a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2002 COMBATING 

TERRORISM

Funding Data 

Reported to Congress 

Should Be Improved

GAO-03-170
Why GAO Did This Study

Congress responded to the

attacks of September 11, 2001,

with dramatic funding increases

to combat terrorism. Even before

these attacks, Congress was

concerned about increased

funding in this area, and based on

findings from a 1997 GAO report,

mandated that the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB)

report annually on funding to

combat terrorism. In this review,

GAO was asked to analyze such

funding trends, describe

difficulties in coordinating

combating terrorism budgets,

assess data reported to Congress,

and describe the executive

branch’s efforts to maximize the

effective use of combating

terrorism funds.

The review relied on OMB’s

definition of “combating

terrorism” to include both

homeland security and overseas

combating terrorism missions.

COMBATING TERRORISM

Funding Data Reported to Congress Should

Be Improved

Highlights of GAO-03-170, a report to the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government

Information, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and the

House Committee on the Judiciary.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations

to improve OMB’s annual report,

including collecting and reporting

obligation data. It also

recommends improvements to

performance measures in

strategies and performance plans

related to combating terrorism.

In comments on a draft of this

report, OMB expressed concern

about collecting obligation data.

Other agencies either concurred

with the recommendations or

made no comment.

The full report, including GAO's objectives, scope, methodology, and analysis is available at www.gao.gov. For additional information about the report,

contact Ray Decker at (202) 512-6020 or Paul Posner at (202)512-9573.

United States General Accounting Office

What GAO Found

GAO calculated, on the basis of OMB’s data, that there was a 276-percent

total increase in funds designated to combat terrorism during fiscal years

2001 and 2002 (as reported in OMB’s annual reports to Congress for 2001

and 2002, respectively). This increase includes a 106-percent increase

from the post-September 11 redefinition of combating terrorism to

include homeland security activities such as aviation and transportation

security, and a 170-percent increase due to funding increases.

Difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism stem from the

variety of missions involved and the fact that activities related to

combating terrorism are often funded through budget accounts that also

provide funding for other activities. Various approaches have been used

to address these challenges. The process for preparing the budget for

fiscal year 2003 was characterized by collaboration between OMB and

the Office of Homeland Security that resulted in the budget priorities

included in the President’s budget for fiscal 2003.

Crosscutting funding data reported to Congress, however, do not

adequately support congressional oversight. An OMB annual report

summarizing funding for combating terrorism has had limited utility for

decision makers because it was issued late in the congressional decisionmaking process and did not include data on obligations or on duplication

in programs for combating terrorism. OMB plans to analyze areas of

duplication as part of the preparation of the budget request for fiscal year

2004. If completed, this analysis will enable OMB to comply with the

legislative mandate to include such an analysis in its annual report.

While the executive branch has established some national strategies

important to coordinating the effective use of funds for combating

terrorism, it faces challenges in measuring its progress. Although the

strategies provide an important first step, they provide neither clearly

defined federal and national performance goals and measures for

assessing progress, nor set clear funding priorities. Lacking such

measures and priorities, it is also difficult to assess whether funding

increases are being allocated to the highest-priority programs.

G A O

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Highlights
Page i GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Conclusions and Recommendations for Executive Action 5

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 6

Scope and Methodology 8

Briefing Section I: 

Introduction

14

Briefing Section II: 

Funding Analysis

20

Briefing Section III: 

Coordination and 

Priority Setting

28

Briefing Section IV: 

Data Reported to 

Congress

40

Briefing Section V: 

Potential for Overlap

46

Briefing Section VI: 

Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

54
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Appendixes

Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense 61

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State 62

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 65

Related GAO Products 66

Tables Table 1: Departments and Agencies Contacted during GAO’s 

Review and Their Share of Funding for Combating 

Terrorism from the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal 

Year 2003 of $45 Billion 8

Table 2: Federal Entities’ Percentage of Funding for Combating 

Terrorism 25

Table 3: Timeline of Budget Events Occurring around 

September 11, 2001 33

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigations

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NSC National Security Council

OHS Office of Homeland Security

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
Page 1 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

November 26, 2002 Letr

Congressional Requesters

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the 

administration and Congress raised the federal government’s emphasis on 

combating terrorism through increased appropriations, organizational 

changes, and legislative proposals to establish the Department of 

Homeland Security. While the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

2003 elevated the importance of combating terrorism by making homeland 

security one of the administration’s top priorities, funding to combat 

terrorism had been steadily increasing even prior to the September 11 

attacks.1

 Understanding funding trends as well as the budget processes 

used to make resource decisions will be key to developing future funding 

initiatives, particularly as Congress considers funding priorities as well as 

the implications of establishing the proposed Department of Homeland 

Security. At the time we finalized this report, the Department had not been 

established.

On the basis of findings from a 1997 GAO report, Congress required the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report annually on funding to 

combat terrorism. You requested that we review such funding for fiscal 

years 1998 through 2003. In September 2002, we briefed staff in your offices 

on our preliminary findings. As agreed with your offices, this report

• provides a trend analysis of funds used to combat terrorism,

• describes the difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism 

across agencies and the efforts to address them, 

• assesses the adequacy of crosscutting data on funding to combat 

terrorism reported to Congress,

• discusses the efforts to identify and minimize potential areas of 

duplication, and

1

In this report, “combating terrorism” includes both homeland security (activities within the 

United States) and overseas combating terrorism (activities outside the United States 

excluding direct military action). This is discussed further in the methodology section.
Page 2 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• describes the challenges faced by the executive branch in maximizing 

the effectiveness of these funds.

Results in Brief The upward climb of federal government funding to combat terrorism in 

the years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, was dwarfed by the 

dramatic funding increases that occurred afterward. These latter increases 

occurred as budget priorities quickly shifted to missions for combating 

terrorism and as the scope of combating terrorism was redefined to include 

homeland security missions, such as border and transportation security. As 

a result, funds designated for combating terrorism increased 276 percent 

from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 2002 (106 percent due to changes in 

definition and scope, and 170 percent due to funding increases), as 

reported in OMB’s annual reports to Congress on combating terrorism.2

 In 

the same time frame, the Department of Defense and other national 

security agencies received the largest share of funds for combating 

terrorism (over 30 percent), although the Department of Health and Human 

Services’ (HHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 

shares of such funds have risen substantially. There has also been a change 

in priorities among mission categories for combating terrorism as defined 

by OMB. Since fiscal year 2001, funding priorities have shifted from the 

physical security of government and the national populace and 

investigative, intelligence, and offensive activities to research and 

development related to combating terrorism and preparing and responding 

to terrorist incidents. 

The executive branch is faced with several difficulties in coordinating 

funding to combat terrorism, and approaches to such coordination have 

varied. The difficulties include (1) the large number of agencies involved; 

(2) the wide variety of missions represented, including intelligence, law 

enforcement, health services, and environmental protection; and (3) the 

global nature of missions for combating terrorism. In addition, funding for 

missions for combating terrorism is often subsumed in budget accounts 

that provide funding for other activities. Over the past 4 years, various 

approaches to coordinating budget requests prior to and during OMB’s 

review have been employed to address these challenges. For example, 

during the fiscal year 2001 and 2002 budget processes, interagency working 

groups led by OMB and the National Security Council (NSC) made 

2

See Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, July 2001, and 2002 Report to 

Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002.
Page 3 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

recommendations prior to the agencies’ formal submissions to OMB. 

During the period immediately following September 11, 2001, the greatest 

attention was given to those activities for combating terrorism related to 

homeland security. As a result, coordination for the budget process for 

fiscal year 2003 was primarily between OMB and the newly created Office 

of Homeland Security (OHS). Together, these offices set priorities that 

resulted in the budget initiatives for homeland security included in the 

President’s budget for fiscal year 2003. Efforts to coordinate the budget 

request for fiscal year 2004 are characterized by uncertainties with 

agencies’ development of budgets in the face of the evolving status and 

structure of the proposed Department of Homeland Security and delays in 

final appropriations for fiscal 2003. 

Crosscutting funding data reported to Congress do not adequately support 

congressional oversight. OMB’s annual reports to Congress on combating 

terrorism, which summarizes proposed spending, is not as useful a tool as 

it might be for effective congressional oversight, partly because (1) recent 

reports have been published well after the March 1 deadline and (2) the 

report does not include data on obligations. Although legislation mandating 

OMB’s report does not require the presentation of data on obligations for 

all programs and activities for combating terrorism, we believe that such 

data are important for understanding the current status of funding and 

establishing future funding priorities. Also, a common structure to 

categorize combating terrorism activities among key governmentwide 

reports is lacking, and the categories cannot be linked to appropriations 

accounts—the structure used by Congress to fund programs and activities. 

Consequently, there is no transparency for making policy choices and 

trade-offs between combating terrorism and other activities. OMB has 

taken an important step to improve the data used to develop its fiscal 2004 

budget request to Congress by requiring agencies to identify funds for 

combating terrorism by account—the level at which funds are 

appropriated—in OMB’s centralized budget database (known as the MAX 

database). However, the guidance did not require agencies to report on 

obligations. 

Potential duplication of effort has been identified in our past reviews, and 

the administration has made efforts to minimize such duplication. We have 

found in the past that there is a risk of duplication in areas such as 

assistance to state and local governments, information management and 

technology, and research and development, and we recommended that a 

focal point for combating terrorism be established to better coordinate 

such programs. In addition, we reported that OMB has not included an 
Page 4 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

analysis of potential duplication as part of its annual reports to date, as 

required in the 1997 legislation establishing the reporting requirement. In 

the wake of the September 11 attacks, the President established focal 

points for homeland security and combating terrorism overseas—the 

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security in OHS and the Director 

for Combating Terrorism within the NSC, respectively. Furthermore, the 

administration anticipates that the proposed Department of Homeland 

Security would address some areas of duplication. However, the proposed 

Department will exclude some agencies with homeland security missions 

and, therefore, could not address all areas of potential duplication without 

interagency coordination. OMB has stated that it plans to review the budget 

proposal for fiscal year 2004 to identify areas of duplication. Such an 

analysis, if reported, would increase the visibility of potential duplication 

areas to Congress.

While the executive branch has established some national strategies 

important to maximizing the effective use of funds for combating 

terrorism, it faces challenges in measuring progress against its goals. The 

administration has published two of three national strategies intended to 

address the terrorist threat both domestically and internationally. The 

National Strategy for Homeland Security provides an important first step in 

establishing strategic objectives and mission areas, and proposes to 

consolidate the administration of these functions in the proposed 

Department of Homeland Security. The strategy also directs Departments 

and agencies to create performance measures by which progress can be 

measured and future resources allocated. However, at the federal and 

national levels, for the most part, the strategy does not provide 

performance goals and measures to assess progress and improve 

preparedness, nor does it set clear funding priorities among and within the 

various initiatives. In the absence of clear performance goals, measures, 

and funding priorities, it is difficult to assess whether funding increases are 

being allocated to the highest-priority programs. Notwithstanding 

incomplete guidance from the national strategies, some Departments and 

agencies have either updated or are in the process of updating strategic and 

performance plans to reflect priorities for combating terrorism. For 

combating terrorism overseas, the President issued the National Security 

Strategy of the United States of America, but the National Strategy for 

Combating Terrorism is still pending.
Page 5 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Conclusions and 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Congressional decision makers require governmentwide information on 

funding for combating terrorism (including obligations) in a timely fashion. 

In preparing the fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, OMB is 

requiring agencies to provide information on combating terrorism 

(including homeland security) so that funding for these activities can be 

identified by account—the level at which funds are appropriated. If made 

available to Congress, this information should greatly improve the 

transparency of funding requested for combating terrorism programs and 

activities within Departments and across the federal government. Although 

this is an important first step, OMB has not required agencies to separately 

identify obligations for relevant programs and activities. Without obligation 

information, it is impossible to know (1) how much funding from prior 

years is still available to potentially offset new requests, (2) whether the 

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

level of effort (i.e., the size of the program) is for a particular year as well as 

for a program over time. 

OMB’s annual report on funding for combating terrorism summarizes 

funding data for the current and next fiscal years, and is supposed to be 

issued by March 1 of each year and identify duplication of efforts. To be a 

useful tool, we believe it should also include obligation data for the reasons 

described above. However, the report has had limited utility because it (1) 

has been issued in the late spring and summer—late in the congressional 

budget decision-making process, (2) does not include data on obligations, 

and (3) neglects to identify areas of duplication.

It is important for the government to establish federal- and national-level 

goals and performance measures to maximize the effectiveness of funds to 

combat terrorism. The administration has made progress in publishing 

national strategies to address priorities for combating terrorism, but these 

strategies do not include governmentwide performance measures. 

Establishing these priorities will be critical for individual agencies in 

aligning their strategic and performance plans, including performance 

measures, with governmentwide strategic direction and guidance.

On the basis of these conclusions, we make the following 

recommendations.

• To help Congress obtain timely information on spending that supports 

the President’s annual budget request for combating terrorism, OMB 

should require agencies to provide information on obligations in its 
Page 6 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

MAX database—the database used by OMB to produce the President’s 

annual budget request.

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

Combating Terrorism, OMB should

• publish the report by the required March 1 deadline to provide 

information for congressional budget deliberations;

• include obligations as reported in the MAX database; and

• include, as required by Congress, an analysis of areas where overlap 

in programs could result in unnecessary duplication of effort.

• To help maximize the effective use of funds for combating terrorism, 

• OHS and NSC should include national-level, as well as federal 

governmentwide, performance measures as a supplement to existing 

strategies and in future revisions to strategies for homeland security 

and the combating of terrorism overseas and

• OMB, in conjunction with OHS and NSC, should direct relevant 

Departments to develop or enhance performance objectives and 

measures for combating terrorism in alignment with performance 

measures in national strategies, and include performance measures 

for combating terrorism in the governmentwide plan that OMB is 

required to produce annually.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

In October 2002, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the 

Director of OMB; the Secretaries of Defense, Energy, Health and Human 

Services, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; the Attorney General of 

the United States; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency; and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

In addition, copies of the report were made available to OHS and NSC for 

their comment.

In oral comments on the report, OMB staff questioned whether the value 

added of collecting obligation data related to combating terrorism would 

be worth the effort. While OMB staff acknowledged that OMB examiners 

use obligation data in assessing the appropriateness of agency budget 

requests overall, they felt that budget authority data provide the most 
Page 7 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

insight into combating terrorism programs and facilitate follow up on areas 

of concern. Furthermore, they explained that, in the MAX database, 

obligation data are collected for specific programs that correspond to 

major agency activities, and these activities may or may not line up with 

combating terrorism programs. Aligning these activities with combating 

terrorism programs would require splitting up agency activities in the MAX 

database, which are familiar and useful, into terrorism-specific activities. 

Therefore, OMB staff suggested these obligations would more likely have 

to be collected and/or displayed through a parallel process outside the 

MAX database. Targeting such an effort on obligations would not be the 

most productive way to provide more insight into combating terrorism 

priorities or to enhance the value of the Annual Report, according to the 

officials.

We agree with OMB that budget authority data provide valuable insights 

into programs. However, we disagree that obligation data related to 

combating terrorism also are not worth collecting and reporting. First, we 

believe that the very reason why OMB examiners find the obligation data 

useful to them is the same reason that congressional decision makers 

would find the data useful—obligation data gives decision makers an 

insight as to whether programs are being run according to plans 

established by their budget projections. We acknowledge that collecting 

these data would pose an additional workload on both OMB and agency 

budget officials, but believe that such a workload is warranted in light of 

the high priority placed on this issue. OMB itself gave the issue high priority 

when it required agencies to report on budget authority data according to 

combating terrorism categories, including homeland security. Furthermore, 

the creation of the Department of Homeland Security will make this type of 

detailed information more important, as the Executive Branch tries to 

integrate 22 agencies into the Department. Finally, for some of the 

programs related to combating terrorism, the law establishing the reporting 

requirement already requires OMB to report obligation data.

We also received comments from other Departments and agencies. DOD 

concurred with our recommendations to OMB and its comments are 

reprinted in appendix I. The State Department also concurred with our 

recommendations. In its comments, the State Department cited its efforts 

in various coordination activities and its plans to improve its performance 

planning and measurement. As an example, the Department established the 

Office of Strategic and Performance Planning to improve strategic plans 

and ensure that funding is linked to such plans. The State Department’s 

comments are reprinted in appendix II. FEMA concurred with our 
Page 8 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

recommendations in oral comments to the report. OHS and NSC did not 

provide comments on our recommendations to them. The remaining 

Departments and agencies informed us that they had no substantive 

comments on the report. Technical comments from OMB, the Department 

of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency were incorporated 

as appropriate.

Scope and 

Methodology

Our scope includes federal Departments and agencies that have key 

missions for combating terrorism and, when combined, represent 97 

percent of the total funding requested for combating terrorism in the 

presidential budget request for fiscal year 2003, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Departments and Agencies Contacted during GAO’s Review and Their 

Share of Funding for Combating Terrorism from the President’s Budget Request for 

Fiscal Year 2003 of $45 Billion

Source: OMB, 2002 Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002.

a

National Security includes Department of Defense and intelligence community funding combined to 

keep figures unclassified. Because the intelligence community includes intelligence elements from the 

Departments of State, Energy, the Treasury and Justice, the percentages displayed for these 

Departments do not represent the entirety of these Departments’ budgets for combating terrorism.

In addition, our scope included OMB, OHS, and NSC. We did not include 

classified intelligence agencies’ budgets in detail. Intelligence community 

agencies and their corresponding classified budgets will be included in a 

separate review by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. 

Department/Agency

Percent of funding to

combat terrorism

National Securitya 32

Department of Transportation 16

Department of Justice 16

Department of Health and Human Services 10

Federal Emergency Management Agency 8

The Treasury 6

Department of State 5

Department of Energy 3

Environmental Protection Agency 1

Other 3

Total 100
Page 9 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

To analyze funding trends of federal funding to combat terrorism, we relied 

on OMB’s annual reports containing data from fiscal year 1998 through the 

budget request for fiscal year 2003. The 2002 report included data from the 

emergency supplemental appropriation signed into law on September 18, 

2001, but did not include data from a second emergency supplemental 

appropriation signed into law on August 2, 2002.3

 Although OMB provided 

us data from the August 2002 appropriation, we did not receive the data in 

time to incorporate into our report.

We used the definitions from the OMB annual reports, as summarized 

below:

• Homeland security: Activities within the United States coordinated by 

OHS.

• Overseas combating terrorism: Activities outside the United States 

coordinated by NSC, excluding direct military actions.

• Combating terrorism: Combination of homeland security and overseas 

combating terrorism, further divided into four main categories:

• Research and development: Developing technologies to deter, 

prevent, or mitigate acts of terrorism. 

• Preparing for and responding to terrorist incidents: Planning, 

training, equipment, and personnel directed at incident response.

• Physical security of government and national populace: Protecting 

federally owned, leased, occupied facilities; federal employees, 

including high-ranking officials, and the national populace from 

terrorist acts as well as physical protection of the national 

infrastructure.

• Investigative, intelligence, and offensive capabilities: Reducing the 

ability of groups or individuals to commit terrorist acts, and the 

investigation of terrorist acts when they occur and prosecution of 

their perpetrators.

3

P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-206, respectively.
Page 10 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

To describe difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism and 

efforts to address them, we reviewed data from OMB and OHS. In addition, 

we evaluated data from Departments and agencies with critical missions 

for combating terrorism, as well as data from our previous reports. We 

conducted interviews with knowledgeable officials and discussed their 

views on the effectiveness of interagency approaches. To assess the 

adequacy of funding data reported to Congress, we compared OMB’s 

annual reports with the legislative requirement for drafting the reports and 

identified potential areas for improvement on the basis of other common 

budget presentations. To identify areas of potential duplication of effort 

among agencies and the efforts to minimize them, we relied on our past and 

ongoing analyses of programs for combating terrorism and reviewed the 

administration’s proposals for minimizing such duplication. To identify the 

challenges faced by the executive branch in maximizing the effectiveness 

of funds for combating terrorism, we relied on our recent analyses of 

national strategies and interviewed key agency officials to determine 

whether performance plans were updated to reflect revised missions for 

combating terrorism. 

Our work was conducted from March through September 2002 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

We will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees 

and to the federal agencies and offices discussed in this report. We will 

make copies available to other interested parties upon request. In addition, 

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.
Page 11 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

Raymond Decker at (202) 512-6020 or Paul Posner at (202) 512-9573. Major 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

.

Raymond J. Decker

Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management

Paul L. Posner

Managing Director

Strategic Issues
Page 12 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

List of Congressional Requesters

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Chairman

The Honorable Jon Kyl

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Technology,

Terrorism and Government Information

Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. Senate

The Honorable Bob Graham

Chairman

The Honorable Richard C. Shelby

Ranking Minority Member

Select Committee on Intelligence

U.S. Senate

The Honorable James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives
Page 13 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 14 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section I: Introduction

Introduction:

Background

• OMB’s annual report on combating terrorism to Congress must

• include listing of proposed amounts to be expended for

combating terrorism programs and activities in the current

and next fiscal year,

• describe specific programs and activities,

• list priorities with respect to programs and activities,

• identify duplication of efforts,

• summarize obligations and expenditures on domestic

emergency preparedness for terrorist incidents involving

weapons of mass destruction, and

• be issued by March 1 of each year.

• OMB identified over 27 federal entities spending combating

terrorism funds.
Briefing Section I: Introduction

Page 15 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

In a 1997 report, we found that the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and the National Security Council (NSC) did not regularly collect, 

aggregate, and review data on funding to combat terrorism on a 

governmentwide basis for the many Departments and agencies involved in 

combating terrorism.4

 On the basis of our findings, Congress required OMB 

to establish a reporting system on the budgeting and expenditure of such 

funds, and, since 1998, OMB has been required to prepare both a classified 

and an unclassified report on combating terrorism to Congress by March 1 

of each year.5

The report must

• include a list of proposed amounts to be expended for programs for 

combating terrorism and activities in the current and next fiscal year,

• describe specific programs and activities,

• list priorities with respect to programs and activities, 

• summarize obligations and expenditures on domestic emergency 

preparedness for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass 

destruction, and

• identify duplication of efforts.

The 2002 OMB report provides funding and programmatic information on 

27 federal entities that have received funds for combating terrorism. These 

federal entities are responsible for the federal government’s efforts to 

combat terrorist activity both domestically and overseas, including defense 

against terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. After the 

September 11 attacks, OMB included an analysis of homeland security as 

part of its June 2002 report. 

4

See Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better 

Management and Coordination, GAO/NSIAD-98-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 1997).

5

P.L. 105-85, sec. 1051, Nov. 18, 1997, as amended by P.L. 105-261, sec. 1403, Oct. 17, 1998.
Briefing Section I: Introduction

Page 16 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Departments’ and agencies’ submissions of their budget requests for fiscal 

year 2003 to OMB coincided closely with the attacks of September 11, 2001. 

In response to the attacks, the first of two emergency supplemental 

appropriations, totaling $40 billion—of which $12 billion was provided for 

Introduction:

Timeline of Events

Budget events

Combating-terrorism-related events

Agency budgets

due to OMB

9/10/01

9/11/01

Terrorist

attacks

$40 billion emergency

supplemental signed

9/18/01

10/8/01

Office of

Homeland

Security

established

President

submits FY

2003 budget

request

2/4/02

FY 2001 ends

9/30/01

To be

determined:

Department of

Homeland

Security

established

OMB issues

annual report on

combating

terrorism

6/24/02

7/16/02

President issues

National

Strategy for

Homeland

Security

$29 billion

emergency

supplemental

signed 8/2/02

10/4/01

First known victim

of anthrax attack

dies

11/19/01

Transportation

Security

Administration

established

OMB issues

memo on FY

2004 budget

priorities

4/24/02

OMB “passback” to

agencies on policy,

priorities, and

funding levels

late 11/01

6/02

President proposes

Dept. of Homeland

Security

OMB Issues

A-11

Guidance

6/28/02

Source: GAO’s analysis of various government publications.

Legend:

FY = fiscal year
Briefing Section I: Introduction

Page 17 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

the combating terrorism mission—was signed into law on September 18, 

2001.6 The remaining $28 billion from that supplemental appropriation was 

provided for other missions, such as military actions overseas and recovery 

at the attack sites. Since this supplemental appropriation was enacted in 

the last 2-week period of fiscal year 2001, most of these funds were not 

available to agencies for obligation until fiscal year 2002 and were allocated 

over several months. The second supplemental appropriation was signed 

into law on August 2, 2002.7

Other key events occurred to influence funding decisions as OMB 

considered what requests should be included in the emergency 

supplemental appropriation, reviewed agencies’ budget requests for fiscal 

year 2003, and notified agencies of funding decisions in late November 

during a process known as “passback.” On October 4, 2001, the first known 

victim of the anthrax attack died, drawing more attention to funding 

needed to counter the threat from biological weapons. On October 8, 2001, 

the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) was established and given 

responsibility for developing a national strategy for homeland security and 

related homeland security activities, including certifying that budget 

requests for homeland security were necessary and appropriate. On 

November 19, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was 

established, with a budget request of $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2003.8

On February 4, 2002, the President submitted the budget request for fiscal 

year 2003 to Congress. OMB’s 2002 Annual Report on Combating 

Terrorism, which includes data from the request for fiscal year 2003, was 

issued in June 2002.

In the spring and summer of 2002, offices within the Executive Office of the 

President issued guidance related to preparing the budget request for fiscal 

year 2004. On April 24, 2002, OMB issued initial budget guidance indicating 

that homeland security was one of the key priorities for fiscal year 2004. In 

June 2002, OMB issued the A-11 Circular, which outlined guidance for the 

6

 P.L. 107-38 made $20 billion of the $40 billion available for obligation only when enacted in 

a subsequent emergency appropriations bill as a condition for the availability of funds. That 

bill was passed as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-117, on 

January 10, 2002.

7

 P.L. 107-206.

8

 P.L. 107-71, Nov. 19, 2001. Almost half ($2.2 billion) of the Transportation Security 

Administration’s budget is supported by user fees.
Briefing Section I: Introduction

Page 18 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

preparation, submission, and execution of the budget to the agencies. In 

the summer of 2002, the President issued two documents that OMB cited as 

key guidance for agencies to develop budget requests for fiscal year 2004 

and performance plans: the proposal for the new Department of Homeland 

Security and the National Strategy for Homeland Security. Establishing the 

Department of Homeland Security was under Congress’s consideration at 

the time of our review. 
Briefing Section I: Introduction

Page 19 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 20 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Funding Analysis:

Increases in Combating Terrorism Scope &

Funding

• Combating terrorism scope broadened, and funding

rose in years prior to September 11 attacks.

• Postattack combating terrorism missions further

expanded to include homeland security missions.

• Post September 11 combating terrorism funding

included

• $12 billion from the emergency supplemental

appropriation signed September 18, 2001, and

• $45 billion from the fiscal year 2003 budget

request.
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 21 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

In the years prior to the September 11 attacks, we reported on a rapid 

increase in the number of federal programs and funding to combat 

terrorism that spanned multiple agencies. These included (1) programs for 

training and equipping first responders to address chemical, biological, 

radiological, and nuclear terrorist attacks and (2) federal teams capable of 

analyzing such weapons, containing terrorist incidents, and providing 

medical support or response.9

 We also reported on significant funding 

increases, as well as improvements in OMB’s efforts to track funding 

related to combating terrorism.

After the September 11 attacks, the missions and funding for combating 

terrorism were dramatically expanded. Most notably, a new group of 

homeland security activities—such as border and aviation security—was 

included under the definition “combating terrorism.” Since September 11, 

$12 billion has been appropriated for missions to combat terrorism in a 

supplemental appropriation, and an additional $45 billion has been 

requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2003.10

9

 See Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs, GAO/TNSIAD-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2000).

10 The appropriated amount does not include combating terrorism funding from the August 

2002 supplemental appropriation of $29 billion.
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 22 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

As shown in the figure, scope changes and funding increases resulted in a 

276-percent surge between 2001 and 2002 (as reported in OMB’s Annual 

Reports for 2001 and 2002, respectively). A 106-percent increase is 

attributed to changes in definition to broaden the scope of combating 

terrorism, such as the addition of border and homeland security, and a 170-

percent increase is attributed to increased funding overall.

It is difficult to discuss historical trends in funding for combating terrorism 

because of the changing scope of programs and activities included before 

Funding Analysis:

Changes in Scope Complicate Trend Analysis

Scopechange

Fundingincrease

Dollars in billions

Source: OMB, Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, July 2001, and OMB, 2002 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002.

a2002 figure includes emergency supplemental funding enacted September 2001 but does not include emergency supplemental funding, enacted in August

2002.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Fiscal year

OMB Report, July 2001 OMB Report, June 2002 

a
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 23 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

and after the September 11 attacks. In each of the last 5 years, OMB has 

issued its Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, which 

attempts to capture, across the federal government, total spending on 

combating terrorism and, in the most recent report, related homeland 

security initiatives. However, as more programs are included in the 

definition of “combating terrorism,” funding comparisons become more 

complicated. We therefore were unable to determine a funding trend by 

agency or mission category (including the homeland security initiatives) 

prior to 2001.
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 24 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

a

The emergency supplemental figure includes the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in 

September 2001 but does not include the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in August 

2002. Moreover, it includes only the $12 billion designated by OMB as funds for combating terrorism, 

not the entire $40 billion appropriation. 

In dollar terms, on the basis of the definition that OMB used in its 2002 

report, funding for all federal entities with missions for combating 

terrorism increased following the attacks. In percentage terms, National 

Security agencies consistently received the highest proportion of funds, but 

their share of these funds decreased after September 11, whereas the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Federal 

27%

51%

<1%

22%

Funding Analysis:

FEMA and HHS Increased Share of Funding

Preattack funding

Postattack funding

Fiscal year 2002 enacted--$24 billion

Emergency supplemental--$12 billiona

Fiscal year 2003 request--$45 billion

Fiscal year 2001 actual--$20 billion

National Security

Health and Human Services

Federal Emergency Management Agency

All other Departments

Source: OMB, 2002 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002.

Figures do not always add to 100 percent because of rounding.

1%

36%

63%

<1%

8%

10%

51%

32%

2%

39%

59%

<1%
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 25 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) proportion of funds for 

combating terrorism increased substantially. Most other agencies received 

a smaller portion of the total funds provided after the attacks, as shown in 

table 2.

Table 2: Federal Entities’ Percentage of Funding for Combating Terrorism

Source: OMB, 2002 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002.

a

The “Other” category includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District of Columbia, and the 

U.S. Postal Service, all of which received significant funding in the emergency supplemental 

appropriation in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Percentage of funding for combating terrorism

Preattack funding Postattack funding

Federal entity

Fiscal year 2001

($20 billion)

Fiscal year 2002

enacted

pre-Sept. 11

($24 billion)

Emergency

Supplemental

Appropriation

enacted

Sept. 2001

($12 billion)

Fiscal year 2003

budget request

($45 billion)

National Security 39 36 27 32

Department of Transportation 12 17 10 16

Department of Justice 23 21 18 16

Department of Health and Human Services 2 1 22 10

Federal Emergency Management Agency <1 <1 <1 8

Department of the Treasury 9 9 5 6

Department of State 8 7 1 5

Department of Energy 5 5 3 3

Environmental Protection Agency <1 <1 <1 1

Othera 3 3 13 3
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 26 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

a

 The emergency supplemental figure includes the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in 

September 2001 but does not include the emergency supplemental enacted in August 2002. 

Moreover, it includes only the $12 billion designated by OMB as funds for combating terrorism. 

OMB divides combating terrorism into the four mission categories of (1) 

research and development; (2) preparing and responding to terrorist 

incidents; (3) physical security of the government and national populace; 

and (4) investigative, intelligence, and offensive capabilities. Although all 

missions received more funding, priorities shifted after the September 11 

attacks and are reflected in the proportion of dollars for combating 

terrorism designated for various mission categories. As shown in the figure, 

40%

50%

7% 3%

Physical security of government and national populace

Investigative, intelligence, and offensive activities

Preparing and responding to terrorist incidents

Research and development

13%

44%

40%

3%

33%

44%

17%

6%

Fiscal year 2002 enacted--$24 billion

36%

55%

6% 3%

Fiscal year 2001 actual--$20 billion

Emergency supplemental--$12 billiona Fiscal year 2003 request--$45 billion

Preattack funding

Postattack funding

Funding Analysis:

Analysis by OMB Report Mission Area

Source: OMB, Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, July 2002.

Figures do not always add to 100 percent because of rounding.
Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis

Page 27 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

which is based on the definitions used in OMB’s 2002 report, there were 

marginal differences in how funds were divided among the categories 

between the actual budget for fiscal year 2001 and the budget for fiscal year 

2002 enacted prior to the attacks. The emergency supplemental 

appropriation enacted in September 2001, however, reflected a dramatic 

shift in priorities from funding the physical security of government and the 

national populace and investigative, intelligence, and offensive activities, 

toward the more immediate needs of preparing and responding to terrorist 

incidents, as might be expected in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. 

The budget request for fiscal year 2003 shows that funding priorities have 

shifted back to the physical security of the government and national 

populace, but the proportion of funding for this category did not return to 

the preattack levels of the original enacted budget for fiscal 2002. Rather, 

compared to preattack funding levels, more emphasis was placed on 

research and development (where the share of funds increased from 3 to 6 

percent) and preparing and responding to terrorist incidents (where the 

share of funds increased from 7 to 17 percent).
Page 28 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section III: Coordination and Priority 

Setting

Coordination and Priority Setting:

Challenges

• Coordinating programs and resources to combat

terrorism is inherently difficult because of the number

of agencies and diverse missions involved.

• Budget requests for combating terrorism activities are

often subsumed in budget accounts with unrelated

funding requests.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 29 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Despite the coordination roles played by OHS, NSC, and OMB within the 

Executive Office of the President, there are inherent challenges in 

managing federal programs and resources to combat terrorism. First, 

numerous federal agencies have some role in combating terrorism. Second, 

these federal agencies represent different types of organizations, including 

those involved in intelligence, law enforcement, military matters, health 

services, environmental protection, emergency management, and 

diplomacy. These agencies often include both domestic and international 

components. In addition, these agencies undertake a wide variety of 

activities to combat terrorism, including prevention, detection, crisis 

response, criminal prosecution, and consequence management, which 

require effective interagency coordination. As a result of these factors, no 

individual agency is in charge of all the relevant programs and resources 

needed to combat terrorism, making budget coordination more difficult.11

Another challenge in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism is that 

funding for these programs is also used for missions unrelated to terrorism. 

Agencies’ budget requests for activities to combat terrorism are often 

subsumed in budget accounts along with unrelated funding requests. For 

example, according to OMB officials, funding for the salaries of Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents assigned to combating terrorism 

activities are not separately identified from the salaries of agents assigned 

to white-collar crime and other activities. FBI estimates a percentage of 

these agents’ salaries to be included in the total funds to combat terrorism. 

At the Department of Defense (DOD), we estimated that $19.4 billion of the 

funds for combating terrorism from fiscal years 1999 through the budget 

request for fiscal year 2003 is for military and civilian personnel and 

personnel-related operating costs in designated specialties that have 

missions to combat terrorism, such as military police, civilian police, and 

security guards.12 However, this estimate may be overstated because it 

represents total personnel costs even if the individuals spend only a portion 

of their time performing activities to combat terrorism.

11The administration expects that the proposed Department of Homeland Security would 

minimize coordination problems. However, these challenges would exist even if the 

Department of Homeland Security is established because key combating terrorism agencies, 

such as the FBI, will remain outside the Department under the administration’s proposal. 

12See Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Guide Services’ Antiterrorism Efforts,

GAO-03-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2002).
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 30 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Because missions for combating terrorism are spread across multiple 

agencies and appropriations, a coordinated, governmentwide approach for 

collecting, aggregating, and reviewing funding data can help prioritize 

funding proposals. Such an approach has varied in recent years. In 

preparing the budget requests for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, NSC and OMB 

used interagency working groups to identify priorities and duplication. The 

groups reviewed agencies’ proposals and developed recommendations on 

whether they should be funded. The agencies integrated the working 

groups’ funding recommendations into their budget submissions to 

Coordination and Priority Setting:

Chronology of Process-Fiscal Years 2001 & 2002

• In 1999 and 2000, NSC and OMB led interagency

working groups on combating terrorism funding to

support preparation of the fiscal year 2001 and

2002 budget requests, respectively.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 31 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

OMB. According to OMB, NSC and OMB then reviewed agencies’ actions 

on the recommendations and made necessary course corrections prior to 

acceptance by the President, on the basis of information from the working 

groups, relative standing among the agencies’ other priorities, priorities for 

the rest of the government, and the overall funding that the administration 

was willing to request. 
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 32 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Decisions by OMB and agency officials regarding the budget request for 

fiscal year 2003 were made under very tight time frames and included two 

crosscutting Director’s reviews on homeland security funding.13 According 

to OMB officials, these reviews were more rigorous than past reviews on 

Coordination and Priority Setting:

Chronology of Process: Fiscal Year 2003

• In 2001, funding decisions for the fiscal year 2003 budget

were influenced by the emergency supplemental

appropriation enacted September 18, 2001, and tight time

frames.

• OMB worked collaboratively with OHS officials to set

fiscal year 2003 funding priorities, and OHS certified the

requests for homeland security as necessary and

appropriate, according to OMB officials.

13Director’s reviews are key internal meetings for the OMB budget decision-making process. 

They occur after OMB examiners review agencies’ budget requests, and provide an 

opportunity for the OMB Director to discuss staff recommendations before final budget 

decisions are made.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 33 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

other governmentwide issues, were attended by the Assistant to the 

President for Homeland Security, and involved trade-offs necessary to 

ensure that funding requests for homeland security priorities were 

sufficient. On September 18, 2001, one week after the attacks, the President 

signed a $40 billion emergency appropriation to respond to the attacks, of 

which $12 billion was designated for combating terrorism (the remainder 

was designated for, among other things, military operations overseas, and 

immediate recovery needs in New York and at the Pentagon).14 Because of 

the timing of the emergency appropriation in relation to the ongoing 

process for preparing the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2003, 

funding decisions for the supplemental appropriation and the request were 

inextricably linked. Table 3 lists key budget dates in relation to the attacks.

Table 3: Timeline of Budget Events Occurring around September 11, 2001

Source: GAO’s analysis.

Agencies were asked to identify their most immediate needs—primarily 

related to response and recovery—using OMB’s September 14, 2001, 

guidance. Those needs that were determined to fit OMB’s criteria for the 

emergency supplemental appropriation were funded first. At the same 

time, agencies and OMB reported that some adjustments to the 

submissions for fiscal year 2003 were needed for the agencies most directly 

affected by the attacks of September 11. These adjustments were necessary 

14P.L. 107-38 made $20 billion of the $40 billion available for obligation only when enacted in 

a subsequent emergency appropriations bill as a condition for the availability of funds. That 

bill was passed as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-117, on 

January 10, 2002.

Sept. 10, 2001 OMB’s deadline for agencies’ fiscal year 2003 budget submittals.

Sept. 11, 2001 Terrorist attacks.

Sept. 12, 2001 Agencies begin a “triage” assessment of the budget to identify immediate-, medium-, and longer-term 

requirements.

Sept. 14, 2001 OMB issues guidance to agencies on the emergency appropriation, which was passed by Congress 

the same day.

Sept. 18, 2001 $40 billion emergency appropriation (with $12 billion designated for combating terrorism) signed by 

the President.

Sept. 21, 2001 President authorizes initial transfers from the emergency appropriation.

Late Nov. 2001 OMB informs executive branch agencies about decisions on their budget requests (known as 

“passback”).
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 34 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

in some cases to reflect changing priorities and, in others, because of funds 

provided by the emergency supplemental appropriation. In addition, OMB 

officials said that planning on the future needs in fiscal year 2004 were 

considered as part of the deliberations for fiscal 2003.

Both OMB and OHS were involved in setting priorities for developing the 

budget proposal for fiscal year 2003. OMB provided the analytical and 

budgetary support for OHS, and officials from both OMB and OHS reported 

their working relationship as collaborative. OHS did not issue formal 

guidance as part of the budget process—OMB officials communicated 

OHS’s priorities on homeland security funding to the agencies. The 

executive order establishing OHS required the Assistant to the President 

for Homeland Security to certify that budget requests for homeland 

security are necessary and appropriate, but it did not specify how this 

certification should take place.15 OMB officials told us that the Assistant to 

the President for Homeland Security formally certified the budget requests 

in writing. However, they did not provide this written certification for our 

review. 

15Executive Order No. 13228, Oct. 8, 2001.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 35 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 36 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Coordination and priority setting for the budget process for fiscal year 2004 

are complicated by uncertainty. The proposed Department of Homeland 

Security had not yet been established. Moreover, those agencies with 

overseas missions for combating terrorism did not have the benefit of key 

strategies for combating the overseas threat of terrorism because such 

strategies have either not yet been published or were published very late in 

the budget deliberation process. 

Coordination and Priority Setting:

Chronology: Fiscal Year 2004 Issues

• Uncertainty in the preparation of the 2004 budget proposals

is due to

• uncertainty an the evolving structure of the proposed Department of Homeland Security and

• a lack of overseas combating terrorism strategies.

• OMB guidance was improved to require agencies to identify

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding for

budget requests but does not require them to report the status of

obligations. Obligation data are key to assessing future funding

needs.

• OMB has introduced a new formal assessment tool to enhance

program performance evaluation. Several combating terrorism

agencies were selected for review this year.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 37 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

In April 2002, OMB issued the spring planning guidance to executive 

agencies for the fiscal year 2004 budget, which stated that the National 

Strategy for Homeland Security would provide a framework against which 

they could assess how their programs contribute to homeland security. 

Agencies were instructed to submit budgets consistent with the strategy’s 

framework, emphasizing areas that are given priority and deemphasizing 

areas that are not. However, the strategy was released in July, well into the 

budget development season for the executive agencies. Similarly, for 

combating terrorism overseas, The National Security Strategy for the 

United States of America was not published until September 17, 2002, and 

the National Strategy on Combating Terrorism has not yet been 

published.

Improved OMB guidance should enhance data on funding to combat 

terrorism, but the status of obligations is not being captured. In June 2002, 

OMB updated its annual guidance on the preparation, submission, and 

execution of the budget for preparing the budget request for fiscal year 

2004—the A-11 guidance. Agencies are required to report budget data for 

homeland security and overseas combating terrorism in OMB’s MAX 

database—the database that OMB uses to develop and prepare the 

President’s budget. In an August 2002 memo, OMB instructed agencies to 

provide budgetary and programmatic information on homeland security 

and overseas combating terrorism to be submitted concurrently with their 

budget requests. These data are to include programs and activities and the 

funding requests associated with them, aggregated to the budget account 

level. We believe that these instructions are a very positive development 

because aggregating data to provide account-level detail, if reported to 

Congress, would present the data in a manner that is consistent with the 

account structure that Congress uses to provide appropriations annually. 

However, neither the A-11 guidance nor the subsequent August memo 

requires agencies to report data on obligations. As noted previously, such 

data are useful for establishing the current status on spending and 

informing decisions on future funding to combat terrorism.

In addition to this guidance, OMB has introduced a formal assessment tool 

into the budget process: the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The 

purpose of PART, according OMB, is to (1) measure and diagnose program 

performance; (2) evaluate programs in a systematic, consistent, and 

transparent manner; (3) inform agency and OMB decisions for 

management, legislative, or regulatory improvements and budget 

decisions; and (4) focus program improvements and measure progress 

(compared with prior-year ratings). OMB expects to use PART assessments 
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 38 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

in considering Department and agency budget submissions for the 

President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 to Congress. Several key 

programs involved in combating terrorism were selected for this year’s 

review, such as Immigration Services within the Department of Justice, the 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center within the Department of 

Treasury, and the Disaster Relief Fund-Public Assistance Program within 

FEMA. OMB plans to make results of its PART reviews available to the 

public on its Web site, which could provide additional information for 

Congress and others on programs and activities for combating terrorism.
Briefing Section III: Coordination and 

Priority Setting

Page 39 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 40 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

On the basis of the findings in one of our reviews, Congress required OMB 

to report annually on the proposed expenditure of funds to combat 

terrorism.16 OMB has since issued five annual reports summarizing budget 

authority in this area. However, several current shortcomings in the report 

weaken it as a tool for congressional decision makers. For example, 

although they are required to be issued in March of each year, recent 

Data Reported to Congress:

OMB’s Annual Report

• Shortcomings in the report make it a weak tool for

congressional decision makers.

• Although required March 1, it has been issued in

late spring and summer, well into the

appropriations decision-making process.

• The absence of obligation data in the report limits

its use in monitoring the status and planning future

funding priorities of combating terrorism activities.

16See GAO/NSIAD-98-39.
Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

Page 41 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

reports have not been issued until the late spring or summer, well into 

congressional budget deliberations, limiting their usefulness to decision 

makers. Furthermore, the reports do not present data on funds obligated to 

combat terrorism. Obligations are binding agreements that will result in 

immediate or future outlays, and as such, they are important for decision 

makers in terms of understanding the current status of funding and for 

establishing future funding priorities.
Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

Page 42 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Data Reported to Congress:

 Varying Mission Categories Complicate

Oversight

DOD homeland security (outside

initiatives)

Other non-DOD homeland

security

Aviation security

Sharing information and using

technology to secure the

homeland

Securing U.S. borders

Defending against biological

terrorism

Supporting first responders

Securing the Homeland,

Strengthening the Nation

(President’s FY 2003 budget

initiative areas)

Research and development

Preparing for and responding to

terrorist acts

Investigative, intelligence, and

offensive activities

Emergency preparedness and

response

Defending against catastrophic

threats

Protecting critical infrastructures

and key assets

Domestic counterterrorism

Border and transportation

security

Physical security of government Intelligence and warning

and national populace

National Strategy for

Homeland Security

(critical mission areas)

OMB’s 2002 Report to

Congress on Combating

Terrorism

(mission areas)

Source: GAO’s analysis of cited documents.
Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

Page 43 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

The lack of a common structure to categorize activities related to 

combating terrorism also complicates oversight by and accountability to 

Congress and OMB, and can be attributed to strategies that were evolving 

as various funding presentations were being written. Each of the three 

documents presented in the table portray governmentwide combatingterrorism-related mission categories in a unique manner. OMB's annual 

report categories in the first column address combating terrorism, 

including homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. The 

President's budget initiative areas and the critical mission areas in the 

National Strategy for Homeland Security in the second and third columns, 

respectively, address homeland security only.17 No two mission categories 

are exactly the same, nor can they be crosswalked to each other.

In addition, categories in these documents cannot be crosswalked to the 

statutory structure used by Congress to fund programs and activities—

appropriations accounts. For example, the most recent OMB report states 

that all funding associated with border security is homeland security 

related, and as such, is counted as combating terrorism. Border security 

involves nearly a dozen federal agencies and their activities, including the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service’s enforcement and detention 

activities, the Customs Service’s enforcement activities, the Coast Guard’s 

enforcement activities, the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program, 

and the Department of State’s visa program. While the report lists the 

relevant bureaus and agencies involved, it does not identify funding by 

appropriation accounts. OMB officials told us they are planning to 

crosswalk the President’s budget initiative areas to appropriations 

accounts as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2004.

In the case of the Department of Defense, linking mission categories for 

combating terrorism to appropriations is made more complex because of 

the unique way DOD was allocated funds from its share of the emergency 

supplemental appropriation enacted in September 2001. Unlike other 

agencies, DOD was allocated funds from this supplemental appropriation 

on the basis of 10 funding categories—such as Increased Situational 

Awareness, Enhanced Force Protection, and Airport Security—not linked 

to its normal budget accounts. Therefore, linking appropriations to mission 

categories would involve an analysis of both normal appropriations 

17The overseas component of combating terrorism is in the National Security Strategy of 

the United States of America and the forthcoming National Strategy for Combating 

Terrorism.
Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

Page 44 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

accounts and the special funding categories established for the emergency 

supplemental appropriation.

The absence of these key linkages, both across strategies and to the 

appropriation accounts structure, results in no transparency for making 

policy choices and trade-offs between homeland security programs and 

other activities.
Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to 

Congress

Page 45 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 46 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Our past work has identified potential duplication of effort on combating 

terrorism over the past several years, and the administration has taken 

steps to reduce the risk of this duplication in some areas.

Potential for Overlap:

Chronology: Past Areas Identified by GAO

• Past GAO reviews have identified potential overlap or

unnecessary duplication in areas of

• establishment of a focal point for combating terrorism,

• development of federal combating terrorism strategies,

• law enforcement related to terrorism,

• assistance to state and local governments,

• information and technology management, and

• research and development to combat terrorism.

• In five annual reports to Congress on combating

terrorism, OMB has not identified duplication of effort as

required.
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 47 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Establishment of a combating terrorism focal point: In a 2001 report, 

prior to the establishment of OHS, we noted that some interagency roles 

of various agencies are not always clear and sometimes overlap, which 

often led to a fragmented approach. 18 We noted in the same report that a 

clear assignment of responsibilities and the authority to discharge these 

responsibilities are necessary to avoid duplication. 

• Development of federal combating terrorism strategies: Also, in the 2001 

report we observed that strategies had been developed or were being 

developed by NSC, the Attorney General, the National Domestic 

Preparedness Office in FBI, and FEMA. 

• Law enforcement related to terrorism: In a 1999 report we observed that 

the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) did not generally 

carry out terrorism training with FBI, despite the fact that the two 

bureaus had potentially overlapping responsibilities. 19 The report also 

stated that ATF was developing a crisis management exercise program 

similar to FBI’s program. This lack of coordination between these two 

law enforcement agencies could reduce the effectiveness of a total 

federal response to a terrorist incident and lead to duplication of effort.

• Assistance to state and local governments: In 1998 and 1999, we 

reported that grant assistance to state and local agencies and federal 

weapons of mass destruction training programs were not well 

coordinated.20 This resulted in inefficiencies in the federal effort, and 

state and local officials and representatives of various responder 

organizations voiced their concern over duplication and overlap 

between federal training programs. 

18See Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations,

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

19See Combating Terrorism: Issues to Be Resolved to Improve Counterterrorism 

Operations, GAO/NSIAD-99-135 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999).

20See Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Programs 

Focus and Efficiency, GAO/NSIAD-99-3 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 1998), and Combating 

Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-181,

Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1999).
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 48 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Information and technology management: In February 2002, we 

reported that without an enterprise architecture to guide and constrain 

information technology investments, “stovepipe” operations and 

systems can emerge, which in turn, lead to needless duplication.21

Currently, only about 4 percent of federal agencies have developed their 

enterprise architecture to the point where they can be considered 

effective. 

• Research and development to combat terrorism: Overlap in research 

and development related to combating terrorism has also been reviewed 

in our reports. In 1999 and 2001, we reported that existing formal and 

informal research and development coordination mechanisms may not 

ensure that potential overlaps, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration 

are addressed.22 We reported that a number of factors, including 

compartmentalization of research and development activities and the 

lack of formal mechanisms to capture the entire universe of 

governmentwide research and development efforts, create the potential 

for duplicative efforts between federal agencies. 

We have also observed that OMB’s annual reports to Congress on 

combating terrorism had not identified duplication of effort, as required by 

Congress.23 The June 2002 OMB report also does not include such an 

analysis. However, OMB reported in an August 2002 memorandum that it 

would review fiscal year 2004 budget proposals to identify areas where 

duplication and overlap may hinder efficient resource allocation. We view 

this as a positive development that, if executed and reported, should bring 

OMB into compliance with the reporting requirement.

21Enterprise architecture provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it 

be an organization (federal Department, agency, or bureau) or a functional or mission area 

that cuts across more than one organization (e.g., financial management). See Information 

Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be 

Improved, GAO-02-06 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002).

22See Chemical and Biological Defense: Coordination of Nonmedical Chemical and 

Biological R&D Programs, GAO/NSIAD-99-160 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.16, 1999) and 

GAO-01-822.

23See GAO-01-822.
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 49 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 50 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

The administration has taken steps to address some past areas of potential 

duplication.

• To address concerns of overall management, in September 2001, we 

recommended the establishment of a focal point within the Executive 

Office of the President, with responsibility for all critical missions to 

lead and coordinate the various programs for combating terrorism. After 

September 11, the President established both OHS and the Director for 

Combating Terrorism within NSC.

Potential for Overlap:

Chronology: Executive Branch Efforts

• President established focal points for combating terrorism.

• The Assistant to the President for Homeland Security in

OHS serves as the homeland security focal point and

issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security.

• The Director for Combating Terrorism in NSC serves as

focal point for combating terrorism overseas and has not

yet issued the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism.

• President’s proposal for Department of Homeland Security

acknowledges need to minimize duplication of effort.

• Grant programs to state and local governments.

• Research and development to combat terrorism.

• Port inspection activities.

• Information technology systems.

• Management of property and assets.
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 51 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Efforts to address the proliferation of agency-level strategies include the 

July 2002 publication of the administration’s National Strategy for 

Homeland Security, which noted that the terrorism threat would be 

addressed by this strategy as well as forthcoming national strategies on 

overseas combating terrorism and on national security, which are 

discussed in more detail in section VI.

The President’s proposal for the Department of Homeland Security 

recognized some of the problems we identified and other areas and the 

need to minimize duplication. His proposal specifically identified several 

areas where duplication needs to be addressed. 

• Grants to state and local governments: The President’s proposal states 

that the proposed Department would consolidate and streamline grant 

making and promote targeted, effective programs at the state and local 

level, recognizing that such programs currently exist in an environment 

of multiple funding sources and sometimes overlapping missions. The 

Department would also give state and local officials one primary contact 

instead of many for matters related to training, equipment, planning, and 

other critical needs. 

• Research and development: The President’s proposal calls for the 

proposed Department to provide direction and establish priorities for 

national research and development of new technologies to counter the 

bio-chemical threat. The Department would also focus the intellectual 

energy and extensive laboratory capacity at several scientific 

institutions to combat this threat. 

• Port inspection: The President’s plan calls for port inspection activities 

to be consolidated. A single federal Department would be in charge of 

all ports of entry, including security and inspection operations, and 

would manage and coordinate port-of-entry activities of other federal 

Departments and agencies.
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 52 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Information technology: According to the proposal for the new 

Department, to reduce redundant spending on information technology, 

the proposed Department would develop a single enterprise 

architecture to eliminate duplicative and poorly coordinated systems. 

Projects would be funded on the basis of priorities for homeland 

security missions, which are, in turn, based on an overall assessment of 

requirements. OHS has established or is in the process of establishing 

working groups to develop enterprise architectures in line with the 

primary mission areas of the proposed Department, according to an 

OHS official. In addition, as we testified in October 2002, OMB issued 

two memoranda to selected agencies telling them to “cease temporarily”

and report on new proposed information technology infrastructure and 

business system investments to OMB. 24 At the time of our review, some 

submissions were still being evaluated by OMB, and it was too early to 

assess the effect of OMB’s action. 25

• Property and asset management: The proposed Department would also 

better utilize assets through consolidation and joint, comprehensive 

capital planning, procurement and maintenance. This would apply to 

boats, vehicles, and aircraft, as well as property management.

24See Homeland Security: OMB’s Temporary Cessation of Information Technology 

Funding for New Investments, GAO-03-186T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2002).

25The July memoranda also stated that, if an agency had a critical need or emergency, it 

could submit information for an expedited review. As of September 26, 2002, agencies had 

requested three emergency requests for expedited review, all of which were approved.
Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap

Page 53 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 54 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Challenges in Effective Use of Funds:

Strategies Require Measures and Priorities

• Combating terrorism strategies are evolving.

• July 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security includes

strategic areas and missions; however, challenge will be to

establish

• performance measures and

• clear funding priorities.

• National Security Strategy published in September 2002.

• National Security Council has not yet published its strategy on

overseas combating terrorism.

• Some Departments have moved forward in revising annual

performance plans with combating terrorism objectives, despite

evolving national guidance.
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 55 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

On numerous occasions, we have called for a national strategy on 

combating terrorism and stated that such a strategy should not only define 

the roles and missions of federal, state, and local governments and 

establish priorities, but also identify outcome-related goals with milestones 

and performance measures. 26 In addition, the strategy should incorporate 

the principles of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 

which requires federal agencies to set strategic goals, measure 

performance, and report on the degree to which goals are met.27 We further 

noted that the State Department emphasized the need for such a strategy to 

include an international component.

The administration plans to address the terrorist threat through a series of 

national strategies. The National Strategy for Homeland Security, 

published in July 2002, addresses how to mobilize and organize the nation 

to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attack. The National Security 

Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 17, 2002, 

and the forthcoming National Strategy for Combating Terrorism will 

address the terrorism threat overseas. The National Strategy for 

Homeland Security is a good initial step in defining strategic objectives 

and related mission areas (e.g., intelligence and warning, and border and 

transportation security), and in establishing foundations that extend across 

the mission areas (law, science and technology, information sharing and 

systems, and international cooperation). It also proposes to consolidate 

these strategic planning functions in the proposed Department of 

Homeland Security. However, the strategy’s initiatives often do not provide 

performance goals and measures to assess and improve preparedness at 

the federal or national levels. For example, in the National Strategy for 

Homeland Security, the initiative of creating “smart borders” lacks 

specifics to identify what is expected of a smart border, including 

consideration of security and economic aspects of moving people and 

goods. Moreover, although the strategy includes a list of funding priorities 

for the budget for fiscal year 2004, the strategy does not provide criteria for 

trade-offs needed to fund such priorities, nor does it include a 

comprehensive threat/risk assessment to guide future efforts. Finally, how 

26See for example Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National 

Preparedness Strategy, GAO-02-549T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002), GAO-01-822, and

Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats to Strategies and Resources, GAO/T-NSIAD-00-218

(Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2000).

27P.L. 103-62 (Aug.3, 1993).
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 56 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

the three strategies and their respective priorities will be coordinated with 

each other to avoid inconsistency remains unclear. 

Some agencies have been taking steps to manage new priorities for 

combating terrorism. For example, some agencies are updating plans to 

address their missions to combat terrorism. The Environmental Protection 

Agency developed a specific strategic plan on homeland security, in 

addition to its current strategic plan. FEMA revised its strategic plan in the 

summer of 2002 to include a new goal related to terrorism. In addition, the 

Department of Justice revised its strategic plan in November 2001 in 

recognition of its increased focus on combating terrorism. Officials from 

DOD, however, told us that while DOD has a strategic plan, it does not 

establish Department-level performance measures consistent with the 

Results Act because of the difficulty of establishing such measures for the 

broad range of scenarios that might be posed by a terrorist attack. 

Moreover, these officials said that DOD includes performance 

measurement as part of its regular process for executing and evaluating 

exercises and missions.
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 57 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 58 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Funding increases for combating terrorism have been dramatic and reflect 

the high priority that the administration and Congress place on this 

mission. These increases bring an added responsibility for the government 

to ensure that this large investment of taxpayer dollars is wisely applied. 

The strategies and plans discussed in the previous pages are an important 

component of managing funds to combat terrorism. The challenges 

stemming from increased funding for combating terrorism are significant 

management issues and could impede the implementation of national 

strategies if not effectively addressed. These areas are as follows:

Challenges in Effective Use of Funds:

Management Challenges

• Increased funding requires leadership to ensure that

the funds are spent effectively.

• Human capital management requires a qualified

work force.

• Procurement of new capabilities and equipment

requires comprehensive planning to establish

sound acquisition strategies.

• Management of grants requires an established

process to provide accountability and oversight.

• Information sharing and technology challenges

require a blueprint for action.
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 59 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Human capital management : Some of the increased funding will be used 

to address requirements for additional personnel, a requirement that 

poses challenges for most agencies. The Immigration and Naturalization 

Service, for example, was already facing recruiting challenges prior to 

the September 11 attacks. The October 26, 2001, USA PATRIOT Act 

authorized the Attorney General to triple the number of Immigration 

and Naturalization Service Border Patrol personnel and inspectors 

along the Northern Border.28 Moreover, the establishment of the 

Transportation Security Administration has exacerbated some other 

agencies’ efforts to recruit and retain qualified security personnel. 

Officials from the Justice Department and the Department of the 

Treasury reported losing seasoned staff to the Transportation Security 

Administration as the new agency attempted to meet its own personnel 

requirements.

• Acquisition strategies: The budget request for fiscal year 2003 includes 

increased funding to acquire a broad array of technologies and 

equipment to combat terrorism. Before committing substantial dollars, 

it will be incumbent on Departments and agencies to ensure that 

requirements for such assets are linked to mission needs and costs and 

after careful consideration of alternative solutions. As we reported 

previously, good acquisition outcomes start with sound acquisition 

strategies.29

28P.L. 107-56, Oct. 26, 2001.

29See Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit, but Implementation 

Will Be Pivotal to Success, GAO-02-886T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002).
Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective 

Use of Funds

Page 60 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

• Grants management: A significant portion of the budget request for 

fiscal year 2003 is to increase grants to state and local jurisdictions for 

their first responder efforts. The budget request for FEMA, for example, 

includes a $3.5 billion in block grants to be used by state and local 

governments to purchase equipment; train personnel; and exercise, 

develop, or enhance response plans. We testified recently that in 

designing such grants, it is important to (1) target the funds to states and 

localities with the greatest need on the basis of the highest risk and 

lowest capacity to meet these needs from their own resource bases; (2) 

discourage the replacement of state and local funds with federal funds, 

commonly referred to as “supplantation,” with a maintenance-of-effort 

requirement that recipients maintain their level of previous funding; and 

(3) strike a balance between accountability and flexibility.30 

• Information sharing and technology: One of the administration’s budget 

priorities in its budget request for fiscal year 2003 was to use 21st century 

technology to secure the homeland. In June 2002, we testified on 

information sharing and technology challenges facing the country in this 

regard.31 First, the nature of the threat makes it difficult to identify and 

differentiate information that can provide an early indication of a 

terrorist threat from the mass of data available. Second, we face 

considerable barriers—cultural, legal, and technical—in effectively 

collecting and sharing information. And third, many technologies key to 

addressing threats are not yet available, and many existing technologies 

have not been effectively adapted for the threats the country now faces. 

We observed that responding to these challenges would require 

developing a blueprint, or architectural construct, that defines both the 

homeland security mission and the information technologies and 

approaches necessary to perform the mission in a way that is divorced 

from organizational parochialism and cultural differences.

30See Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination is Key to Success, 

GAO-02-1011T (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2002).

31See National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and Information 

Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy, GAO-02-811T (Washington, D.C.:

June 7, 2002).
Page 61 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Appendix I

Comments from the Department of Defense ApApenednxidexiIs
Page 62 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 63 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Appendix II

Comments from the Department of State

Page 64 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism
Page 65 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Appendix III

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments ApendxiI

Contacts Combating Terrorism

Raymond J. Decker (202) 512-6020

Stephen L. Caldwell (202) 512-9610

Budget Issues

Paul L. Posner (202) 512-9573

Denise Fantone (202) 512-4997

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Margaret Best, Joseph Byrns, Kristeen 

McLain, Harry L. Purdy, Mary Reintsma, Susan Woodward, Joseph 

Zamoyta, and Michael Zola made key contributions to this report.
Page 66 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Related GAO Products

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Guide Service’s Antiterrorism 

Efforts. GAO-03-14. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2002.

Homeland Security: Department of Justice's Response to Its 

Congressional Mandate to Assess and Report on Chemical Industry 

Vulnerabilities. GAO-03-24R. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2002.

Homeland Security: OMB’s Temporary Cessation of Information 

Technology Funding for New Investments. GAO-03-186T. Washington, 

D.C.: October 1, 2002.

Homeland Security: Information Sharing Activities Face Continued 

Management Challenges. GAO-02-1122T. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 

2002.

Combating Terrorism: Department of State Programs to Combat 

Terrorism Abroad. GAO-02-1021. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2002.

National Preparedness: Technology and Information Sharing Challenges. 

GAO-02-1048R. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002.

Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is Key to 

Success. GAO-02-1013T. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2002.

Port Security: Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New 

Initiatives Successful. GAO-02-993T. Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2002.

Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues.

GAO-02-957T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002.

Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. 

GAO-02-927T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002.

Homeland Security: Intergovernmental Coordination and Partnerships 

Will Be Critical to Success. GAO-02-899T. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2002.

Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but 

May Complicate Priority Setting. GAO-02-893T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 

2002.
Related GAO Products

Page 67 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit, but 

Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success. GAO-02-886T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 25, 2002.

Homeland Security: Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but 

Uncertainty Remains. GAO-02-610. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002.

National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and 

Information Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy.GAO02-811T. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002.

Homeland Security: Responsibility and Accountability for Achieving 

National Goals. GAO-02-627T. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 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.: April 11, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the 

Development of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local 

Preparedness. GAO-02-550T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National 

Preparedness Strategy. GAO-02-549T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Critical Components of a National Strategy to 

Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-548T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 25, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National 

Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-547T.

Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2002.

Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership 

Sought. GAO-02-490T. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance 

State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-473T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 

2002.
Related GAO Products

Page 68 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the Federal 

Government Can Be Improved. GAO-02-06. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 

2002.

Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short- and 

Long-Term National Needs. GAO-02-160T. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 

2001.

Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide 

Preparedness Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.

Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in 

Chemical and Biological Preparedness. GAO-01-162T. Washington, D.C.:

October 17, 2001.

Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach. 

GAO-02-150T. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001.

Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation’s Issues. 

GAO-01-1158T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2001.

Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related 

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

Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Antiterrorism 

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

D.C.: September 19, 2002.

Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs. 

GAO/T-NSIAD-00-145. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2000. 

Chemical and Biological Defenses: Coordination of Nonmedical 

Chemical and Biological R&D Programs. GAO/NSIAD-99-160. 

Washington, D.C.: August 16, 1999.

Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs.

GAO/T-NSIAD-99-181. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 1999.

Combating Terrorism: Issues to Be Resolved to Improve 

Counterterrorism Operations. GAO-99-135. Washington, D.C.: May 13,

1999.
Related GAO Products

Page 69 GAO-03-170 Combating Terrorism

Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness 

Programs’ Focus and Efficiency. GAO/NSIAD-99-3. Washington, D.C.: 

November 12, 1998.

Combating Terrorism: Spending on Government Programs Requires 

Better Management and Coordination. GAO/NSIAD-98-39. Washington, 

D.C.: December 1, 1997.

(350123)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to 

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve 

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American 

people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

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

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00