United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1997 COMBATING

TERRORISM

Spending on

Governmentwide

Programs Requires

Better Management

and Coordination

GAO/NSIAD-98-39

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-277824 

December 1, 1997

The Honorable Ike Skelton

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

We recently reported to you on the U.S. efforts to combat terrorism.1

 As

noted in that report, we are reporting separately on your request that we

identify interagency processes intended to ensure the efficient allocation

of funding and resources for such efforts across the federal government.

Specifically, we (1) identified federal funding for unclassified programs

and activities to combat terrorism2

; (2) determined whether any agency or

entity has been designated to coordinate budget proposals, establish

priorities, manage funding requirements, and help ensure the efficient

allocation of federal resources for combating terrorism across federal

agencies; (3) explored opportunities for agencies to expand coordination

of terrorism-related programs and activities under the Government

Performance and Results Act principles and framework; and (4) assessed

issues concerning the reimbursement of support provided to agencies with

lead counterterrorism responsibilities.

Background Under Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 39 (U.S. Policy on

Counterterrorism, June 1995), the National Security Council (NSC) is to

coordinate interagency terrorism policy issues and review ongoing crisis

operations and activities concerning foreign terrorism and domestic

terrorism with significant foreign involvement. An NSC-chaired

coordinating group is to ensure the PDD is implemented but does not have

authority to direct agencies’ activities.

Among its general mission responsibilities, the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) is to evaluate the effectiveness of agency programs, policies,

and procedures; assess competing funding demands among agencies; set

funding priorities; and develop better performance measures and

1

Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Implement National Policy and Strategy

(GAO/NSIAD-97-254, Sept. 26, 1997). (A list of related GAO products is on p. 39.)

2

For purposes of this report, programs and activities to combat terrorism include antiterrorism, or

defensive activities such as security measures and counterterrorism, or offensive activities and

countermeasures.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

coordinating mechanisms. Further, according to PDD 39, OMB is to analyze

the adequacy of funding for terrorism-related programs and ensure the

adequacy of funding for research, development, and acquisition of

counterterrorism-related technology and systems on an ongoing basis.

Under PDD 39, the State Department and the Department of Justice,

through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), have lead federal agency

responsibility for dealing with terrorist incidents overseas and

domestically, respectively. Numerous federal departments, agencies,

bureaus, and offices also have terrorism-related programs and activities

that are funded through annual and supplemental appropriations. 

(See app. I for a list of federal entities with terrorism-related programs and

activities.) Terrorism-related funding requests include nearly $290 million

provided under the 1995 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

(P.L. 104-19) in the aftermath of the domestic terrorist attack in Oklahoma

City and $1.1 billion proposed for counterterrorism programs within a

number of agencies in fiscal year 1996 supplemental appropriations and

fiscal year 1997 budget amendments.

The Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act) of 1993 is

intended to improve the management and accountability of federal

agencies.3

 The Results Act seeks to shift the focus of federal management

and decision-making from activities that are undertaken to the results of

activities as reflected in citizens’ lives. Specifically, it requires federal

agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans and annual performance

plans, establish program performance measures and goals, and provide

annual performance reports to the Congress. Agencies submitted the first

strategic plans to OMB and the Congress by September 30, 1997; the first

annual performance plans, covering fiscal year 1999, are to be submitted

to the Congress after the President’s budget submission in 1998.

In recent years, several efforts have been undertaken to coordinate federal

programs that cut across agencies to help ensure that national needs are

being effectively targeted. These efforts have shown that coordinating

crosscutting programs takes time and sustained attention and, because of

the statutory bases of crosscutting programs, may require congressional

involvement to integrate the federal response to national needs. With the

large number of government entities involved, the federal effort to combat

3

For a full discussion of the act and its implementation, see The Government Performance and Results

Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997) and

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Improving Federal Management and Effectiveness

(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144, June 24, 1997).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

terrorism is one example of a crosscutting program to which Results Act

principles and measures might be applied.

Results in Brief The amount of federal funds being spent on programs and activities to

combat terrorism is unknown and difficult to determine. Identifying and

tracking terrorism-related governmentwide spending with precision is

difficult for several reasons, such as the lack of a uniform definition of

terrorism and the inclusion of these expenditures within larger categories

that do not readily allow separation. For example, building security

measures protect against criminals as well as terrorists. Some agencies

maintain data on their spending for efforts to combat terrorism, while

others have only fragmented information or estimates. Information from

key agencies involved in combating terrorism shows that nearly $7 billion

was spent for unclassified terrorism-related programs and activities during

fiscal year 1997. The Department of Defense (DOD)—which plays a key

supporting role to the lead federal agencies in combating terrorism and is

also responsible for protecting its personnel and facilities from terrorist

attack worldwide—budgeted about $3.7 billion in fiscal year 1997, or

about 55 percent of the estimated spending.

Although NSC is to coordinate counterterrorism policy issues and OMB is to

assess competing funding demands, neither agency is required to regularly

collect, aggregate, and review funding and spending data relative to

combating terrorism on a crosscutting, governmentwide basis. Further,

neither agency establishes funding priorities for terrorism-related

programs across agencies’ budgets or ensures that individual agencies’

stated requirements have been validated against threat and risk criteria

before budget requests are submitted to the Congress. Because

governmentwide priorities for combating terrorism have not been

established and funding requirements have not necessarily been validated

based on an analytically sound assessment of the threat and risk of

terrorist attack, there is no basis to have reasonable assurance that

• agencies’ requests are funded through a coordinated and focused

approach to implement national policy and strategy,

• the highest priority requirements are being met,

• terrorism-related activities and capabilities are not unnecessarily

duplicative or redundant, and

• funding gaps or misallocations have not occurred.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

The Results Act principles and framework can provide guidance and

opportunities for the many federal agencies involved in the crosscutting

program to combat terrorism to develop coordinated goals, objectives, and

performance measures and to enhance the management of individual

agency and overall federal efforts related to combating terrorism. In the

next phase of Results Act implementation, agencies are to develop annual

performance plans that are linked to their strategic plans. These plans are

to contain annual performance goals, performance measures to gauge

progress toward achieving the goals, and the resources agencies will need

to meet their goals. The development of annual plans may provide the

many federal agencies involved in combating terrorism the next

opportunity to develop coordinated goals, objectives, and performance

measures for programs and activities that combat terrorism and to

articulate how they plan to manage this crosscutting program area.

Reimbursement of agencies’ expenses for support activities related to

terrorist incidents has been a matter of concern to the FBI, the lead agency

for responding to a terrorist incident in the United States. PDD 39 directs

that agencies will provide support for terrorism-related activities at their

own expense unless the President directs otherwise. However, the

Economy Act generally requires reimbursement for goods and services

provided to another agency.4

 The difference between the PDD and the

Economy Act concerning reimbursement has caused disagreements

between agencies in some cases. For example, the FBI has cited PDD 39 to

seek DOD support for counterterrorism activities on a nonreimbursable

basis, whereas DOD has cited the Economy Act as requiring

reimbursement, unless another statute specifically allows DOD to provide

nonreimbursable support. DOD’s position is that PDD 39 is not sufficient for

this purpose. This issue remained unresolved at the time of our review.

Total

Terrorism-related

Spending Is Uncertain

Federal agencies are not required to account separately for their

terrorism-related programs and activities. Because most federal agencies

do not isolate or account specifically for terrorism-related funding, it is

difficult to determine how much the government budgets and spends to

combat terrorism. Key agencies provided us their estimates of

terrorism-related spending, using their own definitions. These estimates

totaled nearly $7 billion for unclassified programs and activities for fiscal

4

The Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. 1535, as amended) authorizes federal agencies to order goods

and services from other federal agencies when funds are available, it is in the best interest of the

government, and the goods and services cannot be provided as conveniently and cheaply by private

industry.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

year 1997, and should be considered a minimum estimate of federal

spending for unclassified terrorism-related programs and activities.

The amounts for governmentwide terrorism-related funding and spending

are uncertain because (1) definitions of antiterrorism and

counterterrorism vary from agency to agency; (2) in most cases agencies

do not have separate budget line items for terrorism-related activities;

(3) some agency functions serve more than one purpose, and it is difficult

to allocate costs applicable to terrorism alone (e.g., U.S. embassy security

measures protect not only against terrorism but also against theft,

compromise of classified documents, and violent demonstrations);

(4) some agencies, such as the Departments of Energy and Transportation,

have decentralized budgeting and accounting functions and do not

aggregate terrorism-related funding agencywide5

; (5) programs and

activities may receive funding from more than one appropriation within a

given agency, which makes it difficult to track collective totals; and

(6) appropriations legislation often is not clear regarding which amounts

are designated to combat terrorism.

At our request, the primary agencies leading or supporting operational

crisis response and management activities under PDD 39 provided spending

data for fiscal years 1994 to 1996 (not all agencies were able to provide

historical data prior to fiscal year 1996) and estimates for fiscal year 1997

(see table 1).

5

For example, individual organizational units within the Department of Transportation’s modal

administrations are responsible for their own budgeting and accounting. Further, to obtain the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) terrorism-related funding, we requested and compiled estimates from

three FAA entities.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

Table 1: Estimated Spending for Key

Agencies’ Unclassified

Terrorism-related Programs and

Activities (fiscal years 1994-97) Fiscal year

Current dollars in millions

Department/agency 1994 1995 1996 1997

Defense a a $3,244.2 $3,671.1b

Energy a a 1,324.7c 1,420.0c

Justice $94.2 $171.0 332.0 451.0

(FBI) (79.3) (118.3) (287.0) (393.0)

Transportation (FAA)d 98.3 95.9 115.6 296.8

State 166.5 169.4 161.5 162.5

Treasury a 7.8a 552.1 682.5

Health and Human

Services

a a 7.0 13.8

Total a a $5,737.1 $6,697.7

aComplete data on terrorism-related spending were not available for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

bThis amount comprises about 1.5 percent of the total DOD budget and includes force protection

and other security measures.

cIncludes security at Department of Energy facilities and nonproliferation program costs.

dIncludes only the FAA. Totals represent estimates from three FAA entities with programs to

prevent terrorism.

Source: Data provided by selected departments and agencies.

Figure 1 indicates that DOD spent the largest share of estimated

terrorism-related funds for fiscal year 1997, followed by the Department of

Energy.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

Figure 1: Estimated Spending for Key

Agencies’ Unclassified

Terrorism-related Programs and

Activities (fiscal year 1997) Defense

Energy

Treasury

Justice

Transportation

State

HHS

54.8%

21.2%

10.2%

6.7%

4.4%

2.4%

0.2%

HHS 0.2%

State 2.4%

Source: Data provided by departments and agencies included in table 1.

While DOD and the Department of Energy estimated spending accounted

for 76 percent of the unclassified fiscal year 1997 terrorism-related funds,

other agencies’ resources dedicated to combating terrorism have

significantly increased in recent years. For example, FAA resources tripled

(in current dollars) during fiscal years 1994-97, and FBI resources increased

five-fold. FAA increased equipment purchases and aviation security

operations, and the FBI nearly tripled the authorized staffing level

dedicated to combating terrorism, with the largest staff increase occurring

in fiscal year 1997.

Key Interagency

Management

Functions Are Not

Clearly Required or

Performed

There is no interagency mechanism to centrally manage funding

requirements and requests to ensure an efficient, focused governmentwide

application of federal funds to numerous agencies’ programs designed to

combat terrorism. Given the high national priority and magnitude of this

nearly $7-billion federal effort, sound management principles dictate that

(1) governmentwide requirements be prioritized to meet the objectives of

national policy and strategy and (2) spending and program data be

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

collected from the federal agencies involved to conduct annual,

crosscutting evaluations of their funding requests based on the threat and

risk of terrorist attack and to avoid duplicated efforts or serious funding

gaps. Neither NSC nor OMB currently performs these functions for the

governmentwide program to combat terrorism. Rather, each agency is

responsible for identifying and seeking funding for its priorities within its

own budget allocation, and OMB reviews the budget requests on an

agency-by-agency basis. Because individual agencies continue to propose

new programs, activities, and capabilities to combat terrorism, annual

crosscutting evaluations of agency budget requests for such programs

would be prudent to help avoid duplicated efforts.

Under PDD 39, NSC is to ensure the federal policy and strategy for

combating terrorism is implemented. Although PDD 39 establishes

interagency coordinating and working groups under the auspices of NSC to

handle policy and operational issues related to combating terrorism, these

groups operate on a consensus basis, do not have decision-making

authority, and do not establish governmentwide resource priorities for

combating terrorism. Moreover, PDD 39 does not assign responsibility to

NSC to ensure that terrorism-related requirements and related funding

proposals (1) are analyzed and reviewed to ensure they are based on a

validated assessment of the terrorism threat and risks of terrorist attack,

(2) provide a measured and appropriate level of effort across the federal

government, (3) avoid duplicative efforts and capabilities, and (4) are

prioritized governmentwide in a comprehensive strategy to combat the

terrorist threat.

PDD 39 requires OMB to analyze the adequacy of funding for

terrorism-related programs, technology, and systems. Further, OMB’s

general mission responsibilities include evaluating the effectiveness of

federal programs and policies, assessing competing funding demands, and

setting funding priorities. However, PDD 39 does not specifically require

OMB to prioritize terrorism-related requirements governmentwide or to

gather funding data across agencies and perform the crosscutting analyses

of agencies’ funding proposals necessary to ensure the efficient use of

federal resources.

OMB examiners who review individual agencies’ terrorism-related funding

requests explained that although they do not review activities and

programs to combat terrorism on a crosscutting basis as such, they often

discuss funding issues with each other during their reviews. Further, they

bring issues they identify during their reviews to the attention of senior

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

OMB officials. For example, OMB said it reviewed the FBI’s funding requests

for a hazardous materials laboratory capability and for increased staffing

to combat terrorism. However, because OMB did not provide evidence of its

reviews, we could not verify the extent to which OMB considered the

capabilities of other federal laboratories or analyzed the FBI’s request for

increased staffing based on workload data and on the threat and risk of

terrorism. Further, because terrorism-related funding requirements and

proposals have not been prioritized across agencies, OMB could not have

fully considered tradeoffs among competing demands. For this reason, it is

unclear, for example, whether OMB’s denial of an FBI request for an aircraft

that the FBI said was required for counterterrorism and other operations

was based on an assessment of terrorism-related priorities across the

government or of only the FBI’s funding requests.

OMB stated that in addition to its examination of agencies’ funding

requests, it has met its responsibilities under PDD 39 by reviewing DOD’s

counterterrorism program baseline funding and program submission,

participating in interagency meetings designed to better identify

terrorism-related budget functions that are imbedded in broader funding

accounts, and reviewing specific technology proposals (such as FAA

proposals for explosives detection technology). Also, consistent with its

role, OMB prepared the President’s $1.1-billion request for terrorism-related

programs and activities. We submitted a letter of inquiry to OMB to obtain

information about OMB’s role in reviewing federal agencies’ budget

requests and spending to combat terrorism. Our questions and OMB’s

written response appear in appendixes II and III, respectively.

While OMB said that it analyzes individual agencies’ funding requests—and

some examiners say they share information during their

examinations—OMB does not regularly perform crosscutting analyses of

requirements, priorities, and funding for the overall federal effort to

combat terrorism. Consequently, OMB cannot provide reasonable

assurance that specific federal activities and programs to combat

terrorism (1) are required based on a full assessment of the threat and risk

involved, (2) avoid unnecessary duplication of effort or capability with

other agencies, and (3) meet governmentwide priorities for effectively and

efficiently implementing the national strategy on combating terrorism.

Section 1501 of the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1998 requires OMB to establish a reporting system for

executive agencies on the budgeting and expenditure of funds for

counterterrorism and antiterrorism programs and activities. The section

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

also requires OMB, using the reporting system, to collect agency budget and

expenditure information on these programs and activities. Further, the

President is required to submit an annual report to the Congress

containing agency budget and expenditure information on

counterterrorism and antiterrorism programs and activities. The report is

also to identify any priorities and any duplication of efforts with respect to

such programs and activities.

Results Act Principles

Provide Guidance for

Crosscutting

Programs to Combat

Terrorism

The Results Act requires each executive branch agency to define its

mission and desired outcomes, measure performance, and use

performance information to ensure that programs meet intended goals.

However, the national policy, strategy, programs, and activities to combat

terrorism cut across agency lines. The act’s emphasis on results implies

that federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes should

be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent and that

program efforts are mutually reinforcing. Effective implementation of the

act governmentwide should eventually help prevent uncoordinated

crosscutting program efforts that can waste funds and limit the overall

effectiveness of the federal effort.

The principles underlying the Results Act provide guidance that the many

federal agencies responsible for combating terrorism can use to develop

coordinated goals, objectives, and performance measures and to improve

the management of individual agency and overall federal efforts to combat

terrorism. For example, the act focuses on clarifying missions, setting

program goals, and measuring performance toward achieving those goals.

In our work examining implementation of the Results Act, we identified

several critical issues that need to be addressed if the act is to succeed in

improving management of crosscutting program efforts by ensuring that

those programs are appropriately and substantively coordinated.6

 As their

implementation of the Results Act continues to evolve, agencies with

terrorism-related responsibilities may become more aware of the potential

for and desirability of coordinating performance plans, goals, and

measures for their crosscutting activities and programs.

The next phase of implementation of the Results Act requires agencies to

develop annual performance plans that are linked to their strategic plans.

6

See, for example, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies’ Strategic

Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept. 16, 1997); Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address

Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997); and Managing for

Results: Building on Agencies’ Strategic Plans to Improve Federal Management

(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-29, Oct. 30, 1997).

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

These plans are to contain annual performance goals, performance

measures to gauge progress toward achieving the goals, and the resources

agencies will need to meet their goals. The development of annual plans

may provide the many federal agencies responsible for combating

terrorism the next opportunity to develop coordinated goals, objectives,

and performance measures for programs and activities that combat

terrorism and to articulate how they plan to manage this crosscutting

program area.

Reimbursement for

Agency Support Is a

Matter of Concern

Between the FBI and

DOD

The Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. 1535, as amended) generally requires

federal agencies to reimburse other federal agencies that provide them

with support. However, PDD 39 states that federal agencies providing

support to lead agencies’ counterterrorist operations or activities must

bear the cost unless otherwise directed by the President. Because the

Economy Act and PDD 39 differ in their treatment of reimbursement, DOD

and the FBI have disagreed on whether the FBI must reimburse DOD for its

support of counterterrorist operations. Primary examples of DOD support

involve air transportation to return terrorists from overseas locations or

other deployments of FBI personnel and equipment for special events or

for the investigation of terrorist incidents. DOD officials stated that PDD 39

does not have the force of statutory authority regarding whether or not

DOD’s support to another agency is reimbursable. These officials believe

the Economy Act requires DOD to provide the requested support on a

reimbursable basis unless another statute allows for nonreimbursable

support.7

 Every request for DOD support requires a legal determination of

which statutes are applicable and whether the Economy Act applies. DOD

believes that PDD 39 does not control the legal determination of

reimbursement.

The issue of reimbursement has caused two concerns within the FBI:

(1) the potential impairment of its operations under PDD 39 or other

authorities and (2) the availability of funding for operations under PDD 39 if

DOD does not provide nonreimbursable support. According to the FBI, DOD

ultimately provides nonreimbursable support in most cases, but delays

and uncertainties involved in DOD’s decision process on reimbursement

frequently threaten timely FBI deployments.

7

For example, 10 U.S.C. 377 requires reimbursement for any DOD assistance provided under 10 U.S.C.

371 and 372 unless the support is provided in the normal course of military training or operations or

results in a benefit to the DOD element providing the support that is substantially equivalent to that

which would otherwise be obtained from military operations or training. Also, DOD may provide

nonreimbursable support under certain circumstances to the Secret Service under the 1976

Presidential Assistance Act.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

DOD officials cited an example of the process it follows when the FBI,

through the Attorney General, requests support under PDD 39. In response

to an Attorney General request that DOD provide air transportation for FBI

personnel and equipment to prepare for the June 1997 Summit of the Eight

in Denver, Colorado, DOD identified a statute that allowed nonreimbursable

support regarding the provision of security to foreign dignitaries.

Otherwise, the Economy Act would have required the FBI to reimburse DOD

for the transportation costs.

In an attempt to alleviate concern and confusion over reimbursement of

support activities, NSC tasked a special working group on interagency

operations to explore solutions. According to NSC, possible solutions

include legislation to provide DOD with special authority to provide

nonreimbursable support or to set aside contingency funds for domestic

emergency support team activities. The Department of Justice commented

that DOD-provided transportation services and assistance provided in

response to terrorist activities involving a weapon of mass destruction

should be exempt from the requirements of the Economy Act. DOD

commented that it is also considering various legislative options to permit

nonreimbursable support for counterterrorism operations. At the time of

our review, the issue remained unresolved.

Conclusions Billions of dollars are being spent by numerous agencies with roles or

potential roles in combating terrorism, but because no federal entity has

been tasked to collect such information across the government, the

specific amount is unknown. Further, no governmentwide spending

priorities for the various aspects of combating terrorism have been set,

and no federal entity manages the crosscutting program to channel

resources where they are most needed in consideration of the threat and

the risk of terrorist attack and to prevent wasteful spending that might

occur from unnecessary duplication of effort. Recent legislation requires

that OMB establish a reporting system for executive agencies on the

budgeting and expenditure of funds for counterterrorism and

antiterrorism programs and activities and that the President report this

information annually to the Congress, along with program priorities and

any duplication of effort.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

Recommendations We recommend that consistent with the responsibility for coordinating

efforts to combat terrorism, the Assistant to the President for National

Security Affairs, NSC, in consultation with the Director, OMB, and the heads

of other executive branch agencies, take steps to ensure that

(1) governmentwide priorities to implement the national counterterrorism

policy and strategy are established; (2) agencies’ programs, projects,

activities, and requirements for combating terrorism are analyzed in

relation to established governmentwide priorities; and (3) resources are

allocated based on the established priorities and assessments of the threat

and risk of terrorist attack.

To ensure that federal expenditures for terrorism-related activities are

well-coordinated and focused on efficiently meeting the goals of U.S.

policy under PDD 39, we recommend that the Director, OMB, use data on

funds budgeted and spent by executive departments and agencies to

evaluate and coordinate projects and recommend resource allocation

annually on a crosscutting basis to ensure that governmentwide priorities

for combating terrorism are met and programs are based on analytically

sound threat and risk assessments and avoid unnecessary duplication.

In a draft of this report we also recommended that the Director, OMB,

establish a governmentwide mechanism for reporting expenditures to

combat terrorism. We deleted that recommendation in view of the

requirements of the recently enacted legislation. Our remaining

recommendations are consistent with and complement this legislation.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Department of Defense

concurred with our findings. DOD noted that we identified a significant

issue involving reimbursement for and providing DOD support to other

federal agencies under PDD 39. DOD commented that although PDD 39 states

that support provided by a federal agency to the lead federal agency in

support of counterterrorist operations is borne by the providing agency,

PDD 39 is not a statute, and does not provide authority to waive

reimbursement that is required by the Economy Act. DOD also discussed in

its comments specific legislative options it is considering to resolve the

issue. (DOD’s comments and our response are in app. IV.)

In its written comments, the State Department pointed out that, although

interagency funding requirements for combating terrorism are not

managed by any single mechanism, overall counterterrorism and

antiterrorism spending is discussed by NSC’s Coordinating Sub-Group and

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

interagency coordination occurs in other contexts. We agree that

interagency coordination occurs at various forums in the counterterrorism

community but such coordination mechanisms do not perform the

functions we are recommending to NSC and OMB. State also highlighted the

difficulties of determining the amount of funds spent to combat terrorism

with a certain level of precision. We agree that it would be difficult and

possibly not cost-effective to account for programs and activities that

combat terrorism with a high degree of precision. Nevertheless, at the time

of our review, information on federal spending to combat terrorism had

not been gathered in any form or at any level of specificity, and we believe

that a reasonable methodology could be devised to allow OMB to capture

this data governmentwide. State also noted that efforts to coordinate

programs and activities and prevent duplication are further complicated

by the authorization and appropriations process in the Congress, because

various committees have jurisdiction over the federal agencies involved in

combating terrorism. State finally noted that it is important to have good

working relations with other countries to effectively counter international

terrorism. (State’s comments and our response are in app. V.)

OMB noted in its written comments that although our recommendations are

consistent with policies and responsibilities established by statute and the

President, the budget process would not be improved by mandating

annual, formal crosscutting reviews of budget requests and spending for

federal programs that combat terrorism. OMB also stated that, because of

the significant investment in combating terrorism over the past few years,

it will include a crosscutting review of these programs in the formulation

of the fiscal year 1999 budget. We are encouraged by OMB’s crosscutting

evaluation of programs to combat terrorism for the fiscal year 1999 budget

submission. Because of the high national priority, the significant federal

resources allocated, and the numerous federal agencies, bureaus, and

programs involved, we continue to believe that annual crosscutting

reviews would provide a mechanism for OMB to better assure that federal

resources are aligned with governmentwide program priorities and that

funds are not allocated to duplicative activities and functions to combat

terrorism. Annual reviews would be particularly important because federal

agencies continue to propose funding of new programs, activities, and

capabilities to combat terrorism.

OMB expressed concern that our report suggests that there currently is no

effective process to review spending for combating terrorism. We

acknowledge OMB’s reviews of individual agencies’ funding requests, but as

noted in our report, OMB did not provide evidence of its reviews, in

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

particular of the $1.1-billion fiscal year 1997 amended budget request for

combating terrorism. OMB also commented that it carefully considers

funding levels for activities to combat terrorism. During the course of our

review, OMB could not provide data on funding levels across the federal

government for combating terrorism. During the agency comment period

on a draft of this report, officials from the Treasury and Justice

Departments noted that OMB recently issued a budget data request to

gather budgetary and expenditure data from executive agencies for fiscal

years 1996-99, which in part satisfies our recommendation to OMB. OMB

would not provide a copy of the budget data request because we are not

part of the executive branch and it was in the process of being

implemented. As a result, we could not verify that the request was issued

or determine its content. (OMB’s written comments are in app. VI.)

The Departments of Treasury; Justice, including the FBI; and

Transportation provided technical comments, which we have reflected in

our report, as appropriate. NSC and the Departments of Energy and Health

and Human Services did not comment on the draft report.

Scope and

Methodology

We reviewed PDD 39 to determine agencies’ roles and responsibilities in

managing and coordinating resources for combating terrorism. Because

data on agencies’ spending for U.S. efforts to combat terrorism are not

available from a central source, we obtained from the Departments of

Defense; Energy; Justice, including the FBI; State; Transportation (FAA);

Treasury; and Health and Human Services data on spending that the

agencies categorized as related to their unclassified efforts to combat

terrorism. We did not verify the data for accuracy, completeness, or

consistency. We discussed with NSC and OMB their respective roles in

managing the crosscutting federal effort to combat terrorism, and we also

submitted questions to the Director, OMB, on OMB’s role under PDD 39. We

discussed reimbursement issues with the FBI and DOD.

We conducted our work from November 1996 to October 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 

7 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the

appropriate congressional committees; the Director, Office of

Management and Budget; other federal agencies discussed in the report;

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
B-277824 

and other interested parties. If you have any questions about this report,

please contact me at (202) 512-3504. Major contributors to this report were

Davi M. D’Agostino, Richard A. McGeary, H. Lee Purdy, and

Raymond J. Wyrsch.

Richard Davis

Director, National Security

 Analysis

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Federal Entities With

Terrorism-related

Programs and

Activities

20

Appendix II 

Letter of Inquiry From

GAO to the Office of

Management and

Budget

22

Appendix III 

OMB Response to

GAO Letter of Inquiry

24

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

26

Appendix V 

Comments From the

Department of State

29

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Office of Management

and Budget

34

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Contents

Related GAO Products 39

Table Table 1: Estimated Spending for Key Agencies’ Unclassified

Terrorism-related Programs and Activities 

6

Figure Figure 1: Estimated Spending for Key Agencies’ Unclassified

Terrorism-related Programs and Activities 

7

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

NSC National Security Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PDD Presidential Decision Directive

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I 

Federal Entities With Terrorism-related

Programs and Activities

Department of State

Department of Justice

 Federal Bureau of Investigation

 Immigration and Naturalization Service

 U.S. Marshals Service

 Drug Enforcement Agency

Department of Defense (DOD)

Office of the Secretary of Defense

Joint Chiefs of Staff

 U.S. Army

 U.S. Navy

 U.S. Marine Corps

 U.S. Air Force

 U.S. Special Operations Command

 U.S. Central Command

 Defense Intelligence Agency

 Advanced Research Projects Agency

 Defense Information Systems Agency

 Defense Special Weapons Agency

Department of Energy

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Treasury

 U.S. Customs Service

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

 U.S. Secret Service

Department of Transportation

 Federal Aviation Administration

 U.S. Coast Guard

Department of Commerce

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

U.S. Postal Service

White House Military Office

White House Communications Agency

U.S. Supreme Court Marshal’s Office

U.S. Capitol Police

Office of the Vice President

U.S. Information Agency

National Security Council (NSC)

Central Intelligence Agency

National Security Agency

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix I 

Federal Entities With Terrorism-related

Programs and Activities

National Reconnaissance Office

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix II 

Letter of Inquiry From GAO to the Office of

Management and Budget

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix II 

Letter of Inquiry From GAO to the Office of

Management and Budget

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix III 

OMB Response to GAO Letter of Inquiry

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix III 

OMB Response to GAO Letter of Inquiry

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 11-12.

See comment 1.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Defense

The following is GAO’s comment on DOD’s letter dated November 7, 1997.

GAO Comment 1. We did not evaluate DOD’s options for proposed legislative changes that

would permit nonreimbursable support to law enforcement agencies.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of State

Now on p. 7.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of State

See comment 1.

Now on p. 8

See comment 2.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of State

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of State

See comment 5.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix V 

Comments From the Department of State

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter

dated November 3, 1997.

GAO Comments 1. While we acknowledge the existence of various interagency

coordinating mechanisms within the NSC structure, these mechanisms do

not perform the functions we are recommending to NSC and OMB. For

example, the interagency Technical Support Working Group coordinates

only certain terrorism-related research and development projects, and it

does not function to eliminate duplicative or redundant terrorism-related

research and development across government agencies.

2. We modified the text to reflect the Department’s point that embassy

guards help protect against a variety of threats.

3. We agree that it would be difficult and possibly not cost-effective to

account for spending to combat terrorism with a high degree of precision.

Our report discusses this matter on p. 14.

4. The Department’s concern about reimbursement for the cost of facilities

security in U.S. missions abroad was not brought to our attention during

our review of funding issues for combating terrorism. As a result, we are

not in a position to comment on this matter.

5. The report discusses the State Department position on p. 14.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

See comment 3.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

The following are GAO’s comments on OMB’s letter dated November 18,

1997.

GAO Comments 1. The report acknowledges that OMB reviews agencies’ individual budget

requests, and suggests that this process would be enhanced if federal

funding proposals were reviewed on a crosscutting, governmentwide

basis. The report also points out that additional steps could be taken to

prioritize federal programs and activities to combat terrorism at a strategic

level to better ensure priority programs are funded and avoid duplicative

and overlapping activities.

2. As discussed on p. 14 of the final report, we are encouraged by OMB’s

crosscutting review of programs to combat terrorism as part of the fiscal

year 1999 budget process.

3. As discussed on pp. 14-15, in view of the national importance and

priority, the significant federal resources allocated, and the numerous

federal agencies, bureaus, and programs involved, we continue to believe

that governmentwide priorities should be set and annual crosscutting

reviews be performed on programs to combat terrorism. As agencies

continue to propose new programs, activities, and capabilities, priorities

and annual crosscutting reviews are particularly important to better assure

that funds are not allocated to duplicative activities and functions to

combat terrorism.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Related GAO Products

Combating Terrorism: Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Implement National

Policy and Strategy (GAO/NSIAD-97-254, Sept. 26, 1997).

Combating Terrorism: Status of DOD Efforts to Protect Its Forces Overseas

(GAO/NSIAD-97-207, July 21, 1997).

Chemical Weapons Stockpile: Changes Needed in the Management

Structure of Emergency Preparedness Program (GAO/NSIAD-97-91, June 11,

1997).

State Department: Efforts to Reduce Visa Fraud (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-167, May 20,

1997).

Aviation Security: FAA’s Procurement of Explosives Detection Devices

(GAO/RCED-97-111R, May 1, 1997).

Aviation Security: Commercially Available Advanced Explosives Detection

Devices (GAO/RCED-97-119R, Apr. 24, 1997).

Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Responsibilities for Developing

Explosives and Narcotics Detection Technologies (GAO/NSIAD-97-95, Apr. 15,

1997).

Federal Law Enforcement: Investigative Authority and Personnel at 13

Agencies (GAO/GGD-96-154, Sept. 30, 1996).

Aviation Security: Urgent Issues Need to Be Addressed

(GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-151, Sept. 11, 1996).

Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Technologies for Detecting Explosives

and Narcotics (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-252, Sept. 4, 1996).

Aviation Security: Immediate Action Needed to Improve Security

(GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-237, Aug. 1, 1996).

Passports and Visas: Status of Efforts to Reduce Fraud (GAO/NSIAD-96-99,

May 9, 1996).

Terrorism and Drug Trafficking: Threats and Roles of Explosives and

Narcotics Detection Technology (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-76BR, Mar. 27, 1996).

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Related GAO Products

Nuclear Nonproliferation: Status of U.S. Efforts to Improve Nuclear

Material Controls in Newly Independent States (GAO/NSIAD/RCED-96-89,

Mar. 8, 1996).

Aviation Security: Additional Actions Needed to Meet Domestic and

International Challenges (GAO/RCED-94-38, Jan. 27, 1994).

Nuclear Security: Improving Correction of Security Deficiencies at DOE’s

Weapons Facilities (GAO/RCED-93-10, Nov. 16, 1992).

Nuclear Security: Weak Internal Controls Hamper Oversight of DOE’s

Security Program (GAO/RCED-92-146, June 29, 1992).

Electricity Supply: Efforts Underway to Improve Federal Electrical

Disruption Preparedness (GAO/RCED-92-125, Apr. 20, 1992).

Economic Sanctions: Effectiveness as Tools of Foreign Policy

(GAO/NSIAD-92-106, Feb. 19, 1992).

State Department: Management Weaknesses in the Security Construction

Program (GAO/NSIAD-92-2, Nov. 29, 1991).

Chemical Weapons: Physical Security for the U.S. Chemical Stockpile

(GAO/NSIAD-91-200, May 15, 1991).

State Department: Status of the Diplomatic Security Construction Program

(GAO/NSIAD-91-143BR, Feb. 20, 1991).

International Terrorism: FBI Investigates Domestic Activities to Identify

Terrorists (GAO/GGD-90-112, Sept. 9, l990).

International Terrorism: Status of GAO’s Review of the FBI’s International

Terrorism Program (GAO/T-GGD-89-31, June 22, 1989).

Embassy Security: Background Investigations of Foreign Employees

(GAO/NSIAD-89-76, Jan. 5, 1989).

Aviation Security: FAA’s Assessments of Foreign Airports (GAO/RCED-89-45,

Dec. 7, 1988).

Domestic Terrorism: Prevention Efforts in Selected Federal Courts and

Mass Transit Systems (GAO/PEMD-88-22, June 23, 1988).

(701122/701103) Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-98-39 Combating Terrorism
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100