United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

COMBATING 

TERRORISM 

January 2006 

Determining and 

Reporting Federal 

Funding Data 

 

GAO-06-161 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2006

COMBATING TERRORISM 

Determining and Reporting Federal 

Highlights of GAO-06-161, a report to Funding Data 

congressional requesters 

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. 

The President’s annual budget

reports on federal funding

dedicated to combating terrorism 

activities. Identification of such

funding is inherently difficult 

because a significant portion of

combating terrorism funding is 

embedded within appropriation 

accounts that include funding for

other activities as well. In 2002, 

GAO reported on the difficulties 

that the executive branch faced in 

reporting funding for combating

terrorism to Congress (see GAO-03-

170). This report updates the 

information contained in the 2002

report by providing information on 

(1) the methods agencies use to 

determine the portion of their 

annual appropriations related to

combating terrorism, and (2) the

status of recommendations from

GAO’s 2002 report. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO continues to believe its prior 

recommendations are still valid 

and, if implemented, would provide 

OMB and Congress with additional

insights for budget decisions and 

help them determine whether 

funding increases for combating

terrorism have improved

performance results. In

commenting on a draft of the 

report, OMB objected to the use of 

overseas combating terrorism 

funding data because they do not 

review it. Congress should consider

requiring OMB to report on 

overseas combating terrorism 

funding data. Other agencies 

commenting on the draft report 

had no comment, concurred, or

provided technical comments. 

Seven of 34 agencies that reported receiving funding related to combating 

terrorism activities to OMB used different methodologies to estimate the 

portion of their authorized funding that supports such activities. These 7 

agencies account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal year 2006 budget 

request that the 34 agencies estimate relate to combating terrorism. All of 

these methods involve some level of professional judgment. Agencies stated

this process is managed through OMB oversight and supervisory review. 

OMB staff said they do not review the overseas component of combating 

terrorism funding data since they are no longer required to report it. As a 

result, Congress does not receive OMB-reviewed data on the entirety of 

counterterrorism funding. 

Three recommendations from GAO’s 2002 report have not been 

implemented. The first recommendation requests that OMB include 

agencies’ obligation data in its annual reporting of funding data on 

combating terrorism. OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to 

produce such data but said they might consider reporting obligation 

information for a targeted set of accounts. Without obligation data, it is 

difficult for Congress to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still 

available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) whether the rate

of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what the size of 

the program is for a particular year and over time. The second 

recommendation was for OMB to direct relevant departments to develop or 

enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures and include 

such measures in the governmentwide plan. Three of the seven agencies told

us that OMB had not directed them to develop performance measures or 

enhance such measures for combating terrorism activities. However, four of 

the seven agencies had developed such measures. OMB staff said they are 

working with agencies to improve performance measurement of government 

programs related to combating terrorism. The development of such 

measures would assist Congress in determining whether funding increases 

have improved performance results. The third recommendation calls for the 

inclusion of national-level and federal governmentwide combating terrorism

performance measures in supplements to existing strategies and their future 

revisions. There have been no supplements or revisions to the existing 

strategies that include governmentwide or national-level combating 

terrorism measures. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 9

Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How 

Much of the Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities 10

Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide 

Additional Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding 

of Performance 20

Conclusions 26

Matter for Congressional Consideration 26

Agency Comments 26

Appendix I Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland 

Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism 

Activities 29 

Appendix II The National Strategy for Homeland Security’s 

Critical Mission Areas 67 

Appendix III Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports 

Continuing to Face 68 

Appendix IV A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating 

Terrorism Activities 72 

Appendix V Scope and Methodology 88 

Appendix VI Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using 

to Identify Activities as Combating Terrorism 92 

Page i GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VII Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to 

Duplication of Effort and Timely Reporting of 

Funding Data 94 

Appendix VIII Comments from the Office of Management 

and Budget 96 

Appendix IX Comments from the General Services Administration 97 

Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 98 

Related GAO Products 99 

Tables 

Table 1: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security—by 

Summarized Agency 32

Table 2: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security—by 

Agency 36

Table 3: Gross Budget Authority for Homeland Security—by 

Agency, Bureau, and Account 40

Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission 

Area 55

Table 5: Gross Budget Authority by Agency and Homeland Security 

Mission Area 56

Table 6: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating 

Terrorism—by Summarized Agency 64

Table 7: Gross Budget Authority for Overseas Combating 

Terrorism—by Agency 66

Page ii GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Figures 

Figure 1: GSA’s Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget 

Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That 

Relate to Homeland Security 12

Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the 

Portion of Budget Authority Associated with Operating 

Expenses That Relate to Homeland Security 14

Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an 

Activity Relates to Homeland Security 16

Page iii GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Abbreviations 

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 

ARS Agricultural Research Service 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

DOJ Department of Justice 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GSA General Services Administration 

IAIP Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act 

NSC National Security Council 

OCT Overseas Combating Terrorism 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

SLGCP Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 

 Preparedness 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USSS United States Secret Service 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

January 17, 2006 

The Honorable Jon Kyl 

Chairman 

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology 

 and Homeland Security 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby 

United States Senate 

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration and 

Congress have increased funding in support of combating terrorism both 

at home and abroad. According to the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), combating terrorism includes efforts to secure the homeland (that 

is, homeland security activities to detect, deter, protect against, and, if 

needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United States) 

and those to combat terrorism overseas (those activities occurring outside 

the United States and its territories), excluding direct military action.1

Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, funding attributed to homeland 

Combating Terrorism

 

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). 

Page 1 GAO-06-161 
security activities increased 39 percent, from $33 billion in fiscal year 2002 

to $46 billion for fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the President 

requested nearly $50 billion for activities associated with homeland 

security. In addition, Congress appropriated funding that agencies also 

attributed to overseas combating terrorism activities. However, OMB is no 

longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding data.2

In response to the September 11 attacks and the resulting emphasis placed 

on combating terrorism, Congress took legislative action to revise 

reporting requirements related to federal funding for combating terrorism 

activities. Under section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the 

President’s annual budget is required to include an analysis of homeland 

security funding.3

 This analysis is to be organized by budget function (i.e., 

functions that cover 17 areas of the government such as agriculture and 

health), agency, and initiative area. According to OMB staff responsible for 

preparing this analysis on behalf of the President, OMB adopted the six 

critical mission areas captured in the National Strategy for Homeland 

Security—Intelligence and Warning, Border and Transportation Security, 

Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key 

Assets, Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency 

Preparedness and Response—to represent initiative areas in its analysis. 

 

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). 

Page 2 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
(See app. II for a detailed description of each critical mission area).4

 This 

funding analysis appears in the Analytical Perspectives, which 

accompanies the President’s budget and provides information on 

requested funding levels related to homeland security.5

 Much of the 

funding for combating terrorism activities is embedded within 

appropriation accounts that finance programs that are not primarily 

homeland security or overseas combating terrorism related. This makes it 

difficult to identify activities and track funding without such an analysis. 

For example, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) receives the majority of its 

appropriations through its Operating Expenses Account. This funding 

supports the USCG’s operations both for combating terrorism activities 

such as securing ports, waterways, and the coast and for non-combating 

terrorism activities such as ice-breaking operations to facilitate navigation 

through waterways. Because combating terrorism funding is embedded 

within appropriation accounts, agencies provide OMB with information on 

the portion of funding that is attributable to combating terrorism 

activities—both homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. 

OMB then uses this information to report funding information on 

homeland security activities in the Analytical Perspectives. 

In November 2002, we reported on the difficulty the executive branch 

faced in identifying and tracking combating terrorism funding and other 

challenges associated with reporting such data to Congress.6

 Among these 

other challenges was the difficulty the executive branch faced in 

measuring the effective use of funds for combating terrorism since clearly 

defined federal and national performance objectives and measures for 

 

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. 

Page 3 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
assessing programs’ progress had not been established.7

 This report 

updates the information contained in our 2002 report by responding to the 

following questions: 

1. How do agencies determine what portion of their annual 

appropriations relates to combating terrorism? 

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

In addition, we also identified patterns and trends in funding for 

combating terrorism activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 as well as 

the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2006. This information is 

discussed in appendix I. Further, we examined how section 889 of the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 affected the reporting of funding data and 

the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking activities—specific lines 

of work—related to combating terrorism and ensuring the transparency of 

related funding data. The impact of section 889 on the reporting of funding 

data and the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking activities is 

discussed in appendix III. Finally, we reviewed combating terrorism 

activities that were funded through 34 budgetary accounts to determine 

whether the activities were consistent with OMB’s definitions of homeland 

security and overseas combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular 

No. A-11.9

 The information on combating terrorism activities funded 

through these 34 accounts is included in appendix IV. 

To address our objectives, we met with staff from OMB and with officials 

from 7 agencies that conduct a range of combating terrorism activities—

the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), 

Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) and the General Services Administration (GSA). To 

reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from 

 

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. 

Page 4 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving funding 

related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. The 7 agencies we 

selected account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal year 2006 budget 

request that the 33 agencies and the District of Columbia estimate relate to 

combating terrorism. Because we obtained information from a 

nonprobability sample of 7 agencies and their directorates and offices with 

combating terrorism responsibilities, the information we obtained cannot 

be generalized to all agencies with combating terrorism responsibilities. 

We reviewed activities in 34 budgetary accounts for the agencies in our 

review to determine whether the activities were consistent with OMB’s 

definitions of homeland security and overseas combating terrorism as 

defined in OMB Circular No. A-11. We selected accounts with the most 

funding for combating terrorism at each agency as well as some accounts 

with smaller amounts. By reviewing the activities in these 34 accounts, we 

reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency’s estimated gross budget 

authority related to combating terrorism activities as reported in the 

President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request.10 Although we initially selected 

budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review these accounts 

because neither DOD nor OMB maintains information on activities 

conducted by DOD to combat terrorism at the account level. For 

illustrative purposes, we have included a description of some of these 

accounts as well as the activities funded through each account and the 

related budget authority in appendix IV. We also analyzed combating 

terrorism data from the database used to prepare the Budget of the United 

States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To ensure that the database we 

received was consistent with published sources, we conducted electronic 

data testing and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. 

We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Appendix V contains more detailed information on our scope and 

methodology. 

The seven agencies we contacted developed different methodologies to 

estimate their portion of the federal budget that relates to combating Results in Brief 

 

10Gross budget authority represents budgetary totals from which offsetting collections have 

not been deducted. Offsetting collections are collections by government accounts from 

other government accounts and any collections from the public that are of a business type 

or market-oriented nature. 

Page 5 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
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 noncombating 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 

Page 6 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
OMB-reviewed data on only the homeland security portion of combating 

terrorism funding rather than on both homeland security and overseas 

combating terrorism funding. Reporting on both would provide more 

information to the Congress about the full range of combating terrorism 

funding as currently defined. 

Three recommendations from our 2002 report related to providing 

additional information on spending and performance results have not been 

implemented.11 We made two other recommendations in our prior report 

based on reporting requirements that were subsequently repealed by the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002, thus rendering these two 

recommendations moot.12 In our 2002 report, we recommended that OMB 

include agencies’ obligation data in its annual report on combating 

terrorism.13 Without this information, it is difficult for congressional 

decision makers to know how much funding provided in prior years may 

be available to help reduce new spending requests; whether agencies are 

delivering their programs as expected, that is, at the rate of spending that 

they have claimed in earlier budget requests; or what the level of effort is 

for a particular year. Although OMB staff continue to be concerned about 

the effort required to report these data, they said they might consider 

reporting obligation information for a targeted set of accounts that receive 

multiyear funding and carry balances for homeland security programs 

from year to year. We continue to believe that our prior recommendation 

on this issue is relevant and should be implemented. In our 2002 report, we 

also recommended that OMB direct relevant departments to develop or 

enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures and 

include such measures in the governmentwide plan to assist in 

determining whether funding increases have improved performance 

results. Three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB had 

not directed them to develop performance measures or enhance 

combating terrorism performance goals and measures specifically for 

combating terrorism activities. However, four of the seven agencies in our 

review have developed performance measures for combating terrorism 

activities. OMB staff said that they are working with agencies through 

 

11See GAO-03-170. 

12See appendix VII for a detailed discussion of how the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

superseded two of the recommendations made in our prior report. 

13Obligations are amounts of orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and 

similar transactions during a given period that will require payments during the same or a 

future period. 

Page 7 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
initiatives such as the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to 

improve performance measurement of government programs, including 

those that relate to homeland security.14 However, OMB has not yet 

completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to these activities or 

done either a crosscutting combating terrorism or homeland security 

PART review that could address the appropriateness of performance 

measures in this larger context. Our 2002 report also recommended that 

national-level as well as federal governmentwide performance measures 

be included in supplements to existing strategies and in future revisions to 

strategies for homeland security and the combating of terrorism overseas. 

OMB staff said that governmentwide performance goals and measures 

have not been developed because they are focusing their efforts on the 

development of combating terrorism performance measures at the agency 

level, primarily with DHS. Thus, supplements or updates to the national 

strategies that include governmentwide or national level performance 

measures (i.e., goals and measures to track progress of the numerous 

efforts by the federal, state, and local governments and private sector to 

combat terrorism) have not been issued. Without governmentwide goals 

and measures, the Administration has no effective means of articulating to 

Congress or the American people the federal government’s progress, as a 

whole, related to combating terrorism. Therefore, we continue to believe 

that our prior recommendations on this issue have merit and should be 

implemented. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ, 

USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment. 

OMB objected to GAO including information on overseas combating 

terrorism funding data because it has not been reviewed by OMB since 

fiscal year 2003. In addition, GSA provided formal written comments on a 

draft of this report and concurred with its contents. Copies of OMB’s letter 

and GSA’s letter are presented in appendix VIII and appendix IX, 

respectively. USDA, DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the 

report. OMB, DHS, and DOJ provided technical comments that we 

incorporated as appropriate and the National Security Council did not 

provide comments. 

 

14PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that is used to rate the effectiveness of 

federal programs with a particular focus on program results. OMB’s goal is to review all 

federal programs over a 5-year period beginning in fiscal year 2002 using the PART tool. 

Page 8 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
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 report15 on funding to combat terrorism.16 Under the NDAA 

reporting requirements, OMB’s annual report addressed funding for 

combating terrorism without differentiating between homeland security 

and overseas activities.17 However, in its 2002 unclassified report, OMB, 

for the first time, explicitly distinguished between overseas combating 

terrorism activities coordinated by the National Security Council and 

homeland security activities coordinated by the President’s Office of 

Homeland Security. 

Background 

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. 

 

15To satisfy this requirement, OMB provided a classified annex to its unclassified report. 

The unclassified report provided unclassified information, where possible, on funding for 

the national security community (i.e., the Department of Defense and the Intelligence 

Community), while the classified annex provided additional, classified funding details for 

the national security community. 

16The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA for FY 1998), Pub. L. 

105-85, 111 Stat. 1629, 1889 (Nov. 18, 1997) as amended by the Strom Thurmond National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999), Pub. L. 105-261, 112 

Stat. 1920, 2168 (Oct. 17, 1998). 

17Prior to 2002, OMB used different classifications to report combating terrorism funding, 

such as antiterrorism (defensive measures to combat terrorism) and counterterrorism 

(offensive measures to combat terrorism).

Page 9 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Seven Agencies Use 

Different 

Methodologies to 

Estimate How Much 

of the Budget 

Supports Combating 

Terrorism Activities 

The seven agencies we contacted use different methods to estimate the 

portion of their authorized funding that supports combating terrorism 

activities.18 Although OMB provides guidance to agencies, it does not 

prescribe a specific methodology for how agencies should determine the 

portion of their budget authority that relates to combating terrorism 

activities. One agency we contacted—DOD—reported that OMB 

determines how much of DOD’s funding relates to combating terrorism. 

While OMB staff said that they expect most executive agencies to provide 

them with funding data related to combating terrorism activities, they said 

that they make these determinations for DOD. DOD officials said that they 

enter budget data into OMB’s central database and then OMB staff review 

the data and extract information that they find consistent with OMB’s 

definition of combating terrorism. 

Six of the other seven agencies we reviewed developed their own 

methodologies using guidance, such as OMB Circular No. A-11, which 

includes definitions for combating terrorism activities and instructions for 

submitting information on funding data related to combating terrorism 

activities to OMB.19 Because these methodologies involve estimations, 

some level of professional judgment is inherent throughout the process. 

To implement these methodologies, agencies first identify their combating 

terrorism activities and then estimate their related funding levels. (See 

app. VI for guidance agencies most commonly use to identify combating 

terrorism activities.) 

Officials from two of these six agencies—GSA and DHS—reported that 

they used methods involving formulas to determine their funding levels 

that are related to combating terrorism. Officials from GSA told us that 

they use a formula-driven methodology for estimating its budget authority 

for the portion of Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings 

 

18After OMB approves agency funding levels to be included in the President’s budget 

request, agencies then determine the portion of their funding levels that are related to 

combating terrorism activities and report those amounts to OMB. 

19DOD staff said that they do not report funding levels associated with combating terrorism 

activities to OMB. 

Page 10 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Fund that relate to homeland security activities.20 To derive this 

methodology, GSA officials from its Office of Budget said GSA consulted 

with OMB and reviewed all activities conducted under the Federal 

Buildings Fund, looked at historical trends related to homeland security 

activities associated with the fund, and applied their professional 

judgment. Figure 1 illustrates GSA’s methodology and demonstrates how 

the agency applied its methodology in estimating its fiscal year 2006 

budget authority for the portion of Real Property Activities within its 

Federal Buildings Fund that relate to homeland security activities. 

 

20GSA is not responsible for overseas combating terrorism activities. Real property 

activities related to homeland security at GSA include actions taken to enhance building 

security. The Federal Buildings Fund finances GSA’s Public Buildings Service, which 

provides space and services for federal agencies in a relationship similar to that of landlord 

and tenant. The Federal Protective Service—authorized, among other things, to enforce 

laws and regulations aimed at protecting federal property and persons on such property—

was originally located within GSA’s Public Building Service and a portion of the Federal 

Protective Service’s budget authority was associated with homeland security issues. The 

Federal Protective Service was moved to the Department of Homeland Security effective 

March 1, 2003. Therefore, GSA’s fiscal year 2006 budget authority for the portion of Real 

Property Activities within its Federal Buildings Fund that relate to homeland security 

activities does not include funding levels associated with the Federal Protective Service. 

For additional information on GSA’s real property activities, see appendix IV. 

Page 11 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Figure 1: GSA’s Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget Authority Associated with Real Property Activities That 

Relate to Homeland Security 

 aNew construction costs includes costs associated with GSA’s efforts to implement security 

measures, such as installing perimeter protection measures (such as cameras or fences) to newly 

constructed buildings. 

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. 

Page 12 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
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. 

Officials from DHS’s component offices with whom we met—Customs and 

Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the 

Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office 

of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), 

the Transportation Security Administration, USCG, the United States 

Secret Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate—told 

us that they also derived formula-driven methodologies for determining 

their homeland security funding levels. For example, officials from USSS 

said that they derived a quantitative methodology for determining the 

portion of their appropriation for Operating Expenses that relates to 

homeland security.21 They said that to develop this methodology, USSS 

reviewed all of its programs, activities, and related staff hours conducted 

under its two missions—Protective Services and Investigative Services—

 

21USSS does not conduct overseas combating terrorism activities. 

Page 13 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
to determine those activities that related to homeland security.22 See figure 

2 for the USSS methodology. 

Figure 2: U.S. Secret Service Methodology for Estimating the Portion of Budget 

Authority Associated with Operating Expenses That Relate to Homeland Security 

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. 

 

22Protective Services provide for the protection of individuals including the President of the 

United States, immediate family members, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other 

officer next in order of succession to the Office of the President, and the Vice Presidentelect 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. 

Page 14 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
USSS officials told us that they discussed their methodology with OMB 

and received OMB’s approval to implement it. USSS officials told us that 

they have been using this methodology to estimate the portion of their 

operating expenses budget authority related to homeland security since 

2003. 

The other four agencies—DOE, USDA, USACE, and DOJ—reported having 

methodologies in place to determine their funding levels for combating 

terrorism activities that are less formula driven. For example, using the 

definitions contained in OMB Circular No. A-11, a DOE official told us that 

DOE personnel review the agency’s programs and activities to determine 

which are related to homeland security or overseas combating terrorism. 

Then, a DOE official consults with OMB to determine whether OMB would 

like the agency to make any revisions to the activities it has designated as 

combating terrorism. Once DOE finalizes its determination that an activity 

is categorized as a combating terrorism activity, 100 percent of that 

activity’s budget authority is attributed to combating terrorism. 

Additionally, officials from the component offices in USDA we met with—

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS)—told us that they used qualitative 

methods for determining their homeland security funding levels. For 

example, APHIS officials said that they developed a set of six questions to 

determine whether their activities relate to homeland security.23 In 

reviewing these activities, APHIS officials told us that if any of the 

questions in figure 3 apply, they will consider the activity related to 

homeland security, and then 100 percent of that activity’s budget authority 

will be attributed to homeland security. 

 

23The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service does not conduct overseas combating 

terrorism activities. 

Page 15 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Figure 3: Questions APHIS Considers in Determining whether an Activity Relates to 

Homeland Security 

In addition to estimating funding levels for combating terrorism activities, 

OMB also requires agencies to align their homeland security activities with 

the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. 

Officials at four of the six agencies we visited that estimate their 

combating terrorism funding levels said that they used their professional 

judgment to determine which critical mission area best aligns with their 

homeland security activities by comparing those activities with the 

definitions of the national strategy’s critical mission areas.24

As previously discussed, to estimate funding levels, agencies first identify 

their combating terrorism activities. Officials at two of the six agencies we 

contacted said that activities with multiple or dual purposes pose a 

particular challenge to them when determining their combating terrorism 

activities because they must apply professional judgment to determine 

 

24According to USACE officials, they do not align their homeland security activities with 

the critical mission areas when entering their homeland security data into OMB’s 

Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism database. 

Page 16 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
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 

Page 17 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
staff rely on the definition in OMB Circular No. A-11 and their judgment to 

decide if the activity has been reasonably categorized. 

OMB staff said that they currently do not review agency estimates of 

funding data for overseas combating terrorism activities because OMB is 

no longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding 

data.25 Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 repealed the 

NDAA reporting requirements in favor of new reporting requirements. The 

section 889 reporting requirement applies only to homeland security 

activities, not overseas activities related to combating terrorism.26

Although OMB still collects overseas combating terrorism funding data, 

OMB staff said that they have not reviewed or validated this information 

since fiscal year 2003. As a result, the overseas combating terrorism data 

for fiscal years 2004–2006 has not received the same level of scrutiny as 

the homeland security data. Similarly, without any future legislative 

action, OMB does not plan to review or validate future funding estimates 

related to overseas combating terrorism activities. As a result, Congress 

does not receive reports on both the homeland security and overseas 

combating terrorism portions of combating terrorism funding. 

In addition to reviewing homeland security data, OMB also reports taking 

steps to ensure that agencies have properly aligned their homeland 

security activities with the six critical mission areas outlined in the 

National Strategy for Homeland Security. OMB staff told us that 

annually, they examine the activities agencies aligned with each critical 

mission area to ensure consistency across all federal agencies and 

determine if the activities have been properly aligned based on the 

definitions of the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for 

Homeland Security. Such alignments can help inform congressional 

decision makers about the amount of funding that has been allocated to 

any one critical mission area. 

 

25Since there is no longer a requirement to report on overseas combating terrorism funding 

data, OMB staff said that they have not kept the definition of overseas combating terrorism 

activities in OMB Circular No. A-11 updated. 

26OMB staff stated that the change in the overseas combating terrorism reporting 

requirement was not sought by the Administration and OMB was not aware of legislative 

history explaining Congress’s reasons for the change. We were unable to find legislative 

history explaining why section 889 excluded overseas combating terrorism reporting 

requirements. 

Page 18 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
In addition to undertaking the previously mentioned reviews, each year 

since 2002, OMB has provided agencies with an opportunity to make 

changes to the activities they report as homeland security. In fiscal year 

2005, OMB formalized this process by asking agencies to complete a form 

outlining the agency’s proposed changes prior to official submission of 

annual budget requests. OMB staff said that OMB’s examiners use the 

definition for homeland security in its Circular No. A-11 to review each 

agency’s request, and then the examiners discuss the agencies’ request 

with staff from OMB’s Homeland Security Branch, as well as the agency to 

decide if the activity has been reasonably categorized.27

Officials at all six of the agencies we contacted who make their own 

determinations of funding related to combating terrorism reported having 

controls in place to help ensure that the agency’s combating terrorism 

activities are appropriately identified and categorized as either homeland 

security or overseas combating terrorism. For example, DHS officials said 

that DHS budget desk officers within the Chief Financial Officer’s Budget 

Division review activities its components recommend as combating 

terrorism and check for activities that may have been categorized 

incorrectly. Then, another budget desk officer, within the same division, 

reviews the data for unusual fluctuations or trends. If necessary, the 

budget desk officer and component representatives are to contact OMB to 

resolve any potential disagreements. After agencies submit information to 

OMB, OMB program examiners review the data and approve the activities 

or request the agencies to make revisions according to their instruction. 

 

27Before fiscal year 2005, OMB staff said they conducted informal discussions with agency 

officials regarding potential changes. 

Page 19 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
OMB has not implemented three recommendations from our 2002 report 

that would have and still could provide OMB and Congress with additional 

information for making budget decisions and help them understand 

performance results.28 In our 2002 report, we recommended that OMB 

require agencies to provide information on obligations in the database 

used by OMB to produce the President’s annual budget request—and that 

OMB should include obligations as reported in this database in its annual 

report on combating terrorism. We made this recommendation to help 

Congress obtain information on spending that supports the President’s 

annual budget request related to combating terrorism activities and to 

provide decision makers with insights as to whether programs are being 

run according to plans established by their budget projections.29 Without 

including obligation data in the Analytical Perspectives, along with funding 

levels authorized by Congress for agencies’ homeland security activities, it 

is difficult for decision makers to know (1) how much funding from prior 

years is still available to potentially reduce new spending requests, 

(2) whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, 

or (3) what the level of effort (i.e., size of the program) is for a particular 

year as well as for a program over time. 

Implementation of 

Three 

Recommendations 

Could Provide 

Additional 

Information for 

Budget Decisions and 

Understanding of 

Performance 

OMB staff told us that OMB has not substantially changed its position on 

this recommendation since we published our 2002 report.30 OMB staff 

continue to cite the effort required to produce such data. While OMB staff 

acknowledged that OMB examiners use obligation data in assessing the 

appropriateness of agency budget requests overall, they have felt that 

budget authority data provide the most insight into combating terrorism 

programs and facilitate follow up on areas of concern. OMB staff also said 

that including obligation information in its funding analysis is not 

necessary because at the end of the fiscal year, most agencies with 

homeland security activities have already obligated the majority of their 

budget authority. However, OMB staff also said that they might consider 

reporting obligation information for a targeted set of accounts that receive 

multiyear funding and might carry balances for homeland security 

programs from year to year, unlike the majority of accounts that receive 

funding with only 1 year of availability. A conservative analysis suggests 

that unobligated balances associated with funding for homeland security 

 

28See GAO-03-170. 

29See GAO-03-170. 

30See GAO-03-170. 

Page 20 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 could be between $2 billion 

and $3.4 billion. Although it would be important to understand how 

agencies plan to use these balances, information on what funding is 

unobligated—and in which accounts—is potentially useful for 

congressional deliberations on the President’s budget request.31 We 

recognize that collecting these data would create an additional workload 

for both OMB and agency budget officials, but we continue to believe that 

such an effort is warranted for congressional oversight because of the high 

priority placed on combating terrorism. Therefore, we continue to believe 

that our prior recommendation on this issue from our 2002 report is 

relevant and should be implemented. 

Similarly, implementation of our 2002 recommendation that OMB direct 

relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism 

performance goals and measures and include such measures in the 

governmentwide plan would assist in determining whether funding 

increases have improved performance results.32

Although three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB did 

not direct them to develop performance measures for combating 

terrorism, OMB staff said that they are working with agencies on the 

development of combating terrorism performance measures at the agency 

level, primarily with DHS. OMB staff also said that they have not yet taken 

 

31In an alternative scenario, GAO assumed that the share of unobligated balances was equal 

to the share of budget authority coded as homeland security. That is, if an account is 

labeled 80 percent homeland security, then 80 percent of the available balances are also 

assumed to be related to homeland security. This analysis produced the following results: 

fiscal year 2002 ($3.4 billion), fiscal year 2003 ($5.4 billion), fiscal year 2004 ($4.6 billion). 

Our analysis indicated that many of the unobligated balances were in accounts with mainly 

grant activities or in accounts where the mission was accomplished through contracts. 

32Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), OMB is required to 

prepare an annual governmentwide performance plan and to submit it to Congress with the 

President’s budget beginning in fiscal year 1999: 31 U.S. C. 1105(a)(28). Congress enacted 

GPRA to promote a government focus on managing by results. Finding that waste and 

inefficiency in federal programs were undermining confidence in government, Congress 

sought to hold federal agencies accountable for the results of federal spending through 

regular and systematic performance planning measurement and reporting. With the 

implementation of GPRA, federal agencies are required to set goals, measure performance, 

and report on their accomplishments. The act requires that federal agencies establish longterm 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). 

Page 21 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
any action to prepare measures on a governmentwide basis.33 Additionally, 

OMB has not yet prepared a governmentwide plan that could include such 

measures related to combating terrorism. OMB staff said that the 

Homeland Security Council—which provides advice to the President on 

homeland security issues—DHS, and OMB are coordinating and planning 

for the future development of governmentwide performance measures 

related to combating terrorism.34 However, OMB staff said that they have 

not yet established a timeline for developing such measures. 

Implementation of our 2002 recommendation to include national-level and 

federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures as a 

supplement to existing strategies and their future revisions would help to 

assess and improve preparedness at the federal and national levels. As 

previously discussed, federal governmentwide performance measures 

related to combating terrorism have not yet been developed. Moreover, 

there have been no supplements or revisions to the existing national 

strategies that include federal governmentwide or national-level 

 

33While governmentwide performance measures have not been developed for combating 

terrorism, DHS is working to develop such measures for homeland security activities 

related to critical infrastructure. According to DHS’s Interim National Infrastructure 

Protection Plan, IAIP officials have identified a set of basic metrics that can be used to 

evaluate performance across the 13 critical infrastructure sectors—agriculture, banking 

and finance, chemical, defense industrial base, emergency services, energy, food, 

government, information and telecommunications, postal and shipping, public health, 

transportation, and water sectors. IAIP is working with agencies responsible for these 

sectors to develop a supplemental set of measures for each sector. The intent of this 

process is to provide DHS and the sector-specific agencies with feedback on where and 

how they should focus their resources to be most effective. According to IAIP officials, 

IAIP and the sector-specific agencies have not completed the performance measures but 

some have developed target dates for their completion. 

34Established by Section 5 of Executive Order 13228 (Oct. 8, 2001), the Homeland Security 

Council is composed of more than 20 members who are responsible for advising and 

assisting the President with respect to all aspects of homeland security. The council serves 

as the mechanism for ensuring coordination of homeland security-related activities of 

executive departments and agencies and effective development and implementation of 

homeland security policies. 

Page 22 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
combating terrorism performance goals and measures.35 Without goals and 

measures from the federal and national levels, it is difficult to organize a 

coordinated and effective combating terrorism effort. Because numerous 

agencies are responsible for combating terrorism, federal governmentwide 

performance planning could better facilitate the integration of federal and 

national activities to achieve federal goals in that they could provide a 

cohesive perspective on the goals of the federal government. Furthermore, 

without governmentwide combating terrorism goals and measures, the 

Administration does not have an effective means of articulating to 

Congress or the American people the governmentwide accomplishments 

related to combating terrorism. 

While OMB has not yet developed governmentwide performance goals and 

measures, OMB established a formal assessment tool for the budget 

formulation process in fiscal year 2002—the Program Assessment Rating 

Tool to help measure program performance. However, OMB has not yet 

completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to combating 

terrorism activities, or done a crosscutting combating terrorism or 

homeland security PART review that could address the appropriateness of 

performance measures in the larger context. In our recommendation from 

an earlier report, we stated that targeting PART could help focus decision 

makers’ attention on the most pressing policy and program issues.36

Furthermore, we recommended that such an approach could facilitate the 

use of PART assessments to review the relative contributions of similar 

programs to common or crosscutting goals and outcomes. 

It is critical that the federal government, as the steward of the taxpayers’ 

money, ensure that such funds are managed to maximize results. 

 

35For purposes of this report, we are defining existing strategies as the National Strategy 

for Homeland Security, the National Security Strategy of the United States, and the 

National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. The President issued the National Security 

Strategy of the United States in September 2002. It provides a broad framework for 

strengthening U.S. security in the future and identifies the national security goals of the 

United States, describes the foreign policy and military capabilities necessary to achieve 

those goals, evaluates the current status of these capabilities, and explains how national 

power will be structured to utilize these capabilities. The President issued the National 

Strategy for Combating Terrorism in February 2003 elaborating on the terrorism aspects 

of the national security strategy by expounding on the need to destroy terrorist 

organizations, win the “war of ideas,” and strengthen security at home and abroad, focusing 

on identifying and defusing threats before they reach the borders of the United States. 

36See GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program 

Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-174 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 30, 2004). 

Page 23 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures that support 

the national strategies would allow the Administration and Congress to 

more effectively assess the federal government’s progress in combating 

terrorism initiatives, and better determine how effectively the government 

is using valuable resources. Furthermore, they would provide a more 

effective means of holding agencies accountable for achieving results. 

Notwithstanding a lack of progress in developing governmentwide 

performance measures, some agencies have performance goals and 

measures that reflect priorities for combating terrorism. Performance 

measures can provide information on many things, such as outputs, which 

provide the number of activities, and outcomes, which demonstrate 

achievement of intended results. Four of the seven agencies we 

contacted—DHS, DOE, USDA, and DOJ— developed performance 

measures for combating terrorism activities as part of their efforts under 

the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).37 An 

example of a DOE output performance measure, designed to help achieve 

its goal of protecting National Nuclear Security Administration personnel, 

facilities, and nuclear weapons is as follows: “Replace, upgrade, re-certify 

15 percent of emergency response equipment by 2009.” 

To help DHS evaluate its efforts related to preventing entry of 

unauthorized individuals and those that pose a threat to the nation, DHS 

created the following performance measure: “Determine the percentage of 

foreign nationals entering the United States who have biometric and 

biographic information on file prior to entry, including the foreign 

nationals who are referred for further inspection actions and with 

fraudulent documents identified.” This is an output-related performance 

measure that provides information about the number of foreign nationals 

who enter the country requiring further inspection. 

Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency is required to develop 

strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal 

year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least every 

3 years. Under this act, strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to 

set annual performance goals and to measure program performance in 

achieving those goals. Although GPRA does not specifically require 

 

37GSA officials told us that they do not have performance goals or measures related to 

homeland security within the Public Buildings Service section of GSA’s 2002 Strategic Plan 

because they believe the level of homeland security activities the agency conducts does not 

warrant the development of separate performance goals or measures. 

Page 24 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
executive agencies to develop strategic plans related to combating 

terrorism, DOD has initiated efforts to develop strategic plans that 

incorporate performance measures for combating terrorism. In response 

to our previous recommendation that DOD develop a framework for the 

antiterrorism program that would provide the department with a vehicle to 

guide resource allocations and measure the results of improvement 

efforts,38 DOD developed an Antiterrorism Strategic Plan.39 This 

preliminary framework includes, among other things, a collective effort to 

defend against, respond to, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD 

personnel. According to DOD officials, the strategic goals established in 

DOD’s Antiterrorism Strategic Plan directly align with OMB’s definitions of 

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. One of DOD’s 

strategic goals is to conduct effective antiterrorism training and execute 

realistic antiterrorism exercises. DOD officials reported that they intend to 

collect antiterrorism performance data from all DOD components and plan 

to issue the first performance report on antiterrorism in the second 

quarter of fiscal year 2006. While we have not yet fully evaluated the 

effectiveness of this framework or plan, such efforts represent important 

steps taken by an agency to develop performance measures and, 

consequently, a results-oriented management framework specifically 

related to combating terrorism activities. 

Currently, because governmentwide performance measures have not been 

developed, the executive branch does not have a means to effectively 

measure and link resources expended and performance achieved related 

to combating terrorism efforts on a governmentwide basis. Without a clear 

understanding of this linkage, the executive branch and Congress may be 

missing opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency to ensure the 

best use of taxpayer funds. Therefore, we continue to believe that our 

prior recommendations on this issue from our 2002 report are important 

and should be implemented. 

 

38According to DOD, the antiterrorism program is a collective, proactive effort to deter, 

detect, prevent, defend against, respond to, defeat, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at 

DOD personnel and their families, selected DOD contractors, installations, infrastructure, 

and key assets essential to mission accomplishment. Furthermore, it mitigates the effects 

of terrorism to sustain essential military operations. 

39See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Action Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism 

Program Implementation and Management, GAO-01-909 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 

2001). 

Page 25 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
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. 

Combating Terrorism

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. 

Conclusions 

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. 

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. Agency Comments 

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 

Page 26 GAO-06-161 
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 

Page 27 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at 

jonespl@gao.gov. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in 

appendix X. 

Paul L. Jones 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

Page 28 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

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

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

In this report, we use fiscal year 2002 as the base year for analyzing trends 

in funding for combating terrorism for a number of reasons. Although 

fiscal year 2001 may seem like the logical starting point, fiscal year 2002 

was the first full year in which decision making was informed by the 

terrorist attacks in the United States.1

 Moreover, to make information 

comparable for the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) restructured fiscal years 2002 and 2003 

budget data to reflect changes that occurred with the creation of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. This made fiscal year 

2002 the earliest year that OMB’s MAX database2

 captured funding for 

combating terrorism that is, for the most part, in the current agency, 

bureau,3

 and account structure. In addition, OMB for the first time 

required agencies to identify funding for homeland security and overseas 

combating terrorism separately from other funding in an account. Finally, 

fiscal year 2002 marked the earliest year in which OMB presented 

information organized according to the National Strategy for Homeland 

Security’s six critical mission areas in its Annual Report to Congress on 

Combating Terrorism (September 2003). 

The information for homeland security and overseas combating terrorism 

(OCT) is shown separately in the following tables. Tables 1 to 3 provide 

information on homeland security at progressively finer levels of detail. 

However, none of these tables, or tables 4 and 5 include funding in fiscal 

years 2004 and 2005 for DHS’ Project BioShield. OMB asserts that 

including this information can distort year-over-year comparisons. The 

Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 provided $5.6 billion for 

this project to develop and procure tools to address public health 

consequences of terrorism. Pursuant to that act, specific amounts became 

available in fiscal year 2004 ($0.9 billion) and in fiscal year 2005 

($2.5 billion). Tables 4 and 5 display how OMB and agencies characterize 

funding according to the six critical mission areas for homeland security. 

 

1

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). 

2

OMB uses its MAX database to prepare the President’s annual budget, and it is the source 

of data for this appendix. 

3

“Bureau” is defined as the principal subordinate organizational unit of an agency, such as 

the Transportation Security Administration in DHS or the Agricultural Research Service in 

the Department of Agriculture. 

Page 29 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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. 

Page 30 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Page 31 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Agency 

Gross

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Department of Homeland Securityb17,380 53 23,063 54 22,925 56

Department of Defense 5,159 16 8,442 20 7,025 17

Department of Energy 1,220 4 1,409 3 1,363 3

Department of Health and Human 

Services 1,913 6 4,144 10 4,060 10

Department of Justice 2,144 7 2,349 6 2,181 5

Other agencies 5,068 15 3,042 7 3,283 8

Total $32,884 100 $42,449 100 $40,837 100

Page 32 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Estimated FY 2005aRequested FY 2006 

Gross 

budget 

 authority 

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Average annual 

change 2002-2005

24,887 54 27,331 55 12.71

8,566 19 9,513 19 18.41

1,562 3 1,664 3 8.59

4,229 9 4,407 9 30.27

2,679 6 3,104 6 7.71

4,092 9 3,923 8 -6.88

$46,015 100 $49,942 100 

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

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

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

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.

As shown in table 2, DHS has received the largest share of funding for 

homeland security activities. The department’s average annual funding has 

been $22.1 billion, or about 54 percent of the total amount available 

annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2005.4

 For fiscal year 2006, the 

President proposed $27.3 billion for DHS’s homeland security activities, or 

55 percent of total spending. 

DOD also received a large share of homeland security funding averaging 

18 percent annually over the same period, with $9.5 billion requested for 

fiscal year 2006. Most of DOD’s homeland security funding is for functions 

related to security at military installations domestically and for research 

and development of antiterrorism technologies. Homeland security-related 

 

4

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. 

Page 33 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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. 

Page 34 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Page 35 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 

Agency 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Department of Homeland Securityb17,380 53 23,063 54

Department of Defense 5,159 16 8,442 20

Department of Agriculture 552 2 411 1

Department of Commerce 118 0 111 0

Department of Education 0 0 6 0

Department of Energy 1,220 4 1,409 3

Department of Health and Human Services 1,913 6 4,144 10

Department of Housing and Urban Development 1 0 2 0

Department of Justice 2,144 7 2,349 6

Department of Labor 78 0 70 0

Department of State 477 1 634 1

Department of Transportation 1,420 4 382 1

Department of Veterans Affairs 49 0 154 0

Department of the Interior 108 0 54 0

Department of the Treasury 116 0 80 0

Corporation for National and Community Service 29 0 17 0

Corps of Engineers-Civil Works 139 0 75 0

District of Columbia 213 1 25 0

Environmental Protection Agency 187 1 134 0

Executive Office of the President 140 0 41 0

Federal Communications Commission 0 0 1 0

General Services Administration 97 0 67 0

Intelligence Community Management Account 0 0 0 0

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 223 1 205 0

National Archives and Records Administration 10 0 10 0

Page 36 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

FY 2004a Estimated FY 2005a Requested FY 2006 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

 of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Average annual 

change 

2002-2005

22,925 56 24,887 54 27,331 55 12.71

7,025 17 8,566 19 9,513 19 18.41

411 1 601 1 703 1 2.88

124 0 167 0 184 0 12.27

8 0 25 0 23 0 0

1,363 3 1,562 3 1,664 3 8.59

4,060 10 4,229 9 4,407 9 30.27

2 0 2 0 2 0 25.99

2,181 5 2,679 6 3,104 6 7.71

53 0 56 0 47 0 -10.46

697 2 824 2 938 2 19.99

285 1 182 0 192 0 -49.58

272 1 281 1 300 1 78.99

82 0 65 0 57 0 -15.57

91 0 102 0 111 0 -4.2

23 0 17 0 20 0 -16.31

102 0 89 0 72 0 -13.81

19 0 15 0 15 0 -58.7

131 0 107 0 185 0 -16.98

35 0 30 0 22 0 -40.16

1 0 2 0 4 0 0

79 0 65 0 80 0 -12.49

1 0 72 0 56 0 0

207 1 218 0 205 0 -0.75

16 0 17 0 20 0 19.35

Page 37 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

 of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

National Capital Planning Commission 1 0 0 0

National Science Foundation 259 1 285 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 43 0 47 0

Office of Personnel Management 2 0 3 0

Postal Service 587 2 0 0

Securities and Exchange Commission 0 0 5 0

Smithsonian Institution 91 0 83 0

Social Security Administration 121 0 132 0

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 7 0 8 0

Total $32,884 100 $42,449 100

Page 38 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

FY 2004 Estimated FY 2005 Requested FY 2006 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

 of total

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total

Average 

annual change 

2002-2005

0 0 0 0 0 0 -100

340 1 342 1 344 1 9.71

67 0 59 0 61 0 11.12

3 0 3 0 4 0 14.47

0 0 503 1 0 0 -5.02

5 0 5 0 5 0 0

78 0 75 0 87 0 -6.24

143 0 160 0 177 0 9.76

8 0 8 0 9 0 4.55

$40,837 100 $46,015 100 $49,942 100

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

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

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

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. 

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

Page 39 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Homeland 

Security b

Border and 

Transportation 

Security 

Acquisition, construction, 

improvement and related 

expenses 28 25 25 25 27

Air and marine 

interdiction, operations, 

maintenance, and 

procurement 0 122 140 173 196

Automation 

modernization, Customs 

and Border Protection 0 217 219 225 229

Automation 

modernization, 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 0 0 40 40 40

Aviation security 0 0 3,724 4,577 4,985

Construction, Customs 

and Border Protection 0 235 89 92 93

Construction, Immigration 

and Customs 

Enforcement 0 27 27 26 27

Customs and border 

protection 5,180 0 0 0 0

Federal Protective 

Service 0 418 451 478 487

Federal air marshals 0 466 622 663 689

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 2,240 0 0 0 0

Office for Domestic 

Preparedness 868 0 0 0 0

Refunds, transfers, and 

expenses of operation, 

Puerto Rico 0 0 85 89 98

Salaries and expenses 88 95 106 96 116

Salaries and expenses, 

Customs and Border 

Protection 0 4,928 4,569 4,728 4,940

Page 40 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Homeland 

Security b

Border and 

Transportation 

Security 

Salaries and expenses, 

Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 0 1,560 1,892 2,322 2,759

Salaries and expenses, 

Office of Screening, 

Coordination and 

Operations 0 0 0 0 848

Surface transportation 

security 0 0 261 115 32

Transportation Security 3,677 5,393 0 0 0

Transportation security 

support 0 0 593 712 545

United States visitor and 

immigrant status indicator 

technology 0 380 328 340 0

Citizenship and 

Immigration 

Services 

Citizenship and 

Immigration Services 

37 3 0 0 0

Departmental 

Management 

Counterterrorism Fund 

40 160 10 8 10

Department-wide 

technology investments 69 47 131 156 213

Departmental Operations 72 16 142 176 253

Firefighter assistance 

grants 0 0 0 0 500

State and local programs 0 3,466 3,268 3,090 2,895

Emergency 

Preparedness 

and Response 

Administrative and 

regional operations 

0 0 30 48 62

Operating Expenses 1,257 218 0 0 0

Preparedness, mitigation, 

response, and recovery 0 0 0 35 50

Public health programs 0 0 84 34 34

Information 

Analysis and 

Infrastructure 

Protection 

Operating Expenses 

153 185 0 0 0

Assessments and 

evaluation 0 0 710 762 669

Page 41 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Homeland 

Security b

Information 

Analysis and 

Infrastructure 

Protection 

Management and 

administration 

0 0 124 132 204

Science and 

Technology 

Research, development, 

acquisitions and 

operations 152 521 874 1,047 1,296

United States 

Coast Guard 

Operating Expenses 

1,878 2,568 2,230 2,460 2,625

Acquisition, construction, 

and improvements 0 443 544 555 734

Capital Acquisitions 387 0 0 0 0

Research, development, 

test, and evaluation 0 9 8 5 0

Reserve training 0 48 44 54 56

Retired Pay 366 506 493 526 499

United States 

Secret Service 

Salaries and expenses 

885 1,004 1,059 1,095 1,117

Acquisition, construction, 

improvements, and 

related expenses 3 3 3 3 3

Department of 

Defense 

Military 

Construction 

Military construction, Air 

Force 0 170 31 16 40

Military construction, 

Army 0 185 23 0 0

Military construction, 

Army National Guard 0 0 3 0 0

Military construction, 

Defense-wide 1 6 8 15 31

Military construction, 

Navy 54 363 63 58 76

Military Personnel Military personnel, Air 

Force 876 1,017 1,245 1,478 1,540

Military personnel, Army 558 525 568 637 659

Military personnel, Marine 

Corps 378 420 473 553 579

Military personnel, Navy 238 494 506 514 556

National Guard 

personnel, Air Force 135 135 143 101 105

Page 42 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Defense

Military Personnel National Guard 

personnel, Army 105 100 526 592 624

Reserve personnel, Air 

Force 75 76 42 5 5

Reserve personnel, Army 370 367 350 377 391

Reserve personnel, 

Marine Corps 4 4 3 4 4

Reserve personnel, Navy 55 79 85 80 92

Operation and 

Maintenance 

Defense health program 

17 18 10 17 16

Office of the Inspector 

General 4 4 4 6 6

Operation and 

maintenance, Air Force 278 1,064 324 168 151

Operation and 

maintenance, Air Force 

Reserve 0 1 38 51 50

Operation and 

maintenance, Air National 

Guard 45 55 48 49 51

Operation and 

maintenance, Army 444 502 575 551 697

Operation and 

maintenance, Army 

National Guard 28 48 83 108 168

Operation and 

maintenance, Army 

Reserve 31 43 42 41 61

Operation and 

maintenance, Defensewide 118 118 131 634 762

Operation and 

maintenance, Marine 

Corps 59 259 68 78 77

Operation and 

maintenance, Navy 425 1,001 728 745 797

Operation and 

maintenance, Navy 

Reserve 9 72 28 41 27

Page 43 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Defense

Procurement Aircraft procurement, 

Army 72 0 0 0 0

Other procurement, Air 

Force 231 202 121 395 415

Other procurement, Army 111 553 105 208 125

Other procurement, Navy 124 217 191 334 481

Procurement of 

ammunition, Navy and 

Marine Corps 0 32 38 42 74

Procurement, Defensewide 10 62 105 168 247

Procurement, Marine 

Corps 32 9 5 11 8

Weapons procurement, 

Navy 0 29 45 127 205

Research, 

Development, 

Test, and 

Evaluation 

Research, development, 

test, and evaluation, Air 

Force 

17 7 6 18 18

Research, development, 

test, and evaluation, Army 0 42 28 0 0

Research, development, 

test, and evaluation, 

Defense-wide 238 140 185 312 334

Research, development, 

test, and evaluation, Navy 14 23 48 32 41

Revolving and 

Management 

Funds 

National defense 

stockpile transaction fund 

3 0 0 0 0

Department of 

Agriculture 

Agricultural 

Research Service 

Salaries and expenses 

60 12 21 30 69

Buildings and facilities 115 143 10 121 62

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Service 

Salaries and expenses 

256 197 303 368 436

Buildings and facilities 14 0 0 0 0

Department of 

Agriculture

Cooperative State 

Research, 

Education, and 

Extension Service 

Extension activities 

0 32 31 31 31

Integrated activities 0 0 8 9 30

Page 44 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Research and education 

activities 0 0 0 0 5

Departmental 

Administration 

Agriculture buildings and 

facilities 6 8 8 8 14

Departmental 

administration 1 1 3 2 2

Economic 

Research Service 

Economic Research 

Service 0 0 1 1 1

Executive 

Operations 

Executive operations 

0 0 0 1 1

Office of the Chief 

Information Officer 4 9 13 11 13

Food Safety and 

Inspection 

Service 

Salaries and expenses 

15 9 13 19 39

Office of the 

Secretary 

Office of the Secretary 

81 0 0 0 0

Department of 

Commerce 

Departmental 

Management 

Salaries and expenses 

9 11 9 10 10

Office of the Inspector 

General 0 0 1 1 1

Working capital fund 8 9 10 8 9

Bureau of 

Industry and 

Security 

Operations and 

administration 

58 64 60 61 70

International 

Trade 

Administration 

Operations and 

administration 

1 0 0 0 0

National Institute 

of Standards and 

Technology 

Scientific and technical 

research and services 

21 16 17 59 63

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Operations, research, and 

facilities 

9 9 6 14 19

Procurement, acquisition, 

and construction 10 2 21 14 12

Page 45 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Commerce

U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office 

Salaries and expenses 

2 0 0 0 0

Department of 

Education 

Departmental 

Management 

Office of the Inspector 

General 0 0 0 1 1

Office for Civil Rights 0 0 1 3 2

Program administration 0 6 6 15 15

Student Financial 

Assistance 

Federal direct student 

loan program account 0 0 0 3 0

Student aid administration 0 0 1 3 5

Department of 

Energy 

Departmental 

Administration 

Departmental 

administration 0 31 26 26 35

Energy Programs Energy supply 0 0 0 25 12

Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission 2 1 1 1 1

Science 50 49 47 67 69

Environmental 

and Other 

Defense Activities 

Defense environmental 

restoration and waste 

management 208 265 0 0 0

Defense site acceleration 

completion 54 55 295 263 287

Other defense activities 107 93 159 136 143

National Nuclear 

Security 

Administration 

Defense nuclear 

nonproliferation 

0 84 0 8 63

Weapons activities 789 819 820 1,020 1,039

Power Marketing 

Administration 

Bonneville Power 

Administration fund 7 10 11 11 11

Construction, 

rehabilitation, operation 

and maintenance, 

Western Area Power 

Administration 3 2 4 5 4

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services 

Departmental 

Management 

General departmental 

management 

1,515 2,287 2,114 2,170 2,308

Administration for 

Children and 

Families 

Children and families 

services programs 

1 1 1 1 1

Page 46 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of 

Health and 

Human Services

Centers for 

Disease Control 

and Prevention 

Disease control, 

research, and training 

16 20 20 21 21

Centers for 

Medicare and 

Medicaid Services 

Federal hospital 

insurance trust fund 

26 10 11 8 9

Food and Drug 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

 164 165 183 223 253

Health Resources 

and Services 

Administration 

Health resources and 

services 

1 1 1 1 1

Indian Health 

Services 

Indian Health Services 

15 13 13 17 17

National Institutes 

of Health 

National Institutes of 

Health 161 1,633 1,703 1,774 1,781

Program Support 

Center 

HHS service and supply 

fund 14 14 14 14 16

Department of 

Housing and 

Urban 

Development 

Management and 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

1 2 2 2 2

Department of 

Justice 

Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and 

Explosives 

Salaries and expenses 

365 359 352 351 370

Drug Enforcement 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

24 40 22 22 22

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

Salaries and expenses 

1,158 1,397 1,253 1,736 2,099

Construction 0 0 0 3 4

Foreign terrorist tracking 

task force 0 62 61 0 0

Federal Prison 

System 

Salaries and expenses 

32 35 37 38 39

Department of 

Justice

General 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

18 20 14 25 35

Administrative review and 

appeals 5 13 15 15 16

Counterterrorism fund 5 21 0 0 0

Justice information 

sharing technology 18 25 24 25 84

Page 47 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Department of 

Justice

General 

Administration 

Narrowband 

communications 84 64 102 99 129

Office of Inspector 

General 0 4 3 3 3

Legal Activities 

and U.S. 

Marshals 

Salaries and expenses, 

General Legal Activities 

19 35 35 38 42

Salaries and expenses, 

United States Attorneys 72 78 78 99 86

Salaries and expenses, 

United States Marshals 

Service 44 72 64 74 85

Office of Justice 

Programs 

Community oriented 

policing services 3 78 88 99 0

Justice assistance 46 46 30 39 90

State and local law 

enforcement assistance 251 0 3 13 0

Department of 

Labor 

Departmental 

Management 

Salaries and expenses 

45 27 13 15 11

Office of the Inspector 

General 1 0 0 0 0

Working capital fund 0 4 15 18 14

Bureau of Labor 

Statistics 

Salaries and expenses 

7 9 8 9 9

Employee 

benefits security 

administration 

Salaries and expenses 

0 1 1 0 0

Employment 

Standards 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

5 8 6 6 4

Employment and 

Training 

Administration 

Program administration 

8 3 0 2 2

Employment and 

Training 

Administration 

State unemployment 

insurance and 

employment service 

operations 0 8 0 0 0

Mine Safety and 

Health 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

3 2 2 1 1

Page 48 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Department of 

Labor

Occupational 

Safety and Health 

Administration 

Salaries and expenses 

4 4 5 2 2

Pension Benefit 

Guaranty 

Corporation 

Pension benefit guaranty 

corporation fund 

5 4 3 3 4

Department of 

State 

Administration of 

Foreign Affairs 

Capital investment fund 

0 0 0 0 3

Centralized information 

technology modernization 

program 0 0 0 3 0

Diplomatic and consular 

programs 452 634 682 806 923

Educational and cultural 

exchange programs 0 0 0 0 2

Other International narcotics 

control and law 

enforcement 25 0 15 15 10

Department of 

Transportation 

Office of the 

Secretary 

Salaries and expenses 

2 7 13 9 9

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Facilities and equipment 

(Airport and airway trust 

fund) 393 236 86 60 63

Grants-in-aid for airports 

(Airport and airway trust 

fund) 175 0 0 0 0

Operations 463 94 145 111 118

Research, engineering, 

and development (airport 

and airway trust fund) 103 0 0 0 0

Trust fund share of FAA 

operations 200 0 0 0 0

Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety 

Administration 

Border enforcement 

program 

19 0 0 0 0

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

Safety and operations 

6 1 1 1 1

Federal Transit 

Administration 

Administrative expenses 

1 1 1 1 1

Capital investment grants 1 2 2 0 0

Page 49 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Department of 

Transportation

Federal Transit 

Administration 

Formula grants 

51 34 34 0 0

Transit planning and 

research 2 5 1 0 0

Pipeline and 

Hazardous 

Materials Safety 

Administration 

Research and special 

programs 

3 2 2 0 0

Saint Lawrence 

Seaway 

Development 

Corporation 

Operations and 

maintenance 

1 0 0 0 0

Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Departmental 

Administration 

General administration 

2 4 5 7 8

Benefits 

Programs 

Burial administration 

0 1 1 1 1

Disability compensation 

administration 0 3 4 4 5

Disability compensation 

benefits 1 0 0 0 0

Education administration 0 0 1 1 1

Housing program account 0 1 1 2 2

Pensions administration 0 1 1 1 1

Vocational rehabilitation 

and employment 

administration 0 0 1 1 1

Medical Programs Medical administration 0 0 243 243 250

Medical facilities 0 0 0 4 15

Medical services 46 144 15 17 16

Department of 

the Interior 

Departmental 

Management 

Salaries and expenses 

8 1 0 1 1

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Management of lands and 

resources 1 1 0 0 0

Bureau of 

Reclamation 

Water and related 

resources 33 25 23 26 18

National Park 

Service 

Construction and major 

maintenance 22 6 24 0 0

Operation of the national 

park system 14 7 13 14 14

Page 50 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Department of 

the Interior

National Park 

Service 

United States Park Police 

27 13 20 21 22

United States 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Resource management 

1 0 0 0 0

United States 

Geological Survey 

Surveys, investigations, 

and research 2 1 2 3 2

Department of 

the Treasury 

Departmental 

Offices 

Salaries and expenses 

10 11 11 13 17

Departmentwide systems 

and capital investments 

programs 4 5 5 5 6

Treasury Inspector 

General for Tax 

Administration 4 3 5 5 5

Financial Crimes 

Enforcement 

Network 

Salaries and expenses 

4 6 9 15 17

Financial 

Management 

Service 

Salaries and expenses 

9 9 10 11 12

Internal Revenue 

Service 

Information systems 

29 8 0 0 0

Processing, assistance, 

and management 21 15 0 0 0

Tax administration and 

operations 35 23 51 53 54

Corporation for 

National and 

Community 

Service 

Corporation for 

National and 

Community 

Service 

Domestic volunteer 

service programs, 

operating expenses 

11 8 13 9 7

Corporation for 

National and 

Community 

Service

Corporation for 

National and 

Community 

Service 

National and community 

service programs, 

operating expenses 

18 9 10 8 13

Corps of 

Engineers-Civil 

Works 

Corps of 

Engineers-Civil 

Works 

Flood control, Mississippi 

River and tributaries, 

Arkansas, Illinois, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, Missouri, and 

Tennessee 0 1 0 0 0

Page 51 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Corps of 

Engineers-Civil 

Works 

Corps of 

Engineers-Civil 

Works 

Operation and 

maintenance 

139 74 102 89 72

District of 

Columbia 

District of 

Columbia General 

and Special 

Payments 

Federal payment for 

emergency planning and 

security cost in the 

District of Columbia 213 15 11 15 15

Federal support for 

economic development 

and management reforms 

in the District 0 10 8 0 0

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

Environmental 

Protection Agency 

Buildings and facilities 

0 11 11 11 12

Environmental programs 

and management 42 8 20 21 23

Hazardous substance 

superfund 45 89 43 37 51

Science and technology 95 21 52 33 94

State and tribal 

assistance grants 5 5 5 5 5

Executive Office 

of the President 

Executive Office 

of the President 

Office of National Drug 

Control Policy 0 0 0 0 1

Office of Science and 

Technology Policy 0 0 1 1 0

The White House 140 41 34 29 21

Federal 

Communications 

Commission 

Federal 

Communications 

Commission 

Salaries and expenses 

0 1 1 2 4

General Services 

Administration 

General Activities Operating expenses 

4 2 2 2 3

Governmentwide policy 0 4 4 4 4

Real Property 

Activities 

Federal buildings fund 

93 61 73 59 73

Intelligence 

Community 

Management 

Account 

Intelligence 

Community 

Management 

Account 

Intelligence Community 

Management Account 

0 0 1 72 56

Page 52 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration 

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration 

Exploration capabilities 

0 0 119 130 113

Human space flight 150 122 0 0 0

Science, Aeronautics, 

and Technology 73 83 0 0 0

Science, aeronautics, and 

exploration 0 0 88 88 92

National 

Archives and 

Records 

Administration 

National Archives 

and Records 

Administration 

Operating expenses 

9 10 16 17 20

Repairs and restoration 1 0 0 0 0

National Capital 

Planning 

Commission 

National Capital 

Planning 

Commission 

Salaries and expenses 

1 0 0 0 0

National Science 

Foundation 

National Science 

Foundation 

Salaries and expenses 

0 2 3 2 5

Education and human 

resources 30 12 16 14 10

Research and related 

activities 229 271 321 326 329

Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Nuclear 

Regulatory 

Commission 

Salaries and expenses 

 43 47 67 59 61

Office of 

Personnel 

Management 

Office of 

Personnel 

Management 

Salaries and expenses 

2 3 3 3 4

Postal Service Postal Service Payment to Postal 

Service fund 587 0 0 503 0

Securities and 

Exchange 

Commission 

Securities and 

Exchange 

Commission 

Salaries and expenses 

0 5 5 5 5

Smithsonian 

Institution 

Smithsonian 

Institution 

Salaries and expenses 

60 61 48 50 52

Construction, JFK Center 

for the Performing Arts 5 1 5 1 0

Facilities capital 2 0 2 0 11

Page 53 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Dollars in millions 

 Gross budget authority 

Bureau Account FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

Agency FY 2006

Smithsonian 

Institution 

Smithsonian 

Institution 

Operations and 

maintenance, JFK Center 

for the Performing Arts 7 3 4 4 4

Salaries and expenses, 

National Gallery of Art 17 18 19 20 20

Social Security 

Administration 

Social Security 

Administration 

Office of the Inspector 

General 0 0 1 4 4

Limitation on 

administrative expenses 121 132 142 156 173

United States 

Holocaust 

Memorial 

Museum 

United States 

Holocaust 

Memorial 

Museum 

Holocaust Memorial 

Museum 

7 8 8 8 9

Total $32,884 $42,449 $40,837 $46,015 $49,942

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

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

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. 

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. 

Page 54 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Table 4: Gross Budget Authority by Homeland Security Mission Area 

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 Estimated FY 2005 Requested FY 2006 

Gross 

budget 

authority Percent 

Gross 

budget 

authority Percent

Gross 

budget 

authority Percent

Gross 

budget 

authority Percent 

Gross 

budget 

authority Percent

Border and 

Transportation 

Security 13,576.2 41 17,030.0 40 15,931.5 39 17,566.1 38 19,285.7 39

Protecting 

Critical 

Infrastructure 

and Key Assets 9,944.1 30 13,281.7 31 12,281.7 30 14,940.2 32 15,632.5 31

Emergency 

Preparedness 

and Response 4,860.7 15 6,145.4 15 6,003.0 15 5,765.6 13 6,121.9 12

Domestic 

Counterterrorism 3,557.8 11 3,031.8 7 3,391.7 8 3,944.7 9 4,468.8 9

Defending 

Against 

Catastrophic 

Threats 570.7 2 2,629.5 6 2,974.9 7 3,399.3 7 3,898.3 8

Intelligence and 

Warning 114.7 0 211.2 0 242.3 1 349.9 1 432.0 1

Other 258.6 1 118.3 0 9.6 0 49.8 0 104.5 0

Total $32,882.8 100 $42,447.9 100 $40,834.7 100 $46,015.6 100 $49,943.7 100

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data. 

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

Percentages may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 

Table 5 shows which agencies are responsible for activities covered under 

the six mission areas. According to OMB data, the greatest share of 

funding between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 has been associated with 

border and transportation security, followed by funding for protecting 

critical infrastructure and key assets. According to OMB data shown in 

table 4, border and transportation security activities’—almost all of which 

are located in DHS—received between 38 and 41 percent annually of total 

funding. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposed funding totaling $19.3 

billion for these activities, of which $18.2 billion is for activities in DHS. 

Nearly a third of all homeland security spending for this period has been 

labeled as protecting critical infrastructure and key assets. For fiscal years 

2002 through 2005, DOD generally has received 50 percent or more 

annually for activities in this critical mission area. DHS and HHS activities 

Page 55 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism 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 

Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of Homeland Securityb

Border and Transportation 

Security 11,770.0 16,028.2 15,032.4 16,576.4 18,207.2

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 2,099.4 3,256.0 3,049.0 2,655.8 2,725.8

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 1,163.7 1,990.0 2,128.3 2,585.9 2,820.0

Domestic Counterterrorism 1,994.4 1,184.3 1,703.7 1,867.0 2,008.8

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 147.0 491.0 774.0 936.1 1,212.1

Intelligence and Warning 102.7 86.4 236.0 226.4 262.4

Other 103.0 27.6 0.0 39.0 96.0

Total $17,380.2 $23,063.5 $22,923.4 $24,886.6 $27,332.3

Department of Defense 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 242.0 213.0 333.5 469.0 651.4

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 4,784.0 8,124.0 6,543.8 7,916.9 8,700.8

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 133.0 105.0 146.8 178.2 158.9

Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.4

Total $5,159.0 $8,442.0 $7,024.1 $8,570.1 $9,513.5

Department of Agriculture 

Border and Transportation 

Security 92.7 143.2 147.9 163.1 164.2

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 47.0 50.8 57.3 57.2 70.9

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 412.3 60.5 36.8 150.6 129.3

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 0.0 154.6 168.2 222.7 317.1

Intelligence and Warning 0.6 0.8 0.8 6.3 22.3

Total $552.6 $409.9 $411.0 $599.9 $703.8

Page 56 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of Commerce 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 17.5 15.2 32.2 32.5 35.7

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 40.6 32.5 32.4 60.9 62.9

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 57.5 63.9 60.0 73.4 84.7

Total $115.6 $111.6 $124.6 $166.8 $183.3

Department of Education 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.6

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 0.0 5.0 7.7 23.4 22.2

Total 0.0 $5.7 $8.0 $23.7 $22.8

Department of Energy 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 116.3 120.9 107.6 98.4 122.1

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 1,088.9 1,203.4 1,256.3 1,456.1 1,481.0

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 0.0 84.0 0.0 7.5 62.8

Other 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $1,220.2 $1,408.3 $1,363.9 $1,562.0 $1,665.9

Department of Health and Human Services 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 1,515.4 2,297.8 2,145.4 2,160.4 2,264.8

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 206.9 182.3 162.8 168.4 170.3

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 192.4 1,664.4 1,754.1 1,901.9 1,971.5

Total $1,914.7 $4,144.5 $4,062.3 $4,230.7 $4,406.6

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.0 1.7 2.0 1.9

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 1.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $1.0 $1.6 $1.7 $2.0 $1.9

Page 57 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of Justice 

Border and Transportation 

Security 14.1 25.4 20.1 34.5 20.8

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 259.2 11.0 97.4 111.0 10.2

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 337.2 354.8 411.7 455.8 566.1

Domestic Counterterrorism 1,507.4 1,805.9 1,620.8 1,999.1 2,372.8

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 16.1 30.7 28.6 33.5 43.0

Intelligence and Warning 9.2 121.7 2.0 44.2 90.9

Total $2,143.2 $2,349.5 $2,180.6 $2,678.1 $3,103.8

Department of Labor 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 5.4 5.3 6.3 6.9 7.7

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 71.8 64.3 46.4 49.3 40.4

Total $77.2 $69.6 $52.7 $56.2 $48.1

Department of State 

Border and Transportation 

Security 451.0 591.8 663.9 778.2 878.4

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 1.0 8.0 1.0 6.8 19.6

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 13.8 34.3 31.6 39.2 40.2

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $476.8 $634.1 $696.5 $824.2 $938.2

Department of Transportation 

Border and Transportation 

Security 1,240.4 241.4 67.2 13.9 15.1

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 18.7 12.4 15.2 10.8 13.2

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 136.3 128.1 180.1 137.0 141.2

Domestic Counterterrorism 19.0 1.0 21.0 20.0 22.0

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $1,419.1 $382.9 $283.5 $181.7 $191.5

Page 58 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Department of Veterans Affairs 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 19.2 54.3 32.1 37.6 36.6

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 29.8 100.0 239.2 242.8 262.3

Total $49.0 $154.3 $271.3 $280.4 $298.9

Department of the Interior 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 3.5 3.6 1.6 4.0 4.0

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 103.7 51.1 81.4 61.1 53.3

Total $107.2 $54.7 $83.0 $65.1 $57.3

Department of the Treasury 

Border and Transportation 

Security 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 36.4 15.1 30.7 34.5 37.3

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 33.1 21.9 12.0 11.5 11.7

Domestic Counterterrorism 37.0 40.6 45.2 54.9 61.0

Intelligence and Warning 2.2 2.3 2.5 0.6 0.6

Total $116.7 $79.9 $90.4 $101.5 $110.6

Corporation for National and Community Service 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 29.0 16.3 22.8 17.0 20.4

Total $29.0 $16.3 $22.8 $17.0 $20.4

Corps of Engineers-Civil Works 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 39.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 100.0 75.0 101.5 88.0 71.0

Total $139.0 $75.0 $101.5 $89.0 $72.0

District of Columbia 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 187.0 25.0 19.0 15.0 15.0

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 26.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $213.0 $25.0 $19.0 $15.0 $15.0

Page 59 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Environmental Protection Agency 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 42.5 38.0 41.5 35.6 68.7

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 144.3 45.3 89.0 70.0 114.0

Other 0.6 49.7 0.6 1.3 1.7

Total $187.4 $133.0 $131.1 $106.9 $184.4

Executive Office of the President 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.2

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 0.0 0.0 24.0 24.0 14.8

Other 140.0 41.0 9.0 3.5 4.4

Total $140.0 $41.0 $35.0 $29.5 $22.4

Federal Communications Commission 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.6 3.5

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 0.0 $1.0 $1.0 $1.6 $3.5

General Services Administration 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.6

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 96.5 65.3 76.9 62.8 77.1

Total $97.4 $67.1 $78.9 $65.2 $79.7

Intelligence Community Management Account 

Intelligence and Warning 0.0 0.0 1.0 72.4 55.8

Total 0.0 0.0 $1.0 $72.4 $55.8

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 223.0 205.0 207.0 218.0 205.0

Total $223.0 $205.0 $207.0 $218.0 $205.0

Page 60 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

National Archives and Records Administration 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 10.0 10.1 16.0 17.1 19.1

Total $10.0 $10.1 $16.0 $17.1 $20.2

National Capital Planning Commission 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total $1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

National Science Foundation 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 250.6 257.5 312.9 315.3 317.2

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 9.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0

Total $259.6 $284.5 $339.9 $342.3 $344.2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 42.9 37.9 50.0 39.6 39.2

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 0.0 8.9 16.2 19.0 21.2

Total $42.9 $47.0 $66.8 $59.2 $61.0

Office of Personnel Management 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.8 0.0 2.5 2.5 3.3

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 1.8 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.5

Total $2.6 $3.0 $3.0 $3.0 $3.8

Postal Service 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 180.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 406.5 0.0 0.0 503.0 0.0

Total $587.0 0.0 0.0 $503.0 0.0

Page 61 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

 Gross budget authority 

Agency Mission Area FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004a

Estimated 

FY 2005a

Requested 

FY 2006

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Total 0.0 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0 $5.0

Smithsonian Institution 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 90.4 82.8 78.3 75.0 86.6

Total $90.4 $82.8 $78.3 $75.0 $86.6

Social Security Administration 

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.7

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 121.0 132.0 142.1 155.0 172.6

Domestic Counterterrorism 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.7 4.2

Total $121.0 $132.0 $143.4 $159.4 $177.5

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum 

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 7.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.7

Total $7.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.0 $8.7

Total 

Border and Transportation 

Security 13,576.2 17,030.0 15,931.5 17,566.1 19,285.7

Emergency Preparedness and 

Response 4,860.7 6,145.4 6,003.0 5,765.6 6,121.9

Protecting Critical 

Infrastructure and Key Assets 9,944.1 13,281.7 12,281.7 14,940.2 15,632.5

Domestic Counterterrorism 3,557.8 3,031.8 3,391.7 3,944.7 4,468.8

Defending Against 

Catastrophic Threats 570.7 2,629.5 2,974.9 3,399.3 3,898.3

Intelligence and Warning 114.7 211.2 242.3 349.9 432.0

Other 258.6 118.3 9.6 49.8 104.5

Total $32,882.8 $42,447.9 $40,834.7 $46,015.6 $49,943.7

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. 

Page 62 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

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.5

 Thus, while OMB continues to collect information on funding 

associated with overseas combating terrorism activities, it reported that 

the overseas combating terrorism data for fiscal years 2004 through 2006 

have not been reviewed or validated. As a result, the overseas combating 

terrorism data for fiscal years 2004–2006 did not receive the same level of 

scrutiny as the homeland security data. Nevertheless, on the basis of 

funding data agencies attributed to overseas combating terrorism, most of 

that funding was provided to DOD. 

Overseas Combating 

Terrorism 

 

5

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

Page 63 GAO-06-161 
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Combating Terrorism

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

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Department of Defense 9,012 79 8,628 71 8,255 71

Department of Energy 316 3 253 2 255 2

Other agencies 2,137 19 3,248 27 3,116 27

Total $11,465 100 $12,129 100 $11,626 100

Page 64 GAO-06-161 
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Combating Terrorism

Estimated FY 2005 Requested FY 2006 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Average annual 

percentage

change 2002-2005

7,358 67 7,861 67 -6.54

330 3 373 3 1.46

3,375 31 3,511 30 16.45

$11,063 100 $11,745 100 

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. 

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. 

Page 65 GAO-06-161 
Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding 

for Homeland Security and Overseas 

Combating Terrorism Activities 

Combating Terrorism

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

Dollars in millions 

FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 

Estimated FY 

2005 

Requested FY 

2006 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority 

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total 

Gross 

budget 

authority

Percent 

of total

Average 

annual 

percentage 

change 

2002-2005

Department 

of Defense 9,012 79 8,628 71 8,255 71 7,358 67 7,861 67 -6.54

Department 

of Energy 316 3 253 2 255 2 330 3 373 3 1.46

Department 

of State 1,547 13 1,560 13 1,677 14 1,728 16 2,078 18 3.76

Executive 

Office of the 

President 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0

Intelligence 

Community 

Management 

Account 19 0 56 0 18 0 90 1 82 1 67.94

International 

Assistance 

Programs 571 5 1,630 13 1,419 12 1,555 14 1,351 12 39.65

Total $11,465 100 $12,129 100 $11,626 100 $11,063 100 $11,745 100

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. 

Page 66 GAO-06-161 
Appendix II: The National Strategy for 

Homeland Security’s Critical Mission Areas 

Page 67 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism

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. 

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 

Page 68 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism

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 2002.1

 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.2

 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),3

 and 

initiative areas.4

 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 

Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face 

 

1

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

2

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. 

3

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. 

4

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.) 
Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face 

Combating Terrorism

they are not reviewing the information that agencies provide to them.5 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.6

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.7

 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. 

 

5

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). 

6

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. 

7

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. 

Page 69 GAO-06-161 
Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face 

Combating Terrorism

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 cabinetlevel 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.8

 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.9

 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 

 

8

31 U.S.C. 1105 (a). 

9

See GAO-03-170. 

Page 70 GAO-06-161 
Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result 

of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and 

Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face 

Combating Terrorism

challenged in tracking funding related to combating terrorism, given the 

wide variety of missions represented, including intelligence, law 

enforcement, health services, and environmental protection, as well as the 

global nature of missions for combating terrorism. However, OMB staff 

told us that they have worked diligently to identify homeland security 

activities by monitoring agency reviews of homeland security spending 

and developing an annual crosscut review, which identifies projects with 

common themes across agencies.10

 

10According to OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) guidance, a crosscut 

review is a review that looks at programs across multiple agencies and can identify 

exemplary goals and practices, common measures of performance, possible trade-offs in 

management and budget decisions, and opportunities for better coordination among 

programs. The results of crosscutting analyses can summarize common strengths and 

opportunities for improvement. 

Page 71 GAO-06-161 
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

Page 72 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism

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.1

 Our summaries also include descriptions of the combating 

terrorism activities within these accounts as well as the agencies’ 

estimates of budget authority that relate to these combating terrorism 

activities. For purposes of this appendix, we selected one account to 

display for the Department of Energy, General Services Administration, 

and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We also selected to 

display one account for each component office that we contacted at the 

Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Justice—the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Agricultural 

Research Service (ARS) within the Department of Agriculture (USDA); 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE), the Information Analysis and Infrastructure 

Protection Directorate (IAIP), the Office of State and Local Government 

Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the Transportation Security 

Administration (TSA), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the United 

States Secret Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate 

of DHS; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the Department of 

Justice. 

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-11.2

Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

 

1

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. 

2

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). 
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

IAIP Assessment and Evaluation (024-90-0911) 

Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk Assessment 0.0 71.1 74.4

Homeland Security Operations Center 0.0 35.0 52.1

Analysis and Studies 0.0 18.4 34.5

Threat Determination and Assessment 0.0 21.9 19.9

Biosurveillance 0.0 11.0 11.2

Other Activities 145.9 0.0 0.0

Total $145.9 $157.4 $192.1

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. 

Page 73 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY2004

enacted

FY 2005

estimate

FY 2006

request

CBP Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0530) 

Enforcement 2,179.0 2,283.0 2,377.0

Border Protection 1,388.0 1,459.0 1,519.0

Small Airports 5.0 5.0 5.0

Total $3,572.0 $3,747.0 $3,901.0

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

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. 

Page 74 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005

estimate

FY 2006

request

TSA Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses Account 

(024-50-0550) 

Aviation Security 1,884.0 2,330.0 2,410.0

Aviation Security Fee Proposal 0.0 0.0 1,479.0

Total $1,884.0 $2,330.0 $3,889.0

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. 

Page 75 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005

estimate

FY 2006

request

US Coast Guard Operating Expenses Account (024-60-0610) 

Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security 1,264.9 1,495.6 1,576.2

Drug Interdiction 586.8 655.7 720.3

Migrant Interdiction 145.7 168.7 181.0

Defense Readiness 166.1 93.6 99.1

Other Law Enforcement 66.0 45.9 48.3

Total $2,229.5b$2,459.5c$2,624.9

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

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. 

Page 76 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005

estimate

FY 2006

request

ICE Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0540)

Investigations 868.0 1,146.0 1,236.0

Total $868.0 $1,146.0 $1,236.0

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

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. 

Page 77 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

ATF Salaries and Expenses (011-14-0700) 

Firearms 0.0 266.7 280.5

Arson and Explosives 0.0 72.7 76.5

Alcohol and Tobacco 0.0 6.9 7.3

Reduce Violent Crime 322.5 0.0 0.0

Protect the Public 28.5 0.0 0.0

Total $351.0 $346.3 $364.3

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

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. 

Page 78 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

FBI Salaries and Expenses (011-10-0200) 

Counter Terrorism Field Investigations 475.3 639.3 813.6

Equipment/Technology 159.7 186.2 185.6

Counter Terrorism Headquarters Coordination 79.2b153.6 162.9

Terrorist Screening Center 0.0 29.0 104.0

Miscellaneous Activities 288.2 389.9 471.9

Total $1,002.4 $1,398.0 $1,738.0

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

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. 

Page 79 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Operating Expenses Account (024-40-0400) 

Domestic Protection of Persons 773.0 792.0 797.2

Financial and Infrastructure Investigations 215.3 232.5 248.0

Domestic Protection of Government Buildings 6.5 6.6 6.7

Total $994.8 $1,031.1 $1,051.9

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. 

Page 80 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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 nonnuclear 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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities (019-05-0240) 

NNSA Safeguards and Security 472.5 615.5 628.7

NNSA Secure Transportation Asset 159.8 199.7 212.1

NNSA Safety and Security Cybersecurity 80.0 99.3 77.8

NNSA Safeguards and Security–HQ Research and Development 0.0 7.2 2.0

Total $712.3 $921.7 $920.6

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. 

Page 81 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Federal Properties Activities/Fee Funded, 

Federal Buildings Fund (023-05-4542) 

New Construction 27.0 30.6 26.8

Major Repairs and Alterations 21.1 4.8 20.9

Building Operations 19.2 19.2 19.2

Minor Repairs and Alterations 5.5 4.0 6.0

Total $72.8 $58.6 $72.9

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. 

. 

Page 82 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Civil Works/Operation and Maintenance, General (202-00-3132) 

Continuity of Operations 0.0 1.0 1.0

Critical Project Security 101.5 88.0 71.0

Total $101.5 $89.0 $72.0

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

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. 

Page 83 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service 

Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Threats 

Salaries and Expenses Account (005-18-1400)a

The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Agricultural Research Service personnel to conduct research that helps 

counter agricultural bioterrorism including research that minimizes the risk of agriculture to contamination (chemical, biological, or 

genetic), helps ensure the security of the food supply, and allows Agricultural Research Service personnel to provide scientific 

knowledge and expertise in agriculture to support a response to a bioterrorism attack. 

Component activities: 

Research includes research activities conducted by Agricultural Research Service personnel to help protect the nation’s animal and 

plant resources by preventing bioterrorism attacks on crops and animal agriculture or providing rapid responses to thwart such 

attacks, and developing rapid and accurate techniques to monitor the safety of the food supply. 

Gross budget authority 

(dollars in millions) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses (005-18-1400) 

Research 20.8 30.2 65.6

Total $20.8 $30.2 $65.6

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

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. 

 

Page 84 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Salaries and Expenses (005-32-1600) 

Pest Detection/Animal Health Monitoring 139.5 184.62 232.8

Overseas Activities 7.9 7.88 18.8

Total $147.4 $192.5 $251.6

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

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. 

Page 85 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

Science and Technology Research, Development, Operations, and 

Acquisitions Account (024-80-0800) 

Biological Countermeasures 286.5 397.7 362.3

Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures 127.0 122.6 246.4

Research and Development Support to DHS Agencies 34.0 54.7 220.1

Man-Portable Air Defense Systems Countermeasures Special Programs 60.0 61.0 110.0

Chemical Countermeasures 52.0 53.0 102.0

Additional Activities with Fiscal Year 2006 requests of less than $100 million 214.5 247.2 171.3

Total $774.0 $936.2 $1,212.1

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. 

Page 86 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected 

Accounts with Combating Terrorism 

Activities 

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) 

FY 2004

enacted

FY 2005 

estimate

FY 2006 

request

State and Local Programs Account (024-10-0560) 

State Homeland Security Grants 1,729.0 1,115.0 870.0

High Threat Urban Area Grants 721.0 885.0 820.0

National Exercise Programs 46.0 59.0 59.0

Center for Domestic Preparedness 55.0 55.0 50.0

Miscellaneous Activities 220.0 261.0 96.0

Total $2,771.0 $2,375.0 $1,895.0

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

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. 

Page 87 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology Appendix V: Scope and Methodology 

To identify the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their 

annual appropriation that relates to combating terrorism, we met with 

OMB officials to review OMB’s efforts to define, categorize, and track 

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding both prior to 

and after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act. In addition, we met 

with 7 agencies, including 12 directorates, offices, or bureaus at those 

agencies that reported receiving funding for combating terrorism 

activities. The seven agencies we contacted are the Department of 

Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, 

the General Services Administration, and the United Stated Department of 

Agriculture. 

To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from 33 

agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving funding 

related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. We selected DHS and 

DOD because they account for 73 percent of the gross budget authority 

enacted for homeland security activities for fiscal year 2005, and DOD and 

DOE because they account for 69 percent of the gross budget authority 

enacted for overseas combating terrorism activities for fiscal year 2005.1

We also selected four agencies: two agencies from a list of those with the 

most fiscal year 2005 budget dollars related to combating terrorism 

activities—USDA and DOJ—and two agencies from a list of those with the 

least enacted budget authority related to combating terrorism activities—

GSA and USACE—to ensure we included agencies in our review that had a 

range of combating terrorism funding. Because the selection we used was 

a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained from these 7 

agencies is not generalizable to all agencies with similar funding for 

combating terrorism activities.2

We used a random sample number generator to select USDA, DOJ, GSA, 

and USACE from the two categories we established, that is, agencies that 

were moderately funded and those that were minimally funded. We 

excluded DOD, DHS, and DOE when performing the random number 

 

1

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. 

2

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. 

Page 88 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology 

generation, since we had already included them in our selection. (We also 

excluded the Postal Service because it did not estimate receiving any 

funding to combat terrorism activities in fiscal year 2006 and 10 other 

agencies that each received less than 0.1 percent of combating terrorism 

dollars—to ensure that our analysis included the more significant of the 

minimally funded agencies).3

Within the seven agencies, we selected directorates or offices that 

received the most funding for combating terrorism activities. These 

included the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the 

Agricultural Research Service, within USDA; Customs and Border 

Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information 

Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State and 

Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the Transportation 

Security Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the United States 

Secret Service, and the Science and Technology Directorate of DHS; the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation of DOJ. 

We also reviewed the activities contained in 34 budgetary accounts—

separate financial reporting units for which all transactions within the 

budget are recorded—for these agencies designated as related to 

combating terrorism. We selected accounts with the most combating 

terrorism funding at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller 

amounts to ensure we covered a range of funding. On the basis of our 

selection, we reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency’s estimated gross 

budget authority related to combating terrorism activities as reported in 

the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. While we initially selected 

an additional 23 budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review 

these accounts because DOD does not enter its combating terrorism 

activities—specific lines of work—into OMB’s Homeland Security and 

Overseas Combating Terrorism database. Although OMB computed the 

portion of budget authority DOD receives to combat terrorism and aligned 

DOD’s budget authority related to homeland security with the six critical 

 

3

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. 

Page 89 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology 

mission areas, OMB staff said that they did not enter information on 

activities conducted by DOD to combat terrorism. Thus, we did not have 

any activity level-information to review for DOD for the accounts we 

selected. 

We interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our 

review and OMB to determine how they identified, categorized, and 

tracked homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities 

and estimated the portion of their budget authority that relates to such 

activities. To supplement interviews with agency budget officials, we also 

reviewed relevant budget documentation from each agency and asked 

agency budget officials to describe procedures the agency had in place to 

ensure that their funding levels were developed in accordance with OMB’s 

guidelines and definitions. 

To identify the status of recommendations from our November 2002 

report, we met with OMB and attempted to meet with National Security 

Council (NSC) officials to document what actions have been taken to 

implement our recommendations and the reasons they did or did not 

implement them.4

 Additionally, we reviewed the National Strategy for 

Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy for Homeland Security, and 

the National Security Strategy of the United States and conducted a 

literature search to determine if any updates or supplements had been 

written that included governmentwide performance goals and measures. 

We also interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our 

review and reviewed their performance plans to determine whether these 

plans included performance goals and measures that reflected their 

combating terrorism activities. To determine the status of 

recommendations made in our 2002 report regarding an analysis of 

duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in annual 

reporting on funding data associated with such activities and to report this 

information in a timely manner to support congressional budget decisions, 

we met with OMB to determine what actions have been taken to 

implement our recommendations and the reasons it did or did not 

implement them. We also reviewed the Analytical Perspectives 

 

4

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. 

Page 90 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V: Scope and Methodology 

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 report5

 by reviewing the act and comparing it with 

prior reporting requirements under the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as amended by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999.6

 To supplement this information, 

we also reviewed OMB’s 2003 Report to Congress on Combating 

Terrorism and the Analytical Perspectives of the President’s budget from 

fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 

5

See GAO-03-170. 

6

Pub. L. No. 105-85, 111 Stat. 1638, 1889(1997) as amended by Pub. L. 105-261, 112 Stat. 

1930, 2168(1998). 

Page 91 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most 

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

Commonly Report Using to Identify Activities 

as Combating Terrorism 

Officials at five of the seven agencies1 we contacted—Department of 

Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, 

the General Services Administration, and the United Stated Department of 

Agriculture—most commonly reported using guidance from OMB, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002,2

 and agency-specific guidance to identify 

their combating terrorism activities. Officials at all five of these agencies 

said they use OMB Circular No. A-11, which includes definitions for 

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities, and 

instructions for submitting information on funding data related to 

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism to OMB.3

 In addition, 

officials from four of the seven agencies in our review reported that they 

consulted with OMB to determine which of their agency’s activities are 

related to combating terrorism. 

Three of the seven agencies we contacted—DHS, USDA, and the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers—have developed additional guidance, 

which provides details specific to each agency to help determine 

combating terrorism activities. For example, to supplement OMB Circular 

A-11 guidance, DHS established an internal directive, Planning, 

Programming, Budgeting and Execution, which helps establish policy, 

procedures, and responsibilities relative to the planning, programming, 

budgeting, and execution process at DHS. The objective of the directive is 

to articulate DHS’s goals, objectives, and priorities while guiding the 

development of the department’s budget request and establishing 

parameters and guidelines for implementing and executing the current 

budget. 

Furthermore, officials in four of DHS’s components told us that they refer 

to information included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to determine 

which of their activities relate to homeland security. For example, section 

888 of the Homeland Security Act designated 5 of the U.S. Coast Guard’s 

11 missions as homeland security and the remaining 6 as non-homeland 

 

1

Officials at the Department of Defense reported that OMB determines how much of DOD’s 

funding relates to combating terrorism. 

2

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

3

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).

Page 92 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most 

Commonly Report Using to Identify Activities 

as Combating Terrorism 

security.4 Similarly, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection 

(IAIP) officials at DHS stated that they categorized all of their activities as 

related to homeland security, since section 201 of the Homeland Security 

Act of 2002 only authorized IAIP to conduct activities related to homeland 

security. 

 

4

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. 

Page 93 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VII: Status of 2002 

Recommendations Related to Duplication

Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding D

 of 

ata 

Page 94 GAO-06-161 

Appendix VII: Status of 2002 

Recommendations Related to Duplication of 

Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data 

This appendix discusses the status of recommendations made in our 2002 

report for the Office of Management and Budget to (1) include an analysis 

of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in its 

annual reporting of funding data associated with such activities and 

(2) report this information in a timely manner to support congressional 

budget decisions.1

To improve the usefulness of OMB’s Annual Report to Congress on 

Combating Terrorism, we recommended that OMB include, as required by 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, an analysis of 

areas where overlap in programs could result in unnecessary duplication 

of effort.2

 We also recommended that OMB publish the report by the 

required annual March 1 deadline to provide information in time for 

congressional budget deliberations. 

Although OMB has not implemented our recommendation that it include 

an analysis of unnecessary duplication of effort in its annual combating 

terrorism report, this requirement no longer exists. Our November 2002 

report was issued concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002.3

 Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

repealed OMB’s prior reporting requirements, including the duplication 

analysis. 

OMB staff stated that they did not include an analysis of duplication in any 

of the agency’s prior reports primarily because they perform an analysis of 

homeland security initiatives and related resource needs across all federal 

agencies as part of the annual budget preparation process, and that they 

take action to address duplication prior to the publication of the 

President’s budget. Therefore, OMB staff said that they believe any issue 

of duplication is addressed in the President’s budget, specifically through 

his recommendations related to funding needs. 

Our recommendation that OMB improve the usefulness of its Annual 

Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism by publishing the report by 

the then-required March 1 annual deadline was also superseded by section 

889 of the Homeland Security Act. This section requires that OMB report 

 

1

See GAO-03-170. 

2

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

3

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

Combating Terrorism
Appendix VII: Status of 2002 

Recommendations Related to Duplication of 

Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data 

on funding data for homeland security activities in the President’s budget. 

Because the President must submit his budget by the first Monday in 

February,4

 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 accelerated the timeline for 

reporting funding data on homeland security activities. OMB complied 

with this reporting requirement in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

 

4

31 U.S.C. 1005(a). 

Page 95 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 

Management and Budget 

Page 96 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IX: Comments from the General Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration 

Services Administration 

Page 97 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact Paul L. Jones (202) 512-8777 

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. 

Acknowledgments 

Page 98 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Global War on Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for 

the War when Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767. 

Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005. 

Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the Reliability of Cost 

Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control Costs, GAO-05-882. 

Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005. 

Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005. 

A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP. 

Washington, D.C.: September 2005. 

Protection of Chemical and Water Infrastructure: Federal Requirements, 

Actions of Selected Facilities, and Remaining Challenges. GAO-05-327. 

Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2005. 

Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS’s Planning Process 

Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability. GAO-05-300. Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a 

Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214. 

Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges 

Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security. GAO-05-33. 

Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005. 

Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal 

Agencies’ Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices. GAO05-49. 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. 

Page 99 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Related GAO Products 

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-02-927TT. 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-02-549TT. 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-02-150TT. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001. 

Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related 

Recommendations. GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20. 2001. 

Page 100 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
Related GAO Products 

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism 

Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 19, 2001. 

IRS Modernization: IRS Should Enhance Its Performance Management 

System. GAO-01-234. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2001. 

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based 

Management and Accountability. GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998. 

Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging 

Management Issues. GAO/AIMD-98-11. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1997. 

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide 

Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: 

June 2, 1997. 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996. 

(440370) Page 101 GAO-06-161 Combating Terrorism
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER