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Domestic Counterterrorism. 

[B] Sum includes the FBI's fiscal year 2004 supplemental for these 
activities totaling $12.3 million. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service. 

Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key 
Assets. 

Operating Expenses Account (024-40-0400)[A]. 

The Operating Expenses account provides funding to support efforts of 
U.S. Secret Service personnel in providing protective services and 
conducting investigations. Protective Services provide for the 
protection of the President of the United States, immediate family 
members, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next 
in order of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice 
President-elect and the members of their immediate families, a visiting 
head of state and accompanying spouse, of a foreign state or foreign 
government. Investigative Services provide for investigation of 
counterfeiting of currency and securities; forgery and altering of 
government checks and bonds; thefts and frauds relating to Treasury 
electronic funds transfers; financial access device fraud, 
telecommunications fraud, computer and telemarketing fraud; fraud 
relative to federally insured financial institutions; and other 
criminal and noncriminal cases. 

Component activities: 
* Domestic Protection of Persons includes activities conducted by 
Secret Service officials to protect the President of the United States, 
the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order 
of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice President-
elect and the members of their immediate families, former Presidents, 
their spouses and children under the age of 16, visiting heads of 
foreign states or governments; and major presidential, vice 
presidential candidates and their spouses. It also includes efforts 
conducted by Secret Service officials to plan, coordinate, and 
implement security operations at National Special Security Events, such 
as Republican and Democratic National Conventions; 
* Financial and Infrastructure Investigations includes activities by 
Secret Service officials to protect the nation's financial and monetary 
systems, and critical infrastructure that supports those systems, such 
as the development of tools to combat cyber terrorism; 
* Domestic Protection of Government Buildings includes activities 
conducted by Secret Service officials to protect critical 
infrastructure and key assets by providing a security perimeter and 
building security at the White House/Treasury complex, the foreign 
diplomatic community located within the Washington metropolitan area, 
and at other Secret Service-secured sites. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets. 

[End of table] 

Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration. 

Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key 
Assets. 

Weapons Activities Account (019-05-0240)[A]. 

The Weapons Activities account provide for the maintenance and 
refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their safety, 
reliability, and performance; expansion of scientific, engineering, and 
manufacturing capabilities to enable certification of the enduring 
nuclear weapons stockpile; and manufacture of nuclear weapon components 
under a comprehensive test ban. The weapons activities account also 
provides for continuous maintenance and investment in DOE's enterprise 
of nuclear stewardship, including maintaining the capability to return 
to the design and production of new weapons and to underground nuclear 
testing, if so directed by the President. 

Component activities: 
* National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Safeguards and 
Security ensures the protection of NNSA personnel, nuclear weapons, 
information, cyber infrastructure, and other materials at NNSA sites 
and facilities; 
* NNSA Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transportation of 
nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, selected non-nuclear weapons 
components, limited-life components, and any other DOE materials to and 
from military locations, between nuclear weapons complex facilities, 
and to other government locations within the continental United States; 
* NNSA Safety and Security Cybersecurity provides a foundation to 
facilitate detection of intrusions (hackers and other forms of 
attacks), and conduct vulnerability assessments and take corrective 
action at each NNSA site. It also includes actions to implement the 
Department of Energy's and NNSA's cybersecurity policies and practices, 
and continuously improve NNSA's network and computing systems. The 
costs of these activities also include personnel time and acquisition 
and maintenance of cybersecurity technology (hardware and software) 
needed to maintain NNSA's cybersecurity posture while addressing 
cybersecurity threats; 
* National Nuclear Security Administration Safeguards and Security-HQ 
Research and Development aids in the efforts to enhance physical 
security at NNSA sites. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets. 

[End of table] 

General Services Administration. 

Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key 
Assets. 

Federal Properties Activities/Fee Funded, Federal Buildings Fund 
Account (023-05-4542)[A]. 

The Real Property Activities account provides funding for GSA personnel 
efforts to implement security measures at federal buildings. 

Component activities: 
* New Construction includes efforts to implement security enhancements 
to newly constructed federal buildings such as implementing a 
structural design to ensure that support columns are sized, reinforced, 
and protected so that a terrorist event will not cause collapse; 
perimeter protection measures; and window systems design to mitigate 
the hazardous effects of flying glass following an explosive event; 
* Major Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with major 
repairs and alteration projects (that is, requests for repairs and 
alterations greater than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36 
million in fiscal year 2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to 
implement security measures to modify federal buildings for security 
enhancements such as installing bollards; 
* Building Operations includes studies conducted to determine the need 
for retrofitting federal facilities against threats that will cause 
building columns or structures to be critically damaged and collapse; 
* Minor Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with minor 
repair and alteration projects (that is, those requests costing less 
than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36 million in fiscal year 
2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to implement security 
measures to modify federal buildings for security enhancements such as 
installing bollards. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets. 

[End of table] 

United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works. 

Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key 
Assets. 

Operation and Maintenance Account (202-00-3132)[A]. 

The Civil Works/Operation and Maintenance account provides funding for 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer personnel to prepare for emergencies and 
secure infrastructure owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the 
United States Army Corps of Engineers, including administrative 
buildings, facilities, and labs. 

Component activities: Continuity of Operations funds USACE preparedness 
planning, including exercises related to USACE emergency relocation as 
a result of either a natural or a man-made disaster; Critical Project 
Security provides funds for physical security upgrades such as fences 
and cameras; guards hired to control access to critical project assets 
such as hydropower generators; and protection of administrative 
facilities and laboratories. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets. 

[End of table] 

Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service. 

Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Threats. 

Salaries and Expenses Account (005-18-1400)[A]. 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Agricultural 
Research Service personnel to conduct research that helps counter 
agricultural bioterrorism including research that minimizes the risk of 
agriculture to contamination (chemical, biological, or genetic), helps 
ensure the security of the food supply, and allows Agricultural 
Research Service personnel to provide scientific knowledge and 
expertise in agriculture to support a response to a bioterrorism 
attack. 

Component activities: 
* Research includes research activities conducted by Agricultural 
Research Service personnel to help protect the nation's animal and 
plant resources by preventing bioterrorism attacks on crops and animal 
agriculture or providing rapid responses to thwart such attacks, and 
developing rapid and accurate techniques to monitor the safety of the 
food supply. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats. 

[End of table] 

Department of Agriculture: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service. 

Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks. 

Salaries and Expenses Account (005-32-1600)[A]. 

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funds for APHIS staff to 
safeguard U.S. plant and animal resources against the introduction of 
foreign diseases and pests before they cause significant economic or 
environmental damage. 

Component activities: 
* Pest Detection/Animal Health Monitoring supports efforts by APHIS 
staff to track plant and animal disease agents that could be used in 
acts of bioterrorism; 
* Overseas Activities supports efforts by APHIS staff to collect 
information on and track foreign pests and animal diseases. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: Science and Technology. 

Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks. 

Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions Account (024-80- 
0800)[A]. 

The Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions account 
provides funds for Science and Technology personnel to conduct and 
stimulate research, development, test, evaluation, and the timely 
transition of domestic combating terrorism capabilities to federal, 
state, and local agencies. 

Component activities: 
* Biological Countermeasures includes research activities on early 
biowarning systems and their future implementation, as well as analysis 
and countermeasures of biological threats; 
* Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures includes activities 
associated with radiological detection research and implementation, 
analysis, and countermeasures of nuclear and radiological threats, and 
the development of systems that will help to coordinate consequence 
management and recovery; 
* Research and Development Support to Department of Homeland Security 
Agencies includes coordination and collaboration research and 
development activities with the other components of the department to 
assist and enhance their technical capabilities; 
* Man-Portable Air Defense Systems Countermeasures Special Program 
includes activities associated with the development of countermeasures 
to mitigate threats posed by shoulder-fired missiles directed toward 
commercial aircraft; 
* Chemical Countermeasures includes a range of activities to address 
chemical defense, such as studies to prioritize efforts for mitigating 
threats among chemical threats and targets, and the development of new 
chemical detection and forensic technologies; 
* Miscellaneous Activities includes a range of activities such as 
enhancing explosive detection equipment for aviation security, 
providing funding to the academic community to provide support for 
qualified students and faculty to conduct research and development, and 
supporting studies and analysis to be conducted by the Homeland 
Security Institute. 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Defending against Catastrophic Threats. 

[End of table] 

Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Government 
Coordination and Preparedness. 

Critical Mission Area: Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

State and Local Programs Account (024-10-0560)[A]. 

The State and Local Programs account provides funding for grants, 
training, exercises, and technical assistance to enhance the terrorism 
preparedness of first responders, including police, fire, rescue, and 
emergency response. 

Component activities: 
* State Homeland Security Grants provide funding to support grants to 
states for domestic combating terrorism activities such as training, 
exercises, support costs, and Citizen Corps. Citizen Corps was created 
to help coordinate volunteer activities that will make our communities 
safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to any emergency 
situation; 
* High Threat Urban Area Grants provide funding to support grants to 
states and localities for terrorism preparedness and infrastructure 
protection in high threat urban areas; 
* National Exercise Programs provide funding to support the Top 
Officials Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise and other federally 
administered terrorism exercises; 
* Center for Domestic Preparedness provides funds to train state and 
local first responders to operate within a live agent hazardous 
environment; 
* Miscellaneous Activities includes funding for a range of activities 
such as the storage of emergency equipment located at certain National 
Guard facilities and for emergency preparedness training through the 
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (terrorism preparedness 
training centers). 

Gross budget authority (dollars in millions): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 
Database. 

[A] The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of 
the account that supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical 
mission area Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Scope and Methodology: 

To identify the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their 
annual appropriation that relates to combating terrorism, we met with 
OMB officials to review OMB's efforts to define, categorize, and track 
homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding both prior 
to and after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act. In addition, 
we met with 7 agencies, including 12 directorates, offices, or bureaus 
at those agencies that reported receiving funding for combating 
terrorism activities. The seven agencies we contacted are the 
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the 
Department of Energy, the General Services Administration, and the 
United Stated Department of Agriculture. 

To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from 
33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving 
funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. We selected 
DHS and DOD because they account for 73 percent of the gross budget 
authority enacted for homeland security activities for fiscal year 
2005, and DOD and DOE because they account for 69 percent of the gross 
budget authority enacted for overseas combating terrorism activities 
for fiscal year 2005.[Footnote 57] We also selected four agencies: two 
agencies from a list of those with the most fiscal year 2005 budget 
dollars related to combating terrorism activities--USDA and DOJ--and 
two agencies from a list of those with the least enacted budget 
authority related to combating terrorism activities--GSA and USACE--to 
ensure we included agencies in our review that had a range of combating 
terrorism funding. Because the selection we used was a nonprobability 
sample, the information we obtained from these 7 agencies is not 
generalizable to all agencies with similar funding for combating 
terrorism activities.[Footnote 58] 

We used a random sample number generator to select USDA, DOJ, GSA, and 
USACE from the two categories we established, that is, agencies that 
were moderately funded and those that were minimally funded. We 
excluded DOD, DHS, and DOE when performing the random number 
generation, since we had already included them in our selection. (We 
also excluded the Postal Service because it did not estimate receiving 
any funding to combat terrorism activities in fiscal year 2006 and 10 
other agencies that each received less than 0.1 percent of combating 
terrorism dollars--to ensure that our analysis included the more 
significant of the minimally funded agencies).[Footnote 59] 

Within the seven agencies, we selected directorates or offices that 
received the most funding for combating terrorism activities. These 
included the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the 
Agricultural Research Service, within USDA; Customs and Border 
Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State 
and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the Transportation 
Security Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the United 
States Secret Service, and the Science and Technology Directorate of 
DHS; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation of DOJ. 

We also reviewed the activities contained in 34 budgetary accounts-- 
separate financial reporting units for which all transactions within 
the budget are recorded--for these agencies designated as related to 
combating terrorism. We selected accounts with the most combating 
terrorism funding at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller 
amounts to ensure we covered a range of funding. On the basis of our 
selection, we reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency's estimated 
gross budget authority related to combating terrorism activities as 
reported in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request. While we 
initially selected an additional 23 budgetary accounts to review at 
DOD, we did not review these accounts because DOD does not enter its 
combating terrorism activities--specific lines of work--into OMB's 
Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism database. Although 
OMB computed the portion of budget authority DOD receives to combat 
terrorism and aligned DOD's budget authority related to homeland 
security with the six critical mission areas, OMB staff said that they 
did not enter information on activities conducted by DOD to combat 
terrorism. Thus, we did not have any activity level-information to 
review for DOD for the accounts we selected. 

We interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our 
review and OMB to determine how they identified, categorized, and 
tracked homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities 
and estimated the portion of their budget authority that relates to 
such activities. To supplement interviews with agency budget officials, 
we also reviewed relevant budget documentation from each agency and 
asked agency budget officials to describe procedures the agency had in 
place to ensure that their funding levels were developed in accordance 
with OMB's guidelines and definitions. 

To identify the status of recommendations from our November 2002 
report, we met with OMB and attempted to meet with National Security 
Council (NSC) officials to document what actions have been taken to 
implement our recommendations and the reasons they did or did not 
implement them.[Footnote 60] Additionally, we reviewed the National 
Strategy for Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy for Homeland 
Security, and the National Security Strategy of the United States and 
conducted a literature search to determine if any updates or 
supplements had been written that included governmentwide performance 
goals and measures. We also interviewed agency officials at the seven 
agencies included in our review and reviewed their performance plans to 
determine whether these plans included performance goals and measures 
that reflected their combating terrorism activities. To determine the 
status of recommendations made in our 2002 report regarding an analysis 
of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in 
annual reporting on funding data associated with such activities and to 
report this information in a timely manner to support congressional 
budget decisions, we met with OMB to determine what actions have been 
taken to implement our recommendations and the reasons it did or did 
not implement them. We also reviewed the Analytical Perspectives 
accompanying the President's fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budgets to 
determine whether or not OMB included funding data information on 
combating terrorism and whether this information was issued in a timely 
manner. 

In addition to pursuing our two main objectives, we also identified 
funding patterns and trends for overseas combating terrorism activities 
and for homeland security activities between fiscal year 2002 and what 
is proposed for fiscal year 2006. We extracted, summarized, and 
analyzed combating terrorism data from the database used to prepare the 
Budget of the United States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To 
ensure that the database we received was consistent with published 
sources, we conducted electronic data testing and determined that the 
data was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

We also analyzed the effects of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on 
reporting requirements for funding data related to combating terrorism 
activities since our 2002 report[Footnote 61] by reviewing the act and 
comparing it with prior reporting requirements under the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as amended by the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.[Footnote 62] 
To supplement this information, we also reviewed OMB's 2003 Report to 
Congress on Combating Terrorism and the Analytical Perspectives of the 
President's budget from fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify 
Activities as Combating Terrorism: 

Officials at five of the seven agencies[Footnote 63] we contacted-- 
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the 
Department of Energy, the General Services Administration, and the 
United Stated Department of Agriculture--most commonly reported using 
guidance from OMB, the Homeland Security Act of 2002,[Footnote 64] and 
agency-specific guidance to identify their combating terrorism 
activities. Officials at all five of these agencies said they use OMB 
Circular No. A-11, which includes definitions for homeland security and 
overseas combating terrorism activities, and instructions for 
submitting information on funding data related to homeland security and 
overseas combating terrorism to OMB.[Footnote 65] In addition, 
officials from four of the seven agencies in our review reported that 
they consulted with OMB to determine which of their agency's activities 
are related to combating terrorism. 

Three of the seven agencies we contacted--DHS, USDA, and the United 
States Army Corps of Engineers--have developed additional guidance, 
which provides details specific to each agency to help determine 
combating terrorism activities. For example, to supplement OMB Circular 
A-11 guidance, DHS established an internal directive, Planning, 
Programming, Budgeting and Execution, which helps establish policy, 
procedures, and responsibilities relative to the planning, programming, 
budgeting, and execution process at DHS. The objective of the directive 
is to articulate DHS's goals, objectives, and priorities while guiding 
the development of the department's budget request and establishing 
parameters and guidelines for implementing and executing the current 
budget. 

Furthermore, officials in four of DHS's components told us that they 
refer to information included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to 
determine which of their activities relate to homeland security. For 
example, section 888 of the Homeland Security Act designated 5 of the 
U.S. Coast Guard's 11 missions as homeland security and the remaining 6 
as non-homeland security.[Footnote 66] Similarly, Information Analysis 
and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) officials at DHS stated that they 
categorized all of their activities as related to homeland security, 
since section 201 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 only authorized 
IAIP to conduct activities related to homeland security. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of 
Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data: 

This appendix discusses the status of recommendations made in our 2002 
report for the Office of Management and Budget to (1) include an 
analysis of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism 
activities in its annual reporting of funding data associated with such 
activities and (2) report this information in a timely manner to 
support congressional budget decisions.[Footnote 67] 

To improve the usefulness of OMB's Annual Report to Congress on 
Combating Terrorism, we recommended that OMB include, as required by 
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, an 
analysis of areas where overlap in programs could result in unnecessary 
duplication of effort.[Footnote 68] We also recommended that OMB 
publish the report by the required annual March 1 deadline to provide 
information in time for congressional budget deliberations. 

Although OMB has not implemented our recommendation that it include an 
analysis of unnecessary duplication of effort in its annual combating 
terrorism report, this requirement no longer exists. Our November 2002 
report was issued concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002.[Footnote 69] Section 889 of the Homeland Security 
Act of 2002 repealed OMB's prior reporting requirements, including the 
duplication analysis. 

OMB staff stated that they did not include an analysis of duplication 
in any of the agency's prior reports primarily because they perform an 
analysis of homeland security initiatives and related resource needs 
across all federal agencies as part of the annual budget preparation 
process, and that they take action to address duplication prior to the 
publication of the President's budget. Therefore, OMB staff said that 
they believe any issue of duplication is addressed in the President's 
budget, specifically through his recommendations related to funding 
needs. 

Our recommendation that OMB improve the usefulness of its Annual Report 
to Congress on Combating Terrorism by publishing the report by the then-
required March 1 annual deadline was also superseded by section 889 of 
the Homeland Security Act. This section requires that OMB report on 
funding data for homeland security activities in the President's 
budget. Because the President must submit his budget by the first 
Monday in February,[Footnote 70] the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
accelerated the timeline for reporting funding data on homeland 
security activities. OMB complied with this reporting requirement in 
fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget: 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT: 
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET: 
WASHINGTON DC 20503: 

December 21, 2005: 

Mr. Paul Jones: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Division: 
Government Accountability Office: 
441 G St, NW: 
Washington, DC 20549: 

Dear Mr. Jones: 

Thank you for the opportunity to Comment on GAO's draft report entitled 
`Methods for Determining Federal Funding Related to Combating Terrorism 
Activities" (GAO-06-161). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
appreciates the in-depth analyses provided in the report, and the 
detailed review of the government's "Homeland Security" spending 
levels. 

Included within the draft report however. GAO also publishes funding 
estimates for "Overseas Combating Terrorism" (OCT) activities that were 
extracted from the MAX budget database maintained by OMB. We are 
concerned about the accuracy of this data, and recommend that OCT 
estimates be deleted from the final report. 

As OMB staff explained to the GAO authors of this report several times 
during the research phase of the project, OMB no longer uses the OCT 
measure as the basis for analysis of funding levels. Since November 
2002 the relevant statute has not required reporting on this basis. 
Therefore, for over three years, OMB has not reviewed for consistency 
the methodologies used to compile the estimates, nor confirmed the 
accuracy of the data submitted. As a result the estimates included in 
the draft GAO report should not be considered an accurate 
representation of funding spent an combating terrorism overseas. OMB 
strongly urges that the final GAO report not include the OCT estimates, 
and we also recommend that these figures not be used as the basis for 
any further analysis or decision making given the outstanding questions 
about their accuracy. 

We appreciate the opportunity to work with GAO on this issue and thank 
you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft report on 
this important issue. 

Sincerely. 

Signed by: 

David J. Haum: 
Deputy Associate Director: 
Transportation, Homeland, Justice and Services Division: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration: 

GSA Office of the Chief Financial Officer: 

DEC 2 2005: 

The Honorable David M. Walker: 
Comptroller General of the United States: 
Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Walker: 

The General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates this opportunity 
to review and provide comments to the Government Accountability 
Office's draft report, "COMBATING TERRORISM: Methods for Determining 
Federal Funding Related to Combating Terrorism Activities", GAO-06-161. 
We concur with the sections discussing GSA in the draft report. 

Questions regarding the draft report may be directed to Mr. David A. 
Morris, Acting Director, Budget and Performance Integration, at (202) 
501-4159 or davida.morris@gsa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Kathleen M. Turco: 
Chief Financial Officer: 
U.S. General Services Administration: 

[End of section] 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Paul L. Jones (202) 512-8777: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Debra B. Sebastian, Assistant 
Director, Grace A. Coleman, Christine F. Davis, Gerard DeBie, Denise M. 
Fantone, Michele Fejfar, Jacob Hauskens, Laura R. Helm, Dawn Locke, 
Sara R. Margraf, and John W. Mingus, and made key contributions to this 
report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Global War on Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for 
the War when Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767. 
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005. 

Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the Reliability of Cost 
Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control Costs, GAO-05-882. 
Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005. 

Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information 
for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 
2005. 

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP. 
Washington, D.C.: September 2005. 

Protection of Chemical and Water Infrastructure: Federal Requirements, 
Actions of Selected Facilities, and Remaining Challenges. GAO-05-327. 
Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2005. 

Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning Process 
Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability. GAO-05-300. Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a 
Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214. 
Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges 
Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security. GAO-05-33. 
Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal 
Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices. GAO- 
05-49. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004. 

Military Operations: Fiscal Year 2004 Costs for the Global War on 
Terrorism Will Exceed Supplemental, Requiring DOD to Shift Funds from 
Other Uses. GAO-04-915. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004. 

Homeland Security: Transformation Strategy Needed to Address Challenges 
Facing the Federal Protective Service. GAO-04-537. Washington, D.C.: 
July 14, 2004. 

Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation 
for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-594T. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 
2004. 

Coast Guard: Relationship between Resources Used and Results Achieved 
Needs to Be Clearer. GAO-04-432. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2004. 

Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees. GAO-04- 
406R. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2004. 

Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 
Strategies Related to Terrorism. GAO-04-408T. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 
2004. 

Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program 
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. GAO-04-174. 
Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004: 

Homeland Security: Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland 
Security in Balancing its Border Security and Trade Facilitation 
Missions. GAO-03-902T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2003. 

Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be 
Improved. GAO-03-170. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2002. 

Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. GAO- 
02-927T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002. 

National Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and 
Private Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy 
for Homeland Security. GAO-02-621T. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002. 

Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National 
Preparedness Strategy. GAO-02-549T. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002. 

Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness 
Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001. 

Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach. GAO-02- 
150T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001. 

Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations. 
GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20. 2001. 

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism 
Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 19, 2001. 

IRS Modernization: IRS Should Enhance Its Performance Management 
System. GAO-01-234. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2001. 

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based 
Management and Accountability. GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 28, 1998. 

Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management 
Issues. GAO/AIMD-98-11. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1997. 

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide 
Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: June 
2, 1997. 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 
and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Since combating terrorism activities exclude direct military 
action, this report does not include those activities associated with 
the Global War on Terrorism. The Global War on Terrorism includes (1) 
Operation Noble Eagle--military operations to defend the United States 
from terrorist attacks, (2) Operation Enduring Freedom--overseas 
military operations to defend the United States from terrorist attacks 
that have principally taken place in Afghanistan, and (3) Operation 
Iraqi Freedom--military operations to change the government in Iraq. 
For work GAO recently completed on costs associated with the Global War 
on Terrorism, see GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve 
the Reliability of Cost Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control 
Costs, GAO-05-882 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005), and Global War on 
Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for the War when 
Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 28, 2005). 

[2] In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, OMB reviewed and reported on what 
agencies estimated to be the portion of their budget authority that 
related to both homeland security--$33 billion and $43 billion, 
respectively--and overseas combating terrorism funding--$11.5 billion 
and $12 billion, respectively. While OMB continued to collect data on 
both homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities 
since fiscal year 2003, OMB staff said that they have not reviewed 
funding data on overseas combating terrorism since OMB is no longer 
required to report this information. Thus, they said that data on 
overseas combating terrorism funding are not subject to the same level 
of scrutiny as funding data on homeland security and may not be as 
reliable as homeland security funding data. However, we have included 
the overseas combating terrorism data that agencies continue to report 
to OMB in appendix I. 

[3] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, section 889, 116 
Stat. 2135, 2251 (2002). Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 
2002 applies only to homeland security activities, not overseas 
activities related to combating terrorism. In this report, the generic 
term "combating terrorism" includes both homeland security and overseas 
combating terrorism activities. Our definitions comport with OMB's 
definitions in Circular No. A-11, which agencies use in classifying 
their funding data. See Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and 
Execution of the Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of 
Management and Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). For additional 
information on budget functions, see GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in 
the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 
2005). 

[4] The President issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security in 
July 2002. The strategy sets forth overall objectives to prevent 
terrorist attacks within the United States, reduce vulnerability to 
terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from 
attacks that may occur. 

[5] In general, the Analytical Perspectives contains information that 
highlights specific subject areas, such as funding data on homeland 
security, or provides other significant context and perspective for the 
budget. 

[6] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress 
Should Be Improved, GAO-03-170 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2002). At 
the time of this report, which we issued the day after the President 
signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, OMB's required report to 
Congress included both homeland security and overseas combating 
terrorism activities. 

[7] We define "performance objective" as a performance goal that sets a 
target level of performance over time expressed as a tangible, 
measurable goal, against which actual achievement can be compared, 
including a goal expressed as a quantitative standard, value, or rate. 
It is composed of a performance measure with targets and time frames. 
Performance measures are a means to quantify an agency's progress 
toward achieving its objectives. 

[8] See GAO-03-170. 

[9] Accounts are separate financial reporting units used for budget, 
management, or accounting purposes. Budget accounts are used to record 
all budgetary transactions. See GAO-05-734SP. 

[10] Gross budget authority represents budgetary totals from which 
offsetting collections have not been deducted. Offsetting collections 
are collections by government accounts from other government accounts 
and any collections from the public that are of a business type or 
market-oriented nature. 

[11] See GAO-03-170. 

[12] See appendix VII for a detailed discussion of how the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002 superseded two of the recommendations made in our 
prior report. 

[13] Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts awarded, 
services received, and similar transactions during a given period that 
will require payments during the same or a future period. 

[14] PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that is used to rate 
the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus on 
program results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a 5- 
year period beginning in fiscal year 2002 using the PART tool. 

[15] To satisfy this requirement, OMB provided a classified annex to 
its unclassified report. The unclassified report provided unclassified 
information, where possible, on funding for the national security 
community (i.e., the Department of Defense and the Intelligence 
Community), while the classified annex provided additional, classified 
funding details for the national security community. 

[16] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA 
for FY 1998), Pub. L. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (Nov. 18, 1997) as 
amended by the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999), Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1920, 
2168 (Oct. 17, 1998). 

[17] Prior to 2002, OMB used different classifications to report 
combating terrorism funding, such as antiterrorism (defensive measures 
to combat terrorism) and counterterrorism (offensive measures to combat 
terrorism). 

[18] After OMB approves agency funding levels to be included in the 
President's budget request, agencies then determine the portion of 
their funding levels that are related to combating terrorism activities 
and report those amounts to OMB. 

[19] DOD staff said that they do not report funding levels associated 
with combating terrorism activities to OMB. 

[20] GSA is not responsible for overseas combating terrorism 
activities. Real property activities related to homeland security at 
GSA include actions taken to enhance building security. The Federal 
Buildings Fund finances GSA's Public Buildings Service, which provides 
space and services for federal agencies in a relationship similar to 
that of landlord and tenant. The Federal Protective Service-- 
authorized, among other things, to enforce laws and regulations aimed 
at protecting federal property and persons on such property--was 
originally located within GSA's Public Building Service and a portion 
of the Federal Protective Service's budget authority was associated 
with homeland security issues. The Federal Protective Service was moved 
to the Department of Homeland Security effective March 1, 2003. 
Therefore, GSA's fiscal year 2006 budget authority for the portion of 
Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings Fund that relate 
to homeland security activities does not include funding levels 
associated with the Federal Protective Service. For additional 
information on GSA's real property activities, see appendix IV. 

[21] USSS does not conduct overseas combating terrorism activities. 

[22] Protective Services provide for the protection of individuals 
including the President of the United States, immediate family members, 
the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order 
of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice President- 
elect and the members of their immediate families, the protection of a 
visiting head of state and accompanying spouse, or a foreign state or 
foreign government. Investigative Services provide for investigation of 
counterfeiting of currency and securities; forgery and altering of 
government checks and bonds; thefts and frauds relating to Treasury 
electronic funds transfers; financial access device fraud, 
telecommunications fraud, computer and telemarketing fraud; fraud 
relative to federally insured financial institutions; and other 
criminal and noncriminal cases. 

[23] The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does not conduct 
overseas combating terrorism activities. 

[24] According to USACE officials, they do not align their homeland 
security activities with the critical mission areas when entering their 
homeland security data into OMB's Homeland Security and Overseas 
Combating Terrorism database. 

[25] Since there is no longer a requirement to report on overseas 
combating terrorism funding data, OMB staff said that they have not 
kept the definition of overseas combating terrorism activities in OMB 
Circular No. A-11 updated. 

[26] OMB staff stated that the change in the overseas combating 
terrorism reporting requirement was not sought by the Administration 
and OMB was not aware of legislative history explaining Congress's 
reasons for the change. We were unable to find legislative history 
explaining why section 889 excluded overseas combating terrorism 
reporting requirements. 

[27] Before fiscal year 2005, OMB staff said they conducted informal 
discussions with agency officials regarding potential changes. 

[28] See GAO-03-170. 

[29] See GAO-03-170. 

[30] See GAO-03-170. 

[31] In an alternative scenario, GAO assumed that the share of 
unobligated balances was equal to the share of budget authority coded 
as homeland security. That is, if an account is labeled 80 percent 
homeland security, then 80 percent of the available balances are also 
assumed to be related to homeland security. This analysis produced the 
following results: fiscal year 2002 ($3.4 billion), fiscal year 2003 
($5.4 billion), fiscal year 2004 ($4.6 billion). Our analysis indicated 
that many of the unobligated balances were in accounts with mainly 
grant activities or in accounts where the mission was accomplished 
through contracts. 

[32] Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), 
OMB is required to prepare an annual governmentwide performance plan 
and to submit it to Congress with the President's budget beginning in 
fiscal year 1999: 31 U.S. C. 1105(a)(28). Congress enacted GPRA to 
promote a government focus on managing by results. Finding that waste 
and inefficiency in federal programs were undermining confidence in 
government, Congress sought to hold federal agencies accountable for 
the results of federal spending through regular and systematic 
performance planning measurement and reporting. With the implementation 
of GPRA, federal agencies are required to set goals, measure 
performance, and report on their accomplishments. The act requires that 
federal agencies establish long-term goals, as well as annual goals. 
Agencies must then measure their performance against the goals they set 
and report publicly on how well they are doing. For a fuller discussion 
of the framework, see GAO, Managing for Results: The Statutory 
Framework for Performance-Based Management and Accountability, 
GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998). 

[33] While governmentwide performance measures have not been developed 
for combating terrorism, DHS is working to develop such measures for 
homeland security activities related to critical infrastructure. 
According to DHS's Interim National Infrastructure Protection Plan, 
IAIP officials have identified a set of basic metrics that can be used 
to evaluate performance across the 13 critical infrastructure sectors-
-agriculture, banking and finance, chemical, defense industrial base, 
emergency services, energy, food, government, information and 
telecommunications, postal and shipping, public health, transportation, 
and water sectors. IAIP is working with agencies responsible for these 
sectors to develop a supplemental set of measures for each sector. The 
intent of this process is to provide DHS and the sector-specific 
agencies with feedback on where and how they should focus their 
resources to be most effective. According to IAIP officials, IAIP and 
the sector-specific agencies have not completed the performance 
measures but some have developed target dates for their completion. 

[34] Established by Section 5 of Executive Order 13228 (Oct. 8, 2001), 
the Homeland Security Council is composed of more than 20 members who 
are responsible for advising and assisting the President with respect 
to all aspects of homeland security. The council serves as the 
mechanism for ensuring coordination of homeland security-related 
activities of executive departments and agencies and effective 
development and implementation of homeland security policies. 

[35] For purposes of this report, we are defining existing strategies 
as the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the National Security 
Strategy of the United States, and the National Strategy for Combating 
Terrorism. The President issued the National Security Strategy of the 
United States in September 2002. It provides a broad framework for 
strengthening U.S. security in the future and identifies the national 
security goals of the United States, describes the foreign policy and 
military capabilities necessary to achieve those goals, evaluates the 
current status of these capabilities, and explains how national power 
will be structured to utilize these capabilities. The President issued 
the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism in February 2003 
elaborating on the terrorism aspects of the national security strategy 
by expounding on the need to destroy terrorist organizations, win the 
"war of ideas," and strengthen security at home and abroad, focusing on 
identifying and defusing threats before they reach the borders of the 
United States. 

[36] See GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's 
Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-
174 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004). 

[37] GSA officials told us that they do not have performance goals or 
measures related to homeland security within the Public Buildings 
Service section of GSA's 2002 Strategic Plan because they believe the 
level of homeland security activities the agency conducts does not 
warrant the development of separate performance goals or measures. 

[38] According to DOD, the antiterrorism program is a collective, 
proactive effort to deter, detect, prevent, defend against, respond to, 
defeat, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD personnel and their 
families, selected DOD contractors, installations, infrastructure, and 
key assets essential to mission accomplishment. Furthermore, it 
mitigates the effects of terrorism to sustain essential military 
operations. 

[39] See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Action Needed to Improve DOD 
Antiterrorism Program Implementation and Management, GAO-01-909 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2001). 

[40] September 11 coincided with departments' and agencies' submissions 
to OMB for fiscal year 2003 and occurred 3 weeks before the start of 
fiscal year 2002. Supplemental funds enacted in fiscal year 2001 (P.L 
107-38) were for the most part not available for agency obligations 
until fiscal year 2002. In addition, a second supplemental 
appropriations bill was signed into law on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107- 
206). 

[41] OMB uses its MAX database to prepare the President's annual 
budget, and it is the source of data for this appendix. 

[42] "Bureau" is defined as the principal subordinate organizational 
unit of an agency, such as the Transportation Security Administration 
in DHS or the Agricultural Research Service in the Department of 
Agriculture. 

[43] Although the Department of Homeland Security did not exist in 
fiscal year 2002, the amounts shown include activities and funding that 
were subsequently transferred into DHS in fiscal year 2003. The amounts 
shown under the department were constructed after the fact for data 
comparability. 

[44] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, section 889, 116 
Stat. 2135, 2251 (2002). 

[45] Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 

[46] Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the Department of 
Homeland Security was established. When the Department of Homeland 
Security became operational in March 2003, the activities of 22 
entities were consolidated and approximately 60 percent of homeland 
security funding was merged under one department. 

[47] There are 17 budget functions for the U.S. government--National 
Defense; International Affairs; General Science Space and Technology; 
Energy; Natural Resources and Environment; Agriculture; Commerce and 
Housing Credit; Transportation; Community and Regional Development; 
Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services; Health; Medicare; 
Income Security; Social Security, Veterans Benefits and Services; 
Administration of Justice; and General Government. 

[48] According to OMB staff responsible for preparing this analysis on 
behalf of the President, OMB has determined the initiative areas to be 
the six critical mission areas captured in the National Strategy for 
Homeland Security--Intelligence and Warning, Border and Transportation 
Security, Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure 
and Key Assets, Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency 
Preparedness and Response. (See app. II for a detailed description of 
each critical mission area.) 

[49] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 

[50] OMB staff stated that the change in the overseas combating 
terrorism reporting requirement was not sought by the Administration 
and OMB was not aware of legislative history explaining Congress's 
reasons for the change. We were unable to find legislative history 
explaining why section 889 excluded overseas combating terrorism 
reporting requirements. 

[51] Assessing risks for specific assets is defined by two conditions: 
(1) probability--the likelihood, quantitative or qualitative, that an 
adverse event would occur; and (2) consequences--the damage resulting 
from the event, should it occur. Thus, the most severe risks are those 
that have both the greatest probability of occurring and would cause 
the greatest damage. Actual risk reflects the combination of the two 
factors. Risks may be managed by reducing the probability, the 
consequence, or, where possible, both. 

[52] 31 U.S.C. 1105 (a). 

[53] See GAO-03-170. 

[54] According to OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) guidance, 
a crosscut review is a review that looks at programs across multiple 
agencies and can identify exemplary goals and practices, common 
measures of performance, possible trade-offs in management and budget 
decisions, and opportunities for better coordination among programs. 
The results of crosscutting analyses can summarize common strengths and 
opportunities for improvement. 

[55] An account with combating terrorism activities may include funding 
associated with more than one critical mission area. For example, as 
part of its fiscal year 2006 budget request, DHS's Information Analysis 
and Infrastructure Protection Assessment and Evaluation Account (024- 
90-0911) has funding associated with the following critical mission 
areas: Intelligence and Warning, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and 
Key Assets, and Emergency Preparedness and Response. 

[56] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 

[57] Gross budget authority is budgetary totals from which offsetting 
collections have not been deducted. Offsetting collections are 
collections by government accounts from other government accounts and 
any collections from the public that are of a business type or a market-
oriented nature. 

[58] Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used to make 
inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample some 
elements of the population being studied have no chance or an unknown 
chance of being selected as part of the sample. 

[59] In the fiscal year 2005 Analytical Perspective, 9 agencies and the 
District of Columbia use less than 0.1 percent of homeland security 
dollars and, together, make up 0.26 percent of total homeland security 
funding (about $121 million of the $46 billion homeland security 
dollars). These 9 agencies included the Executive Office of the 
President, Corporation for National and Community Service, National 
Archives and Records Administration, United States Holocaust Memorial 
Museum, Department of Education, Securities and Exchange Commission, 
Office of Personnel Management, Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, and the Federal Communications Commission. 

[60] National Security Council officials declined to meet with us or to 
confirm that the Administration had not yet issued any updates or 
revisions to the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the National 
Strategy for Combating Terrorism, and the National Security Strategy of 
the United States. In addition, National Security Council officials 
declined to provide us with information on the status of any future 
plans for issuing updates to these strategies. 

[61] See GAO-03-170. 

[62] Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1638, 1889(1997) as amended by Pub. 
L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 1930, 2168(1998). 

[63] Officials at the Department of Defense reported that OMB 
determines how much of DOD's funding relates to combating terrorism. 

[64] Pub. L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 

[65] Circular No. A-11: Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the 
Budget, Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and 
Budget (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005). 

[66] OMB staff said that while the current methodology for computing 
USCG homeland security funding includes the five missions from section 
888 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, they do not recognize section 
888 as the basis for making that determination. 

[67] See GAO-03-170. 

[68] Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (1997). 

[69] Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (2002). 

[70] 31 U.S.C. 1005(a). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: