Combating Terrorism: Determining and Reporting Federal Funding Data
Published: 2006-01-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The President's annual budget reports on federal funding dedicated to combating terrorism activities. Identification of such funding is inherently difficult because a significant portion of combating terrorism funding is embedded within appropriation accounts that include funding for other activities as well. In 2002, GAO reported on the difficulties that the executive branch faced in reporting funding for combating terrorism to Congress (see GAO-03-170). This report updates the information contained in the 2002 report by providing information on (1) the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their annual appropriations related to combating terrorism, and (2) the status of recommendations from GAO's 2002 report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Seven of 34 agencies that reported receiving funding related to combating terrorism activities to OMB used different methodologies to estimate the portion of their authorized funding that supports such activities. These 7 agencies account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal year 2006 budget request that the 34 agencies estimate relate to combating terrorism. All of these methods involve some level of professional judgment. Agencies stated this process is managed through OMB oversight and supervisory review. OMB staff said they do not review the overseas component of combating terrorism funding data since they are no longer required to report it. As a result, Congress does not receive OMB-reviewed data on the entirety of counterterrorism funding. Three recommendations from GAO's 2002 report have not been implemented. The first recommendation requests that OMB include agencies' obligation data in its annual reporting of funding data on combating terrorism. OMB staff continue to cite the effort required to produce such data but said they might consider reporting obligation information for a targeted set of accounts. Without obligation data, it is difficult for Congress to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still available to potentially reduce new spending requests, (2) whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what the size of the program is for a particular year and over time. The second recommendation was for OMB to direct relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism performance goals and measures and include such measures in the governmentwide plan. Three of the seven agencies told us that OMB had not directed them to develop performance measures or enhance such measures for combating terrorism activities. However, four of the seven agencies had developed such measures. OMB staff said they are working with agencies to improve performance measurement of government programs related to combating terrorism. The development of such measures would assist Congress in determining whether funding increases have improved performance results. The third recommendation calls for the inclusion of national-level and federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures in supplements to existing strategies and their future revisions. There have been no supplements or revisions to the existing strategies that include governmentwide or national-level combating terrorism measures.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration and  Congress have increased funding in support of combating terrorism both  at home and abroad. According to the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), combating terrorism includes efforts to secure the homeland (that  is, homeland security activities to detect, deter, protect against, and, if  needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United States)  and those to combat terrorism overseas (those activities occurring outside  the United States and its territories), excluding direct military action.  Between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, funding attributed to homeland  security activities increased 39 percent, from $33 billion in fiscal year 2002  to $46 billion for fiscal year 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the President  requested nearly $50 billion for activities associated with homeland  security. In addition, Congress appropriated funding that agencies also  attributed to overseas combating terrorism activities. However, OMB is no  longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding data.
In response to the September 11 attacks and the resulting emphasis placed  on combating terrorism, Congress took legislative action to revise  reporting requirements related to federal funding for combating terrorism  activities. Under section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the  President’s annual budget is required to include an analysis of homeland  security funding. This analysis is to be organized by budget function (i.e.,  functions that cover 17 areas of the government such as agriculture and  health), agency, and initiative area. According to OMB staff responsible for  preparing this analysis on behalf of the President, OMB adopted the six  critical mission areas captured in the National Strategy for Homeland  Security—Intelligence and Warning, Border and Transportation Security,  Domestic Counterterrorism, Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key  Assets, Defending against Catastrophic Threats, and Emergency  Preparedness and Response—to represent initiative areas in its analysis.  (See app. II for a detailed description of each critical mission area). This  funding analysis appears in the Analytical Perspectives, which  accompanies the President’s budget and provides information on  requested funding levels related to homeland security. Much of the  funding for combating terrorism activities is embedded within  appropriation accounts that finance programs that are not primarily  homeland security or overseas combating terrorism related. This makes it  difficult to identify activities and track funding without such an analysis.  For example, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) receives the majority of its  appropriations through its Operating Expenses Account. This funding  supports the USCG’s operations both for combating terrorism activities  such as securing ports, waterways, and the coast and for non-combating  terrorism activities such as ice-breaking operations to facilitate navigation  through waterways. Because combating terrorism funding is embedded  within appropriation accounts, agencies provide OMB with information on  the portion of funding that is attributable to combating terrorism  activities—both homeland security and overseas combating terrorism.  OMB then uses this information to report funding information on  homeland security activities in the Analytical Perspectives.
In November 2002, we reported on the difficulty the executive branch  faced in identifying and tracking combating terrorism funding and other  challenges associated with reporting such data to Congress. Among these  other challenges was the difficulty the executive branch faced in  measuring the effective use of funds for combating terrorism since clearly  defined federal and national performance objectives and measures for  assessing programs’ progress had not been established. This report  updates the information contained in our 2002 report by responding to the  following questions:  1.  How do agencies determine what portion of their annual  appropriations relates to combating terrorism?  2.  What is the status of the recommendations from our 2002 report?
In addition, we also identified patterns and trends in funding for  combating terrorism activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 as well as  the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2006. This information is  discussed in appendix I. Further, we examined how section 889 of the  Homeland Security Act of 2002 affected the reporting of funding data and  the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking activities—specific lines  of work—related to combating terrorism and ensuring the transparency of  related funding data. The impact of section 889 on the reporting of funding  data and the challenges OMB continues to face in tracking activities is  discussed in appendix III. Finally, we reviewed combating terrorism  activities that were funded through 34 budgetary accounts to determine  whether the activities were consistent with OMB’s definitions of homeland  security and overseas combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular   No. A-11. The information on combating terrorism activities funded  through these 34 accounts is included in appendix IV.
To address our objectives, we met with staff from OMB and with officials  from 7 agencies that conduct a range of combating terrorism activities— the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE),  Homeland Security (DHS), and Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers (USACE) and the General Services Administration (GSA). To  reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from   33 agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving funding  related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. The 7 agencies we  selected account for about 90 percent of the total fiscal year 2006 budget  request that the 33 agencies and the District of Columbia estimate relate to  combating terrorism. Because we obtained information from a  nonprobability sample of 7 agencies and their directorates and offices with  combating terrorism responsibilities, the information we obtained cannot  be generalized to all agencies with combating terrorism responsibilities.  We reviewed activities in 34 budgetary accounts for the agencies in our  review to determine whether the activities were consistent with OMB’s  definitions of homeland security and overseas combating terrorism as  defined in OMB Circular No. A-11. We selected accounts with the most  funding for combating terrorism at each agency as well as some accounts  with smaller amounts. By reviewing the activities in these 34 accounts, we  reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency’s estimated gross budget  authority related to combating terrorism activities as reported in the  President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. Although we initially selected  budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review these accounts  because neither DOD nor OMB maintains information on activities  conducted by DOD to combat terrorism at the account level. For  illustrative purposes, we have included a description of some of these  accounts as well as the activities funded through each account and the  related budget authority in appendix IV. We also analyzed combating  terrorism data from the database used to prepare the Budget of the United  States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To ensure that the database we  received was consistent with published sources, we conducted electronic  data testing and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Appendix V contains more detailed information on our scope and  methodology.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (NDAA for  FY 1998), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal  Year 1999 (NDAA for FY 1999) required OMB to issue both a classified and  an unclassified report on funding to combat terrorism. Under the NDAA  reporting requirements, OMB’s annual report addressed funding for  combating terrorism without differentiating between homeland security  and overseas activities. However, in its 2002 unclassified report, OMB,  for the first time, explicitly distinguished between overseas combating  terrorism activities coordinated by the National Security Council and  homeland security activities coordinated by the President’s Office of  Homeland Security.
Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 repealed the NDAA  reporting requirements in favor of new reporting requirements. In  particular, section 889 required the President’s budget to include an  analysis of “homeland security funding,” which it defined by reference to  OMB’s 2002 report as activities to detect, deter, protect against, and if  needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the United States.  OMB’s definition of homeland security activities included activities that  the agency had not previously treated as combating terrorism.
The 2003 annual report on combating terrorism was the last combating  terrorism report issued under the NDAA reporting requirements. OMB’s  next report to Congress was published as part of the President’s fiscal year  2005 budget, which was issued in February 2004 and reflected the changes  called for in that act for the first time. In its final 2003 unclassified annual  report on combating terrorism, OMB categorized the government’s  homeland security activities into the six critical mission areas discussed in  the National Strategy for Homeland Security.
section_title: Seven Agencies Use Different Methodologies to Estimate How Much of the Budget Supports Combating Terrorism Activities
paragraphs: The seven agencies we contacted use different methods to estimate the  portion of their authorized funding that supports combating terrorism  activities. Although OMB provides guidance to agencies, it does not  prescribe a specific methodology for how agencies should determine the  portion of their budget authority that relates to combating terrorism  activities. One agency we contacted—DOD—reported that OMB  determines how much of DOD’s funding relates to combating terrorism.  While OMB staff said that they expect most executive agencies to provide  them with funding data related to combating terrorism activities, they said  that they make these determinations for DOD. DOD officials said that they  enter budget data into OMB’s central database and then OMB staff review  the data and extract information that they find consistent with OMB’s  definition of combating terrorism.
Six of the other seven agencies we reviewed developed their own  methodologies using guidance, such as OMB Circular No. A-11, which  includes definitions for combating terrorism activities and instructions for  submitting information on funding data related to combating terrorism  activities to OMB.  Because these methodologies involve estimations,  some level of professional judgment is inherent throughout the process.  To implement these methodologies, agencies first identify their combating  terrorism activities and then estimate their related funding levels. (See  app. VI for guidance agencies most commonly use to identify combating  terrorism activities.)
Officials from two of these six agencies—GSA and DHS—reported that  they used methods involving formulas to determine their funding levels  that are related to combating terrorism. Officials from GSA told us that  they use a formula-driven methodology for estimating its budget authority  for the portion of Real Property Activities within its Federal Buildings  Fund that relate to homeland security activities. To derive this  methodology, GSA officials from its Office of Budget said GSA consulted  with OMB and reviewed all activities conducted under the Federal  Buildings Fund, looked at historical trends related to homeland security  activities associated with the fund, and applied their professional  judgment. Figure 1 illustrates GSA’s methodology and demonstrates how  the agency applied its methodology in estimating its fiscal year 2006  budget authority for the portion of Real Property Activities within its  Federal Buildings Fund that relate to homeland security activities.
Officials from DHS’s component offices with whom we met—Customs and  Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the  Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office  of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP),  the Transportation Security Administration, USCG, the United States  Secret Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate—told  us that they also derived formula-driven methodologies for determining  their homeland security funding levels. For example, officials from USSS  said that they derived a quantitative methodology for determining the  portion of their appropriation for Operating Expenses that relates to  homeland security. They said that to develop this methodology, USSS  reviewed all of its programs, activities, and related staff hours conducted  under its two missions—Protective Services and Investigative Services— to determine those activities that related to homeland security. See figure  2 for the USSS methodology.
USSS officials told us that they discussed their methodology with OMB  and received OMB’s approval to implement it. USSS officials told us that  they have been using this methodology to estimate the portion of their  operating expenses budget authority related to homeland security since  2003.
The other four agencies—DOE, USDA, USACE, and DOJ—reported having  methodologies in place to determine their funding levels for combating  terrorism activities that are less formula driven. For example, using the  definitions contained in OMB Circular No. A-11, a DOE official told us that  DOE personnel review the agency’s programs and activities to determine  which are related to homeland security or overseas combating terrorism.  Then, a DOE official consults with OMB to determine whether OMB would  like the agency to make any revisions to the activities it has designated as  combating terrorism. Once DOE finalizes its determination that an activity  is categorized as a combating terrorism activity, 100 percent of that  activity’s budget authority is attributed to combating terrorism.  Additionally, officials from the component offices in USDA we met with— the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the  Agricultural Research Service (ARS)—told us that they used qualitative  methods for determining their homeland security funding levels. For  example, APHIS officials said that they developed a set of six questions to  determine whether their activities relate to homeland security. In  reviewing these activities, APHIS officials told us that if any of the  questions in figure 3 apply, they will consider the activity related to  homeland security, and then 100 percent of that activity’s budget authority  will be attributed to homeland security.
In addition to estimating funding levels for combating terrorism activities,  OMB also requires agencies to align their homeland security activities with  the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for Homeland Security.  Officials at four of the six agencies we visited that estimate their  combating terrorism funding levels said that they used their professional  judgment to determine which critical mission area best aligns with their  homeland security activities by comparing those activities with the  definitions of the national strategy’s critical mission areas.
As previously discussed, to estimate funding levels, agencies first identify  their combating terrorism activities. Officials at two of the six agencies we  contacted said that activities with multiple or dual purposes pose a  particular challenge to them when determining their combating terrorism  activities because they must apply professional judgment to determine  which purpose to emphasize. As a result, determining funding levels for  combating terrorism activities and aligning homeland security activities to  critical mission areas cannot be precise. For example, as previously noted,  GSA officials told us that they conduct upgrades to buildings’ fire alarm  enhancement systems that could be used to alert employees to a fire.  However, these officials also said the same system could also be used to  alert employees to stay in the building in the event of a terrorist attack.  Consequently, GSA cannot definitively categorize its fire alarm  enhancement systems as a homeland security activity because the efforts  within this activity are not exclusively related to homeland security. DHS  officials also reported facing similar challenges. For example, SLGCP has  multi-use grants that could be used for both combating terrorism and  other goals. SLGCP staff cited the fact that the chemical protection suits  provided under the Firefighter Assistance Grant program could be used in  the field for a fuel spill or for a terrorist incident such as a dirty bomb.  Consequently, DHS believes the process of categorizing combating  terrorism activities is an estimation exercise, for which the department’s  staff must apply their professional judgment.
Furthermore, agency officials at three agencies we visited said that an  additional challenge in determining whether an activity should be  considered a combating terrorism activity involves interpreting OMB’s  combating terrorism definitions. For example, a DOE official told us that it  can be problematic to categorize activities that are associated with the  Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Program such as efforts to assist the  Russians in converting surplus plutonium into fuel for commercial  reactors. After its conversion, this material is no longer suitable for use in  a nuclear weapon. Although the argument could be made that the  program’s eventual effect may be to take potential ammunition away from  future terrorists, the amount spent in Russia for the conversion to fuel of  already well protected materials is not reported as combating terrorism.  DOE cites this as one example of the fact that the decision of whether an  activity is considered combating terrorism or non-combating terrorism is a  judgment call based on interpretation of the definition.
Agencies in our review manage the process of estimating funding levels for  combating terrorism activities through OMB oversight and supervisory  review. According to OMB, the responsibility of ensuring that homeland  security activities are properly categorized is a joint effort made by OMB  and the agencies involved. For their part, OMB staff perform reviews of  activities determined to be related to homeland security to ensure that  they are in accordance with the homeland security definition. OMB staff  told us that there is no written guidance for such a review. Instead, OMB  staff rely on the definition in OMB Circular No. A-11 and their judgment to  decide if the activity has been reasonably categorized.
OMB staff said that they currently do not review agency estimates of  funding data for overseas combating terrorism activities because OMB is  no longer required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding  data. Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 repealed the  NDAA reporting requirements in favor of new reporting requirements. The  section 889 reporting requirement applies only to homeland security  activities, not overseas activities related to combating terrorism.  Although OMB still collects overseas combating terrorism funding data,  OMB staff said that they have not reviewed or validated this information  since fiscal year 2003. As a result, the overseas combating terrorism data  for fiscal years 2004–2006 has not received the same level of scrutiny as  the homeland security data. Similarly, without any future legislative  action, OMB does not plan to review or validate future funding estimates  related to overseas combating terrorism activities. As a result, Congress  does not receive reports on both the homeland security and overseas  combating terrorism portions of combating terrorism funding.
In addition to reviewing homeland security data, OMB also reports taking  steps to ensure that agencies have properly aligned their homeland  security activities with the six critical mission areas outlined in the  National Strategy for Homeland Security. OMB staff told us that  annually, they examine the activities agencies aligned with each critical  mission area to ensure consistency across all federal agencies and  determine if the activities have been properly aligned based on the  definitions of the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for  Homeland Security. Such alignments can help inform congressional  decision makers about the amount of funding that has been allocated to  any one critical mission area.
In addition to undertaking the previously mentioned reviews, each year  since 2002, OMB has provided agencies with an opportunity to make  changes to the activities they report as homeland security. In fiscal year  2005, OMB formalized this process by asking agencies to complete a form  outlining the agency’s proposed changes prior to official submission of  annual budget requests. OMB staff said that OMB’s examiners use the  definition for homeland security in its Circular No. A-11 to review each  agency’s request, and then the examiners discuss the agencies’ request  with staff from OMB’s Homeland Security Branch, as well as the agency to  decide if the activity has been reasonably categorized.
Officials at all six of the agencies we contacted who make their own  determinations of funding related to combating terrorism reported having  controls in place to help ensure that the agency’s combating terrorism  activities are appropriately identified and categorized as either homeland  security or overseas combating terrorism. For example, DHS officials said  that DHS budget desk officers within the Chief Financial Officer’s Budget  Division review activities its components recommend as combating  terrorism and check for activities that may have been categorized  incorrectly. Then, another budget desk officer, within the same division,  reviews the data for unusual fluctuations or trends. If necessary, the  budget desk officer and component representatives are to contact OMB to  resolve any potential disagreements. After agencies submit information to  OMB, OMB program examiners review the data and approve the activities  or request the agencies to make revisions according to their instruction.
section_title: Implementation of Three Recommendations Could Provide Additional Information for Budget Decisions and Understanding of Performance
paragraphs: OMB has not implemented three recommendations from our 2002 report  that would have and still could provide OMB and Congress with additional  information for making budget decisions and help them understand  performance results. In our 2002 report, we recommended that OMB  require agencies to provide information on obligations in the database  used by OMB to produce the President’s annual budget request—and that  OMB should include obligations as reported in this database in its annual  report on combating terrorism. We made this recommendation to help  Congress obtain information on spending that supports the President’s  annual budget request related to combating terrorism activities and to  provide decision makers with insights as to whether programs are being  run according to plans established by their budget projections. Without  including obligation data in the Analytical Perspectives, along with funding  levels authorized by Congress for agencies’ homeland security activities, it  is difficult for decision makers to know (1) how much funding from prior  years is still available to potentially reduce new spending requests,   (2) whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated,  or (3) what the level of effort (i.e., size of the program) is for a particular  year as well as for a program over time.
OMB staff told us that OMB has not substantially changed its position on  this recommendation since we published our 2002 report. OMB staff  continue to cite the effort required to produce such data. While OMB staff  acknowledged that OMB examiners use obligation data in assessing the  appropriateness of agency budget requests overall, they have felt that  budget authority data provide the most insight into combating terrorism  programs and facilitate follow up on areas of concern. OMB staff also said  that including obligation information in its funding analysis is not  necessary because at the end of the fiscal year, most agencies with  homeland security activities have already obligated the majority of their  budget authority. However, OMB staff also said that they might consider  reporting obligation information for a targeted set of accounts that receive  multiyear funding and might carry balances for homeland security  programs from year to year, unlike the majority of accounts that receive  funding with only 1 year of availability. A conservative analysis suggests  that unobligated balances associated with funding for homeland security  activities for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 could be between $2 billion  and $3.4 billion. Although it would be important to understand how  agencies plan to use these balances, information on what funding is  unobligated—and in which accounts—is potentially useful for  congressional deliberations on the President’s budget request. We  recognize that collecting these data would create an additional workload  for both OMB and agency budget officials, but we continue to believe that  such an effort is warranted for congressional oversight because of the high  priority placed on combating terrorism. Therefore, we continue to believe  that our prior recommendation on this issue from our 2002 report is  relevant and should be implemented.
Similarly, implementation of our 2002 recommendation that OMB direct  relevant departments to develop or enhance combating terrorism  performance goals and measures and include such measures in the  governmentwide plan would assist in determining whether funding  increases have improved performance results.
Although three of the seven agencies in our review told us that OMB did  not direct them to develop performance measures for combating  terrorism, OMB staff said that they are working with agencies on the  development of combating terrorism performance measures at the agency  level, primarily with DHS. OMB staff also said that they have not yet taken  any action to prepare measures on a governmentwide basis. Additionally,  OMB has not yet prepared a governmentwide plan that could include such  measures related to combating terrorism. OMB staff said that the  Homeland Security Council—which provides advice to the President on  homeland security issues—DHS, and OMB are coordinating and planning  for the future development of governmentwide performance measures  related to combating terrorism. However, OMB staff said that they have  not yet established a timeline for developing such measures.
Implementation of our 2002 recommendation to include national-level and  federal governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures as a  supplement to existing strategies and their future revisions would help to  assess and improve preparedness at the federal and national levels. As  previously discussed, federal governmentwide performance measures  related to combating terrorism have not yet been developed. Moreover,  there have been no supplements or revisions to the existing national  strategies that include federal governmentwide or national-level  combating terrorism performance goals and measures. Without goals and  measures from the federal and national levels, it is difficult to organize a  coordinated and effective combating terrorism effort. Because numerous  agencies are responsible for combating terrorism, federal governmentwide  performance planning could better facilitate the integration of federal and  national activities to achieve federal goals in that they could provide a  cohesive perspective on the goals of the federal government. Furthermore,  without governmentwide combating terrorism goals and measures, the  Administration does not have an effective means of articulating to  Congress or the American people the governmentwide accomplishments  related to combating terrorism.
While OMB has not yet developed governmentwide performance goals and  measures, OMB established a formal assessment tool for the budget  formulation process in fiscal year 2002—the Program Assessment Rating  Tool to help measure program performance. However, OMB has not yet  completed all PART reviews for programs that relate to combating  terrorism activities, or done a crosscutting combating terrorism or  homeland security PART review that could address the appropriateness of  performance measures in the larger context. In our recommendation from  an earlier report, we stated that targeting PART could help focus decision  makers’ attention on the most pressing policy and program issues.  Furthermore, we recommended that such an approach could facilitate the  use of PART assessments to review the relative contributions of similar  programs to common or crosscutting goals and outcomes.
It is critical that the federal government, as the steward of the taxpayers’  money, ensure that such funds are managed to maximize results.
Governmentwide combating terrorism performance measures that support  the national strategies would allow the Administration and Congress to  more effectively assess the federal government’s progress in combating  terrorism initiatives, and better determine how effectively the government  is using valuable resources. Furthermore, they would provide a more  effective means of holding agencies accountable for achieving results.
Notwithstanding a lack of progress in developing governmentwide  performance measures, some agencies have performance goals and  measures that reflect priorities for combating terrorism. Performance  measures can provide information on many things, such as outputs, which  provide the number of activities, and outcomes, which demonstrate  achievement of intended results. Four of the seven agencies we  contacted—DHS, DOE, USDA, and DOJ— developed performance  measures for combating terrorism activities as part of their efforts under  the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). An  example of a DOE output performance measure, designed to help achieve  its goal of protecting National Nuclear Security Administration personnel,  facilities, and nuclear weapons is as follows: “Replace, upgrade, re-certify  15 percent of emergency response equipment by 2009.”
To help DHS evaluate its efforts related to preventing entry of  unauthorized individuals and those that pose a threat to the nation, DHS  created the following performance measure: “Determine the percentage of  foreign nationals entering the United States who have biometric and  biographic information on file prior to entry, including the foreign  nationals who are referred for further inspection actions and with  fraudulent documents identified.” This is an output-related performance  measure that provides information about the number of foreign nationals  who enter the country requiring further inspection.
Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency is required to develop  strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal  year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least every   3 years. Under this act, strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to  set annual performance goals and to measure program performance in  achieving those goals. Although GPRA does not specifically require  executive agencies to develop strategic plans related to combating  terrorism, DOD has initiated efforts to develop strategic plans that  incorporate performance measures for combating terrorism. In response  to our previous recommendation that DOD develop a framework for the  antiterrorism program that would provide the department with a vehicle to  guide resource allocations and measure the results of improvement  efforts, DOD developed an Antiterrorism Strategic Plan. This  preliminary framework includes, among other things, a collective effort to  defend against, respond to, and mitigate terrorist attacks aimed at DOD  personnel. According to DOD officials, the strategic goals established in  DOD’s Antiterrorism Strategic Plan directly align with OMB’s definitions of  homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. One of DOD’s  strategic goals is to conduct effective antiterrorism training and execute  realistic antiterrorism exercises. DOD officials reported that they intend to  collect antiterrorism performance data from all DOD components and plan  to issue the first performance report on antiterrorism in the second  quarter of fiscal year 2006. While we have not yet fully evaluated the  effectiveness of this framework or plan, such efforts represent important  steps taken by an agency to develop performance measures and,  consequently, a results-oriented management framework specifically  related to combating terrorism activities.
Currently, because governmentwide performance measures have not been  developed, the executive branch does not have a means to effectively  measure and link resources expended and performance achieved related  to combating terrorism efforts on a governmentwide basis. Without a clear  understanding of this linkage, the executive branch and Congress may be  missing opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency to ensure the  best use of taxpayer funds. Therefore, we continue to believe that our  prior recommendations on this issue from our 2002 report are important  and should be implemented.
In our 2002 report, we also made recommendations to OMB concerning an  analysis of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities  and the timely reporting of information to support congressional budget  deliberations. Our November 2002 report was issued concurrently with the  enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which repealed OMB’s  prior reporting requirements, including the duplication analysis, and  accelerated the timeline for OMB to report funding data on homeland  security activities. The status of these recommendations is discussed  further in appendix VII.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the recent emphasis on and significance of combating terrorism,  Congress should have the best available funding information to assist in its  oversight role. Since the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002,  OMB has not been required to report on overseas combating terrorism  data. Moreover, OMB staff said that funding data for overseas combating  terrorism activities do not receive the same level of scrutiny as funding  data for homeland security activities. Thus, the quality of the overseas  combating terrorism data may degrade over time. Reporting such data  along with homeland security funding would greatly improve the  transparency of funding attributed to combating terrorism activities across  the federal government. Although OMB’s analysis of homeland security  funding in the Analytical Perspectives of the President’s budget satisfies  the current legal requirements under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, it  does not provide a complete accounting of all funds allocated to  combating terrorism activities.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: If Congress is interested in receiving data on overseas combating terrorism  funding as well as data on homeland security funding, then Congress  should consider requiring OMB to report on overseas combating terrorism  funding data in the Analytical Perspectives of the President's budget along  with homeland security funding.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB, USDA, DOD, DOE, DHS, DOJ,  USACE, GSA, and the National Security Council for review and comment.   OMB provided formal written comments on December 21, 2005, which are  presented in appendix VIII. OMB said it appreciates the in-depth analyses  in the report and the detailed review of the government’s homeland  security spending levels, but objected to GAO including information on  overseas combating terrorism funding data. OMB questioned the reliability  of this information because it has not reviewed agency submissions of  overseas combating terrorism data since fiscal year 2003. We believe the  overseas combating terrorism data are sufficient for the purposes of this  report and therefore have included them in appendix I. As discussed in  this report, agencies in our review that provide information on combating  terrorism activities—including those with overseas combating terrorism  responsibilities—use OMB criteria and their own internal monitoring and  review processes to categorize funding by activities. These agencies  reported that they have designed controls over the estimation process to  help ensure the reliability of the data. However, we agree that OMB’s  review would provide an additional level of assurance, which is why we  have made this a matter for congressional consideration.
In addition to OMB’s comments, GSA provided formal written comments  on a draft of this report on December 2, 2005, which are presented in  appendix IX. In commenting on the draft report, GSA noted that it  concurred with the contents of the report that discussed GSA. USDA,  DOD, DOE, and USACE had no comments on the report. OMB, DHS, and  DOJ provided technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated as  appropriate. The National Security Council did not provide comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the Senate Committee on  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Senate Committee on the  Judiciary, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland  Security; the House Committee on Government Reform; the House  Committee on the Judiciary; the Director of the Office of Management and  Budget; the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers; the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture; the  Secretary of the Department of Defense; the Secretary of the Department  of Energy; the Attorney General; the Administrator of the General Services  Administration; the Secretary of Homeland Security; and other interested  parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
In addition, the report will be available on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this   report, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or by e-mail at  jonespl@gao.gov. GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in  appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Patterns and Trends in Funding for Homeland Security and Overseas Combating Terrorism Activities
paragraphs: In this report, we use fiscal year 2002 as the base year for analyzing trends  in funding for combating terrorism for a number of reasons. Although  fiscal year 2001 may seem like the logical starting point, fiscal year 2002  was the first full year in which decision making was informed by the  terrorist attacks in the United States. Moreover, to make information  comparable for the President’s fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB) restructured fiscal years 2002 and 2003  budget data to reflect changes that occurred with the creation of the  Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. This made fiscal year  2002 the earliest year that OMB’s MAX database captured funding for  combating terrorism that is, for the most part, in the current agency,  bureau, and account structure. In addition, OMB for the first time  required agencies to identify funding for homeland security and overseas  combating terrorism separately from other funding in an account. Finally,  fiscal year 2002 marked the earliest year in which OMB presented  information organized according to the National Strategy for Homeland  Security’s six critical mission areas in its Annual Report to Congress on  Combating Terrorism (September 2003).
The information for homeland security and overseas combating terrorism  (OCT) is shown separately in the following tables. Tables 1 to 3 provide  information on homeland security at progressively finer levels of detail.  However, none of these tables, or tables 4 and 5 include funding in fiscal  years 2004 and 2005 for DHS’ Project BioShield. OMB asserts that  including this information can distort year-over-year comparisons. The  Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004 provided $5.6 billion for  this project to develop and procure tools to address public health  consequences of terrorism. Pursuant to that act, specific amounts became  available in fiscal year 2004 ($0.9 billion) and in fiscal year 2005   ($2.5 billion). Tables 4 and 5 display how OMB and agencies characterize  funding according to the six critical mission areas for homeland security.
Unlike the appropriations account structure, which is based in law,  mission area categories and activities can be modified to meet changing  needs. OMB has stated that “the Administration may refine definitions or  mission area estimates over time based on additional analysis or changes  in the way specific activities are characterized, aggregated, or  disaggregated.” Tables 6 and 7 provide unpublished OMB data on OCT.  According to OMB officials, they continue to collect these data from  agencies, but do not review agency information since OMB is no longer  required to report on overseas combating terrorism funding or activities.
All comparisons or trends are for fiscal years 2002 through 2005. We have  included the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request because it  contained the latest data available at the time of this review.
subsections: section_title: Homeland Security
paragraphs: Homeland security activities are funded in over 200 appropriations  accounts in 32 agencies, and the District of Columbia. As shown in table 1,  the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense (DOD), Health and  Human Services (HHS), Justice (DOJ), and Energy (DOE) account for over  90 percent of governmentwide homeland security funding annually since  fiscal year 2003.
As shown in table 2, DHS has received the largest share of funding for  homeland security activities. The department’s average annual funding has  been $22.1 billion, or about 54 percent of the total amount available  annually from fiscal years 2002 through 2005. For fiscal year 2006, the  President proposed $27.3 billion for DHS’s homeland security activities, or  55 percent of total spending.
DOD also received a large share of homeland security funding averaging  18 percent annually over the same period, with $9.5 billion requested for  fiscal year 2006. Most of DOD’s homeland security funding is for functions  related to security at military installations domestically and for research  and development of antiterrorism technologies. Homeland security-related  funding for DOD is increasing at an annual rate of about 18 percent, over   5 percent more than the rate of increase for DHS.
HHS has had the largest percentage increase since fiscal year 2002, with an  average annual rate of about 30 percent. Funding has been provided  primarily to improve local response to catastrophic events and for  research at the National Institutes of Health to find new ways to detect  and combat biological agents.
Table 3 provides homeland security data by agency, bureau, and account.
section_title: Trends in the Six Critical Mission Areas of Homeland Security
paragraphs: OMB first started reporting information by the six critical mission areas in  its 2003 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism. See appendix I for  definitions of each of the critical mission areas laid out in the National  Strategy for Homeland Security. As shown in table 4, the distribution of  funding across the six critical mission areas has been fairly consistent  during this period.
Table 5 shows which agencies are responsible for activities covered under  the six mission areas. According to OMB data, the greatest share of  funding between fiscal years 2002 and 2005 has been associated with  border and transportation security, followed by funding for protecting  critical infrastructure and key assets. According to OMB data shown in  table 4, border and transportation security activities’—almost all of which  are located in DHS—received between 38 and 41 percent annually of total  funding. In fiscal year 2006, the President proposed funding totaling $19.3  billion for these activities, of which $18.2 billion is for activities in DHS.  Nearly a third of all homeland security spending for this period has been  labeled as protecting critical infrastructure and key assets. For fiscal years  2002 through 2005, DOD generally has received 50 percent or more  annually for activities in this critical mission area. DHS and HHS activities  are the primary recipients of funding for activities associated with  emergency preparedness and response.
section_title: Overseas Combating Terrorism
paragraphs: Prior to the September 11 attacks, OMB’s annual report to Congress on  combating terrorism made no distinction between domestic and overseas  combating terrorism. With the development of policies and definitions to  support the newer concept of homeland security and the creation of the  Department of Homeland Security, “overseas combating terrorism”  became the term used to describe those activities associated primarily  with securing U.S. embassies and military facilities overseas and some  intelligence efforts. Tables 6 and 7 show funding for overseas combating  terrorism activities. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, these amounts reflect  estimates of gross budget authority that agencies attributed to overseas  combating terrorism activities and reported to OMB. OMB then reviewed  and validated these amounts—along with funding associated with  homeland security activities—and published them in its annual report on  combating terrorism. However, the Homeland Security Act of 2002  required that only funding related to homeland security activities be  reported. Thus, while OMB continues to collect information on funding  associated with overseas combating terrorism activities, it reported that  the overseas combating terrorism data for fiscal years 2004 through 2006  have not been reviewed or validated. As a result, the overseas combating  terrorism data for fiscal years 2004–2006 did not receive the same level of  scrutiny as the homeland security data. Nevertheless, on the basis of  funding data agencies attributed to overseas combating terrorism, most of  that funding was provided to DOD.
As shown in table 7, funding for the Administration’s oversight of the  nation’s intelligence programs grew at an average annual rate of   68 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005, according to agency data as  reported in OMB’s MAX database. The second fastest growing category  was for international assistance programs, with an average annual growth  rate of 40 percent for the period under review. The latter primarily  supports foreign governments’ efforts to combat terrorism and increase  law enforcement capability. In contrast to the DOD funding increase for  homeland security activities shown in table 1, DOD’s funding for activities  defined as overseas combating terrorism has declined an average of   7 percent between fiscal years 2002 and 2005.
section_title: Appendix II: The National Strategy for Homeland Security’s Critical Mission Areas
paragraphs: The National Strategy for Homeland Security sets out a plan to improve  combating terrorism domestically through the cooperation and partnering  of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations on an array of  functions. The strategy organizes these functions into six critical mission  areas:  Intelligence and warning involves the identification, collection, analysis,  and distribution of intelligence information appropriate for preempting or  preventing a terrorist attack.
Border and transportation security emphasizes the efficient and reliable  flow of people, goods, and material across borders while deterring  terrorist activity.
Domestic counterterrorism focuses on law enforcement efforts to  identify, halt, prevent, and prosecute terrorists in the United States.
Protecting critical infrastructure and key assets stresses securing the  nation’s interconnecting sectors and important facilities, sites, and  structures.
Defending against catastrophic threats emphasizes the detection,  deterrence, and mitigation of terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction.
Emergency preparedness and response highlights damage minimization  and recovery from terrorist attacks.
section_title: Appendix III: Reporting Changes as a Result of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Challenges OMB Reports Continuing to Face
paragraphs: As part of our work, we examined the statutory changes in requirements  for reporting combating terrorism activities that occurred as the result of  the passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This appendix provides  additional background on the act, as well as the challenges OMB continues  to face in tracking combating terrorism activities and ensuring the  transparency of related funding data.
Enacted on November 25, 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002  established the Department of Homeland Security and, among other  things, changed OMB’s requirements for reporting funding data related to  combating terrorism. Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002  repealed the NDAA reporting requirements in favor of new reporting  requirements. In particular, section 889 required the President’s budget to  include an analysis of “homeland security funding,” which it defined by  reference to OMB’s 2002 report as activities to detect, deter, protect  against, and if needed, respond to terrorist attacks occurring within the  United States. OMB's definition of homeland security activities included  activities that the agency had not previously treated as combating  terrorism. Under section 889, OMB is required to report only on funding  for homeland security by agency, budget function (i.e., functions that  cover 17 areas of the government such as agriculture and health), and  initiative areas. OMB staff said that although they do not report on  funding related to overseas combating terrorism data, they still collect it as  part of the annual budget. Because there is no longer a requirement to  report on overseas combating terrorism funding data, OMB staff said that  they are not reviewing the information that agencies provide to them. In  addition, the definition of overseas combating terrorism activities in OMB  Circular No. A-11 has not changed since 2003. As a result, OMB staff said  that data on overseas combating terrorism funding data are not necessarily  valid and could be misleading.
In response to section 889’s changes, OMB began showing homeland  security funding data by agency, by budget function, by account, and by  each of the six critical mission areas established in the National Strategy  for Homeland Security in the Analytical Perspectives of the President’s  fiscal year 2005 budget. OMB also included narrative descriptions of major  activities and the administration’s priorities in this section of the  Analytical Perspectives. To present funding data for homeland security  activities by critical mission area, OMB included a table for each critical  mission area displaying budget authority for 3 fiscal years (prior year,  current year, and budget year request).
Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act also required OMB to include  the most recent risk assessment and summary of homeland security needs  in each initiative area in the President’s annual budget. OMB’s prior  reporting requirements required that OMB report on the amounts  expended by executive agencies on combating terrorism activities, as well  as the specific programs and activities for which funds were expended,  while section 889 explicitly mandates a risk assessment and summary of  resource needs in each initiative area. According to OMB staff, OMB does  not have the expertise or the staff to conduct separate risk assessments,  and it relies on the risk assessments of each individual agency to  determine areas of high risk in order to meet this requirement.
In addition, section 889 required that OMB include in the President’s  annual budget an estimate of the user fees collected by the federal  government to help offset expenses related to homeland security  activities, such as the Transportation Security Administration’s passenger  security fees, which are added to airline passengers’ ticket costs. To meet  this requirement, OMB included a table for users’ fees by major cabinet- level department displaying the related budget authority in the Analytical  Perspectives that accompanied the President’s fiscal years 2005 and 2006  budgets.
Finally, section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 accelerated the  timeline for reporting funding data by requiring OMB to report funding  data in the President’s budget, which must be submitted to Congress by  the first Monday in February. Under its previous reporting requirement,  OMB was required to issue a separate stand-alone report on combating  terrorism to Congress by March 1 of each year. OMB complied with the  new timeline for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 President’s budget.
Despite these changes, OMB staff report still facing challenges in tracking  activities related to combating terrorism funding data and ensuring the  transparency of related funding data. OMB staff said that the creation of  DHS helped minimize the difficulties they face in ensuring the  transparency of related funding data and tracking activities related to  combating terrorism, since the creation of DHS resulted in approximately  60 percent of homeland security funding being merged into funding for  one agency at the time DHS became operational. Although OMB is no  longer required to report on funding data related to overseas combating  terrorism activities, OMB staff said that many of the difficulties cited in  our 2002 report still apply and that they will most likely always face these  challenges. For example, OMB staff reported that they are still challenged  by the large number of agencies involved in combating terrorism activities.  To obtain information needed to fulfill its reporting requirements related  to funding data, OMB has to interact with 32 other agencies and the  District of Columbia that have responsibilities to combat terrorism in  addition to DHS. OMB staff also said that it will always require significant  effort to identify funding for combating terrorism activities, since such  funding is often subsumed in budget accounts that provide funding for  other activities. In addition, OMB staff also stated that they were  challenged in tracking funding related to combating terrorism, given the  wide variety of missions represented, including intelligence, law  enforcement, health services, and environmental protection, as well as the  global nature of missions for combating terrorism. However, OMB staff  told us that they have worked diligently to identify homeland security  activities by monitoring agency reviews of homeland security spending  and developing an annual crosscut review, which identifies projects with  common themes across agencies.
section_title: Appendix IV: A Summary of Selected Accounts with Combating Terrorism Activities
paragraphs: Hundreds of budget accounts include activities related to combating  terrorism. The following summarizes 15 of the 34 accounts we reviewed.  The funding levels shown in these accounts represent the portion of the  account that supports combating terrorism efforts by critical mission area  as reflected in OMB’s Homeland Security and Overseas Combating  Terrorism database that supports the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget  request. Our summaries also include descriptions of the combating  terrorism activities within these accounts as well as the agencies’  estimates of budget authority that relate to these combating terrorism  activities. For purposes of this appendix, we selected one account to  display for the Department of Energy, General Services Administration,  and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. We also selected to  display one account for each component office that we contacted at the  Departments of Agriculture, Homeland Security, and Justice—the Animal  and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Agricultural  Research Service (ARS) within the Department of Agriculture (USDA);  Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE), the Information Analysis and Infrastructure  Protection Directorate (IAIP), the Office of State and Local Government  Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP), the Transportation Security  Administration (TSA), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the United  States Secret Service (USSS), and the Science and Technology Directorate  of DHS; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives  (ATF), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of the Department of  Justice.
The activities included in all 34 of the accounts that we reviewed were  consistent with OMB’s definitions of homeland security and overseas  combating terrorism as defined in OMB Circular No. A-11.
Department of Homeland Security: Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection  Critical Mission Area: Intelligence and Warning  Assessment and Evaluation Account (024-90-0911)
The Assessment and Evaluation account provides funding for threat analysis associated with collecting and fusing law  enforcement, intelligence, and other information to evaluate terrorist threats to the homeland.
Infrastructure Vulnerability and Risk Assessment includes efforts to provide analytic tools to promote communication, coordination,  collaboration, and cooperation to analyze intelligence information with the Intelligence Community; law enforcement agencies;  state, local, and tribal authorities; the private sector; and other critical stakeholders regarding existing threats to the homeland.
Homeland Security Operations Center (HSOC) serves as the nation’s center for information sharing and domestic incident  management. The HSOC collects and fuses intelligence information from a variety of sources every day to help deter, detect, and  prevent terrorist acts. Operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, the HSOC is tasked with providing real-time situational awareness  and monitoring of the homeland, and coordinates incidents and response activities.
Analysis and Studies includes efforts by IAIP personnel to develop threat databases, participate in exercises and crisis simulations,  and prepare products on threats. It also includes funding for an independent evaluation of IAIP’s risk assessment methodology.
Threat Determination and Assessment includes efforts by IAIP personnel to develop terrorist threat situational awareness, (i.e., the  analytical capability required to develop and integrate timely, actionable, and valuable information based on analysis of terrorist  threat intelligence information and infrastructure vulnerability assessments).
Biosurveillance includes efforts by IAIP personnel to integrate biosurveillance data from other federal agencies such as the Centers  for Disease Control with threat information. These activities are conducted to help IAIP become better positioned to provide  information to decision makers and others to aid in the response to threats and incidents.
Other Activities include fiscal year 2004 activities that were restructured for the fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budget request. For  instance, in fiscal year 2004, activities to conduct risk assessments were included under the activity, risk assessment division;  whereas, for the fiscal year 2006 budget request, these activities are now included in analysis and studies and threat determination  and assessment as discussed above.   (dollars in millions)
IAIP Assessment and Evaluation (024-90-0911)
The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the account that supports  combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission area Intelligence and Warning.
subsections: section_title: Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security
paragraphs: Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security  Customs and Border Protection, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0530)
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Customs and Border Protection personnel efforts to enforce laws relating  to border security, immigration, customs, and agricultural inspections and regulatory activities related to plant and animal imports;  acquisition, lease, maintenance and operation of aircraft; purchase and lease of police-type vehicles; and contracting with individuals  for personal services abroad.
Enforcement funds activities related to CBP personnel’s efforts to identify, investigate, apprehend, and remove criminal aliens;        maintain and update systems to track criminal and illegal aliens on the border in areas with high apprehensions to deter illegal  entry; repair, maintain, and construct border facilities; and collect fines levied against aliens for failure to depart the United States  after being ordered to do so.
Border Protection funds activities by CBP personnel to enforce various provisions of law that govern entry and presence in the  United States, including detecting and preventing terrorists and terrorists’ weapons from entering the United States, seizing illegal  drugs and other contraband, determining the admissibility of people and goods, apprehending people who attempt to enter the  country illegally, protecting our agricultural interests from harmful pests and diseases, collecting duties and fees, and regulating  and facilitating international trade.
Small Airport Facilities includes the collection of user fees by CBP personnel generated from inspection services that are provided  to participating small airports, including the airports located at Lebanon, New Hampshire, Pontiac/Oakland, Michigan, and other  small airports designated by the Department of Treasury based on the volume or value of business cleared through the airport  from which commercial or private aircraft arrive from a place outside the United States.   (dollars in millions)
CBP Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0530)
The funding levels shown in this account represent the discretionary portion of the account that  supports combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission area Border and Transportation Security.   CBP determined that 67 percent of its discretionary funding relates to combating terrorism efforts.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security: Transportation Security Administration Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0550)
paragraphs: The Discretionary Fee Funded, Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for TSA personnel’s efforts to provide security  services for civil aviation. This account is funded through collections from passenger security and air carrier fees (see descriptions  below). These fees offset TSA’s appropriated funds as the fees are collected, thereby reducing the general fund contribution. TSA  received authority to collect such fees under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act.   Component activities:     Aviation Security includes collections from passenger security and air carrier fees. The passenger fee is added to each airline  passenger’s ticket purchase and the air carrier fee is paid directly by air carriers. TSA receives its full aviation security  appropriation, and these fees offset the appropriated funds as the fees are collected, thereby reducing the general fund contribution  for TSA personnel’s efforts to provide security services for civil aviation such as passenger and baggage screening, and  establishing Federal air marshals on various commercial flights.
Aviation Security Fee Proposal: In the fiscal year 2006 budget request, the President proposed to increase the air passenger  security fee by $3.00, raising the fee on a typical flight to $5.50. For passengers traveling multiple legs on a one-way trip, the  President proposed a maximum fee of $8.00. The budget states that such fee increases will allow TSA to almost fully recover the  costs of federal airport screening operations, a subset of aviation security activities.   (dollars in millions)
The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the account that supports  combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission area Border and Transportation Security.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security: United States Coast Guard Critical Mission Area: Border and Transportation Security Operating Expenses Account (024-60-0610)The Operating Expenses account provides funding for USCG personnel to prevent terrorism by enforcing laws and securing U.S. borders while protecting the public from acts of terrorism. Component activities:
paragraphs: Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security includes efforts by USCG to conduct harbor patrols, vulnerabilities assessments, and  intelligence gathering and analysis to prevent terrorist attacks and minimize the damage from any attacks that could occur. It also  includes USCG’s efforts to escort and conduct security boardings of any vessel that may pose a substantial security risk to U.S.  ports because of the composition of its crew, passengers, or cargo.
Drug Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to interdict illegal drug shipments by apprehending smugglers at sea  attempting to import illegal drugs into the United States and halting the destructive influence of drug consumption by disrupting the  drug supply and preventing potential funding sources for terrorism.
Migrant Interdiction includes efforts by USCG personnel to maintain a presence in migrant departure, and to prohibit or deter  people who attempt to enter the United States illegally via maritime routes.
Defense Readiness includes efforts by USCG personnel to deploy cutters and other boats in and around harbors to protect the  Department of Defense during military operations and meet requirements within the national strategy for homeland security and the  national security strategy.
Other Law Enforcement protects U.S. fishing grounds, and therefore the nation’s economic security, by keeping out those who  mean to do harm and ensuring that foreign fisherman do not illegally harvest U.S. fish stocks.   (dollars in millions)
US Coast Guard Operating Expenses Account (024-60-0610)
Sum includes the USCG’s fiscal year 2004 supplementals for these activities totaling $90.6 million.
section_title: Department of Homeland Security: Border and Transportation Security Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0540) The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel to conduct investigations to ensure enforcement of immigration laws. Component activities:
paragraphs: Investigations: Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel conduct investigations to uncover and eliminate vulnerabilities  that terrorists and other criminals exploit to harm our nation’s citizens, national security, and the economy through an array of  investigative processes in the area of smuggling, finance, and national security. Through these investigations, Immigration and  Customs Enforcement personnel work to identify the people, materials, and funding essential to sustaining terrorist threats and  criminal enterprises, and to disrupt and dismantle those operations.   (dollars in millions)
ICE Salaries and Expenses Account (024-50-0540)
The funding levels shown in this account represent the portion of the account that supports  combating terrorism efforts for the critical mission area Domestic Counterterrorism.
section_title: Department of Justice: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrorism Salaries and Expenses Account (011-14-0700)The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ personnel to deter and investigate violations of laws relating to firearms, explosives, arson, and alcohol and tobacco diversion. Component activities:
paragraphs: Firearms includes efforts by ATF personnel to counter firearms violence, including acts of terrorism, through enforcement of the  federal firearms laws, regulation of the firearms industry, and participation in outreach efforts to leverage partnerships with federal,  state, local, and foreign law enforcement in the fight against terrorism.
Arson and Explosives includes efforts by ATF personnel to enforce federal explosives and arson laws, as well as the regulation of  the explosives industry and training through innovation to protect the public from terrorists’ use of explosives and acts of arson.
Alcohol and Tobacco includes ongoing efforts by ATF personnel to reduce the rising trend of illegal diversion of tobacco products  that may provide financial support to the causes of terrorist groups.
Reduce Violent Crime includes efforts by ATF personnel to deny terrorists access to firearms, explosives, and explosive materials,  such as the participation of ATF agents in various terrorism task forces.
Protect the Public includes efforts by ATF personnel to safeguard the public from arson and explosives incidents.   (dollars in millions)
ATF Salaries and Expenses (011-14-0700)
Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation  Critical Mission Area: Domestic Counterterrrorism  Salaries and Expenses Account (011-10-0200)The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for efforts for FBI personnel to detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes by terrorists  against the United States.
Counterterrorism Field Investigations includes efforts by the FBI to lead investigations in countering the threat of terrorism and    Equipment/Technology includes efforts by FBI personnel to provide engineering services, technical support, and equipment to FBI  field offices; and to conduct research and development to adapt technology for use against criminals and terrorists.
Counterterrorism Headquarters Coordination includes activities by FBI program managers in directing and guiding field  investigators by managing investigations and providing training in the latest terrorism investigation techniques and methods.
Terrorist Screening Center funds multi-agency efforts, including components of the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice,  and State, to maintain a consolidated watch list of known or suspected terrorists.
Miscellaneous Activities include a range of activities such as those provided under the Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG).
CIRG responds to crimes which pose great dangers and require skills that are not routinely available in law enforcement agencies.   For example, CIRG provides trained, experienced negotiators, crisis managers, and tactical and aviation personnel to assist law  enforcement agencies. A portion of these activities are considered related to counterterrorism investigations.   (dollars in millions)
FBI Salaries and Expenses (011-10-0200) $1,738.0 Department of Homeland Security: United States Secret Service  Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets  Operating Expenses Account (024-40-0400)The Operating Expenses account provides funding to support efforts of U.S. Secret Service personnel in providing protective  services and conducting investigations. Protective Services provide for the protection of the President of the United States, immediate  family members, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order of succession to the Office of the President, and  the Vice President-elect and the members of their immediate families, a visiting head of state and accompanying spouse, of a foreign  state or foreign government.  Investigative Services provide for investigation of counterfeiting of currency and securities; forgery and  altering of government checks and bonds; thefts and frauds relating to Treasury electronic funds transfers; financial access device  fraud, telecommunications fraud, computer and telemarketing fraud; fraud relative to federally insured financial institutions; and other  criminal and noncriminal cases.   Component activities:    Domestic Protection of Persons includes activities conducted by Secret Service officials to protect the President of the United  States, the President-elect, the Vice President, or other officer next in order of succession to the Office of the President, and the  Vice President-elect and the members of their immediate families, former Presidents, their spouses and children under the age of  16, visiting heads of foreign states or governments; and major presidential, vice presidential candidates and their spouses. It also  includes efforts conducted by Secret Service officials to plan, coordinate, and implement security operations at National Special  Security Events, such as Republican and Democratic National Conventions.
Financial and Infrastructure Investigations includes activities by Secret Service officials to protect the nation’s financial and  monetary systems, and critical infrastructure that supports those systems, such as the development of tools to combat cyber  terrorism.
Domestic Protection of Government Buildings includes activities conducted by Secret Service officials to protect critical  infrastructure and key assets by providing a security perimeter and building security at the White House/Treasury complex, the  foreign diplomatic community located within the Washington metropolitan area, and at other Secret Service-secured sites.    (dollars in millions)
Operating Expenses Account (024-40-0400)
Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration  Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets  Weapons Activities Account (019-05-0240)
The Weapons Activities account provide for the maintenance and refurbishment of nuclear weapons to sustain confidence in their  safety, reliability, and performance; expansion of scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities to enable certification of the   enduring nuclear weapons stockpile; and manufacture of nuclear weapon components under a comprehensive test ban. The weapons  activities account also provides for continuous maintenance and investment in DOE’s enterprise of nuclear stewardship, including  maintaining the capability to return to the design and production of new weapons and to underground nuclear testing, if so directed by  the President.
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Safeguards and Security ensures the protection of NNSA personnel, nuclear  weapons, information, cyber infrastructure, and other materials at NNSA sites and facilities.
NNSA Secure Transportation Asset provides for the transportation of nuclear weapons, special nuclear material, selected non- nuclear weapons components, limited-life components, and any other DOE materials to and from military locations, between  nuclear weapons complex facilities, and to other government locations within the continental United States.
NNSA Safety and Security Cybersecurity provides a foundation to facilitate detection of intrusions (hackers and other forms of  attacks), and conduct vulnerability assessments and take corrective action at each NNSA site. It also includes actions to implement  the Department of Energy’s and NNSA’s cybersecurity policies and practices, and continuously improve NNSA’s network and  computing systems. The costs of these activities also include personnel time and acquisition and maintenance of cybersecurity  technology (hardware and software) needed to maintain NNSA’s cybersecurity posture while addressing cybersecurity threats.
National Nuclear Security Administration Safeguards and Security-HQ Research and Development aids in the efforts to enhance  (dollars in millions)
National Nuclear Security Administration Weapons Activities (019-05-0240)
Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets  Federal Properties Activities/Fee Funded, Federal Buildings Fund Account (023-05-4542)
The Real Property Activities account provides funding for GSA personnel efforts to implement security measures at federal  buildings.
New Construction includes efforts to implement security enhancements to newly constructed federal buildings such as  implementing a structural design to ensure that support columns are sized, reinforced, and protected so that a terrorist event will  not cause collapse; perimeter protection measures; and window systems design to mitigate the hazardous effects of flying glass  following an explosive event.
Major Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with major repairs and alteration projects (that is, requests for repairs and  alterations greater than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36 million in fiscal year 2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to  implement security measures to modify federal buildings for security enhancements such as installing bollards.
Building Operations includes studies conducted to determine the need for retrofitting federal facilities against threats that will cause  building columns or structures to be critically damaged and collapse.
Minor Repairs and Alterations includes efforts associated with minor repair and alteration projects (that is, those requests costing  less than $2.41 million for fiscal year 2006, $2.36 million in fiscal year 2005, and $2.3 million in fiscal year 2004) to implement  security measures to modify federal buildings for security enhancements such as installing bollards.   (dollars in millions) .
section_title: United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
paragraphs: Critical Mission Area: Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets  Operation and Maintenance Account (202-00-3132)
The Civil Works/Operation and Maintenance account provides funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineer personnel to prepare for  emergencies and secure infrastructure owned and operated by, or on behalf of, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, including  administrative buildings, facilities, and labs.
Continuity of Operations funds USACE preparedness planning, including exercises related to USACE emergency relocation as a  result of either a natural or a man-made disaster.
Critical Project Security provides funds for physical security upgrades such as fences and cameras; guards hired to control  access to critical project assets such as hydropower generators; and protection of administrative facilities and laboratories.   (dollars in millions)
Civil Works/Operation and Maintenance, General (202-00-3132)
Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service  Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Threats  Salaries and Expenses Account (005-18-1400)
The Salaries and Expenses account provides funding for Agricultural Research Service personnel to conduct research that helps  counter agricultural bioterrorism including research that minimizes the risk of agriculture to contamination (chemical, biological, or  genetic), helps ensure the security of the food supply, and allows Agricultural Research Service personnel to provide scientific  knowledge and expertise in agriculture to support a response to a bioterrorism attack.
Research includes research activities conducted by Agricultural Research Service personnel to help protect the nation’s animal and  plant resources by preventing bioterrorism attacks on crops and animal agriculture or providing rapid responses to thwart such  attacks, and developing rapid and accurate techniques to monitor the safety of the food supply.   (dollars in millions)
Agricultural Research Service, Salaries and Expenses (005-18-1400)
Department of Agriculture: The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks  Salaries and Expenses Account (005-32-1600)The Salaries and Expenses account provides funds for APHIS staff to safeguard U.S. plant and animal resources against the  introduction of foreign diseases and pests before they cause significant economic or environmental damage.
Pest Detection/Animal Health Monitoring supports efforts by APHIS staff to track plant and animal disease agents that could be  used in acts of bioterrorism.
Overseas Activities supports efforts by APHIS staff to collect information on and track foreign pests and animal diseases.   (dollars in millions)
Department of Homeland Security: Science and Technology  Critical Mission Area: Defending against Catastrophic Attacks  Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions Account (024-80-0800)The Research, Development, Operations, and Acquisitions account provides funds for Science and Technology personnel to  conduct and stimulate research, development, test, evaluation, and the timely transition of domestic combating terrorism capabilities  to federal, state, and local agencies.   Component activities:  Biological Countermeasures includes research activities on early biowarning systems and their future implementation, as well as  analysis and countermeasures of biological threats.
Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures includes activities associated with radiological detection research and  implementation, analysis, and countermeasures of nuclear and radiological threats, and the development of systems that will help  to coordinate consequence management and recovery.
Research and Development Support to Department of Homeland Security Agencies includes coordination and collaboration  research and development activities with the other components of the department to assist and enhance their technical  capabilities.
Man-Portable Air Defense Systems Countermeasures Special Program includes activities associated with the development of  countermeasures to mitigate threats posed by shoulder-fired missiles directed toward commercial aircraft.
Chemical Countermeasures includes a range of activities to address chemical defense, such as studies to prioritize efforts for  mitigating threats among chemical threats and targets, and the development of new chemical detection and forensic  technologies.
Miscellaneous Activities includes a range of activities such as enhancing explosive detection equipment for aviation security,  providing funding to the academic community to provide support for qualified students and faculty to conduct research and  development, and supporting studies and analysis to be conducted by the Homeland Security Institute.   (dollars in millions)
Science and Technology Research, Development, Operations, and  Acquisitions Account (024-80-0800)
Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness  Critical Mission Area: Emergency Preparedness and Response  State and Local Programs Account (024-10-0560)The State and Local Programs account provides funding for grants, training, exercises, and technical assistance to enhance the  terrorism preparedness of first responders, including police, fire, rescue, and emergency response.   Component activities:  State Homeland Security Grants provide funding to support grants to states for domestic combating terrorism activities such as  training, exercises, support costs, and Citizen Corps. Citizen Corps was created to help coordinate volunteer activities that will  make our communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to respond to any emergency situation.
High Threat Urban Area Grants provide funding to support grants to states and localities for terrorism preparedness and  infrastructure protection in high threat urban areas.
National Exercise Programs provide funding to support the Top Officials Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise and other  federally administered terrorism exercises.
Center for Domestic Preparedness provides funds to train state and local first responders to operate within a live agent    Miscellaneous Activities includes funding for a range of activities such as the storage of emergency equipment located at certain  National Guard facilities and for emergency preparedness training through the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium  (terrorism preparedness training centers).   (dollars in millions)
State and Local Programs Account (024-10-0560)
section_title: Appendix V: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify the methods agencies use to determine the portion of their  annual appropriation that relates to combating terrorism, we met with  OMB officials to review OMB’s efforts to define, categorize, and track  homeland security and overseas combating terrorism funding both prior to  and after the enactment of the Homeland Security Act. In addition, we met  with 7 agencies, including 12 directorates, offices, or bureaus at those  agencies that reported receiving funding for combating terrorism  activities. The seven agencies we contacted are the Department of  Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the United States Army  Corps of Engineers, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy,  the General Services Administration, and the United Stated Department of  Agriculture.
To reflect a range of funding levels, we selected these agencies from 33  agencies and the District of Columbia that reported receiving funding  related to combating terrorism activities to OMB. We selected DHS and  DOD because they account for 73 percent of the gross budget authority  enacted for homeland security activities for fiscal year 2005, and DOD and  DOE because they account for 69 percent of the gross budget authority  enacted for overseas combating terrorism activities for fiscal year 2005.  We also selected four agencies: two agencies from a list of those with the  most fiscal year 2005 budget dollars related to combating terrorism  activities—USDA and DOJ—and two agencies from a list of those with the  least enacted budget authority related to combating terrorism activities— GSA and USACE—to ensure we included agencies in our review that had a  range of combating terrorism funding. Because the selection we used was  a nonprobability sample, the information we obtained from these 7  agencies is not generalizable to all agencies with similar funding for  combating terrorism activities.
We used a random sample number generator to select USDA, DOJ, GSA,  and USACE from the two categories we established, that is, agencies that  were moderately funded and those that were minimally funded. We  excluded DOD, DHS, and DOE when performing the random number  generation, since we had already included them in our selection. (We also  excluded the Postal Service because it did not estimate receiving any  funding to combat terrorism activities in fiscal year 2006 and 10 other  agencies that each received less than 0.1 percent of combating terrorism  dollars—to ensure that our analysis included the more significant of the  minimally funded agencies).
Within the seven agencies, we selected directorates or offices that  received the most funding for combating terrorism activities. These  included the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the  Agricultural Research Service, within USDA; Customs and Border  Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Information  Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, the Office of State and  Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, the Transportation  Security Administration, the United States Coast Guard, the United States  Secret Service, and the Science and Technology Directorate of DHS; the  Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; and the Federal  Bureau of Investigation of DOJ.
We also reviewed the activities contained in 34 budgetary accounts— separate financial reporting units for which all transactions within the  budget are recorded—for these agencies designated as related to  combating terrorism. We selected accounts with the most combating  terrorism funding at each agency as well as some accounts with smaller  amounts to ensure we covered a range of funding. On the basis of our  selection, we reviewed at least 70 percent of each agency’s estimated gross  budget authority related to combating terrorism activities as reported in  the President’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. While we initially selected  an additional 23 budgetary accounts to review at DOD, we did not review  these accounts because DOD does not enter its combating terrorism  activities—specific lines of work—into OMB’s Homeland Security and  Overseas Combating Terrorism database. Although OMB computed the  portion of budget authority DOD receives to combat terrorism and aligned  DOD’s budget authority related to homeland security with the six critical  mission areas, OMB staff said that they did not enter information on  activities conducted by DOD to combat terrorism. Thus, we did not have  any activity level-information to review for DOD for the accounts we  selected.
We interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our  review and OMB to determine how they identified, categorized, and  tracked homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities  and estimated the portion of their budget authority that relates to such  activities. To supplement interviews with agency budget officials, we also  reviewed relevant budget documentation from each agency and asked  agency budget officials to describe procedures the agency had in place to  ensure that their funding levels were developed in accordance with OMB’s  guidelines and definitions.
To identify the status of recommendations from our November 2002  report, we met with OMB and attempted to meet with National Security  Council (NSC) officials to document what actions have been taken to  implement our recommendations and the reasons they did or did not  implement them. Additionally, we reviewed the National Strategy for  Combating Terrorism, the National Strategy for Homeland Security, and  the National Security Strategy of the United States and conducted a  literature search to determine if any updates or supplements had been  written that included governmentwide performance goals and measures.  We also interviewed agency officials at the seven agencies included in our  review and reviewed their performance plans to determine whether these  plans included performance goals and measures that reflected their  combating terrorism activities. To determine the status of  recommendations made in our 2002 report regarding an analysis of  duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in annual  reporting on funding data associated with such activities and to report this  information in a timely manner to support congressional budget decisions,  we met with OMB to determine what actions have been taken to  implement our recommendations and the reasons it did or did not  implement them. We also reviewed the Analytical Perspectives  accompanying the President’s fiscal years 2005 and 2006 budgets to  determine whether or not OMB included funding data information on  combating terrorism and whether this information was issued in a timely  manner.
In addition to pursuing our two main objectives, we also identified funding  patterns and trends for overseas combating terrorism activities and for  homeland security activities between fiscal year 2002 and what is  proposed for fiscal year 2006. We extracted, summarized, and analyzed  combating terrorism data from the database used to prepare the Budget of  the United States for fiscal years 2002 through 2006. To ensure that the  database we received was consistent with published sources, we  conducted electronic data testing and determined that the data was  sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We also analyzed the effects of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 on  reporting requirements for funding data related to combating terrorism  activities since our 2002 report by reviewing the act and comparing it with  prior reporting requirements under the National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 1998 as amended by the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. To supplement this information,  we also reviewed OMB’s 2003 Report to Congress on Combating  Terrorism and the Analytical Perspectives of the President’s budget from  fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
We conducted our work from January 2005 through November 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Appendix VI: Guidance Agencies Most Commonly Report Using to Identify Activities as Combating Terrorism
paragraphs: Officials at five of the seven agencies we contacted—Department of  Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy,  the General Services Administration, and the United Stated Department of  Agriculture—most commonly reported using guidance from OMB, the  Homeland Security Act of 2002, and agency-specific guidance to identify  their combating terrorism activities. Officials at all five of these agencies  said they use OMB Circular No. A-11, which includes definitions for  homeland security and overseas combating terrorism activities, and  instructions for submitting information on funding data related to  homeland security and overseas combating terrorism to OMB. In addition,  officials from four of the seven agencies in our review reported that they  consulted with OMB to determine which of their agency’s activities are  related to combating terrorism.
Three of the seven agencies we contacted—DHS, USDA, and the United  States Army Corps of Engineers—have developed additional guidance,  which provides details specific to each agency to help determine  combating terrorism activities. For example, to supplement OMB Circular  A-11 guidance, DHS established an internal directive, Planning,  Programming, Budgeting and Execution, which helps establish policy,  procedures, and responsibilities relative to the planning, programming,  budgeting, and execution process at DHS. The objective of the directive is  to articulate DHS’s goals, objectives, and priorities while guiding the  development of the department’s budget request and establishing  parameters and guidelines for implementing and executing the current  budget.
Furthermore, officials in four of DHS’s components told us that they refer  to information included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to determine  which of their activities relate to homeland security. For example, section  888 of the Homeland Security Act designated 5 of the U.S. Coast Guard’s  11 missions as homeland security and the remaining 6 as non-homeland  security. Similarly, Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection  (IAIP) officials at DHS stated that they categorized all of their activities as  related to homeland security, since section 201 of the Homeland Security  Act of 2002 only authorized IAIP to conduct activities related to homeland  security.
section_title: Appendix VII: Status of 2002 Recommendations Related to Duplication of Effort and Timely Reporting of Funding Data
paragraphs: This appendix discusses the status of recommendations made in our 2002  report for the Office of Management and Budget to (1) include an analysis  of duplication of effort related to combating terrorism activities in its  annual reporting of funding data associated with such activities and   (2) report this information in a timely manner to support congressional  budget decisions.
To improve the usefulness of OMB’s Annual Report to Congress on  Combating Terrorism, we recommended that OMB include, as required by  the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, an analysis of  areas where overlap in programs could result in unnecessary duplication  of effort. We also recommended that OMB publish the report by the  required annual March 1 deadline to provide information in time for  congressional budget deliberations.
Although OMB has not implemented our recommendation that it include  an analysis of unnecessary duplication of effort in its annual combating  terrorism report, this requirement no longer exists. Our November 2002  report was issued concurrently with the enactment of the Homeland  Security Act of 2002. Section 889 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002  repealed OMB’s prior reporting requirements, including the duplication  analysis.
OMB staff stated that they did not include an analysis of duplication in any  of the agency’s prior reports primarily because they perform an analysis of  homeland security initiatives and related resource needs across all federal  agencies as part of the annual budget preparation process, and that they  take action to address duplication prior to the publication of the  President’s budget. Therefore, OMB staff said that they believe any issue  of duplication is addressed in the President’s budget, specifically through  his recommendations related to funding needs.
Our recommendation that OMB improve the usefulness of its Annual  Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism by publishing the report by  the then-required March 1 annual deadline was also superseded by section  889 of the Homeland Security Act. This section requires that OMB report  on funding data for homeland security activities in the President’s budget.  Because the President must submit his budget by the first Monday in  February, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 accelerated the timeline for  reporting funding data on homeland security activities. OMB complied  with this reporting requirement in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Debra B. Sebastian, Assistant  Director, Grace A. Coleman, Christine F. Davis, Gerard DeBie,   Denise M. Fantone, Michele Fejfar, Jacob Hauskens, Laura R. Helm,   Dawn Locke, Sara R. Margraf, and John W. Mingus, and made key  contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Global War on Terrorism: DOD Should Consider All Funds Requested for  the War when Determining Needs and Covering Expenses, GAO-05-767.  Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2005.
Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Improve the Reliability of Cost  Data and Provide Additional Guidance to Control Costs, GAO-05-882.  Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 2005.
Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance  Information for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington,  D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005.
A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP.  Washington, D.C.: September 2005.
Protection of Chemical and Water Infrastructure: Federal Requirements,  Actions of Selected Facilities, and Remaining Challenges. GAO-05-327.  Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2005.
Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS’s Planning Process  Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability. GAO-05-300. Washington,  D.C.: Mar. 31, 2005.
Homeland Security: Much Is Being Done to Protect Agriculture from a  Terrorist Attack, but Important Challenges Remain. GAO-05-214.  Washington, D.C.: Mar. 8, 2005.
Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and Challenges  Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security. GAO-05-33.  Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005.
Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal  Agencies’ Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices. GAO- 05-49. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004.
Military Operations: Fiscal Year 2004 Costs for the Global War on  Terrorism Will Exceed Supplemental, Requiring DOD to Shift Funds  from Other Uses. GAO-04-915. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2004.
Homeland Security: Transformation Strategy Needed to Address  Challenges Facing the Federal Protective Service. GAO-04-537.  Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2004.
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid  Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-594T. Washington,  D.C.: Mar. 31, 2004.
Coast Guard: Relationship between Resources Used and Results Achieved  Needs to Be Clearer. GAO-04-432. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2004.
Summary Analysis of Federal Commercial Aviation Taxes and Fees.  GAO-04-406R. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2004.
Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in  National Strategies Related to Terrorism. GAO-04-408T. Washington,  D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004.
Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program  Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. GAO-04-174.  Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004  Homeland Security: Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland  Security in Balancing its Border Security and Trade Facilitation  Missions. GAO-03-902T. Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2003.
Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be  Improved. GAO-03-170. Washington, D.C.: Nov. 26, 2002.
Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.   GAO-02-927T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002.
National Preparedness: Integration of Federal, State, Local, and Private  Sector Efforts Is Critical to an Effective National Strategy for Homeland  Security. GAO-02-621T. Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002.
Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National  Preparedness Strategy. GAO-02-549T. Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002.
Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide  Preparedness Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001.
Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach.  GAO-02-150T. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related  Recommendations. GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20. 2001.
Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD Antiterrorism  Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington,  D.C.: Sept. 19, 2001.
IRS Modernization: IRS Should Enhance Its Performance Management  System. GAO-01-234. Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2001.
Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based  Management and Accountability. GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52. Washington,  D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998.
Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging  Management Issues. GAO/AIMD-98-11. Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1997.
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide  Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.:  June 2, 1997.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance  and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.