Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein - On the GAO Report Regarding Terrorism Funding

Statement by Senator Dianne Feinstein
- On the GAO Report Regarding Terrorism Funding -
November 27, 2002
printer version

Washington DC - The Government Accounting Office (GAO) released a report yesterday concluding that Congress needs better information on funds used for combating terrorism, and that much more should be done to ensure that these funds are not wasted. The report states that "Congressional decision makers require government-wide information on funding for combating terrorism.. in a timely fashion," but "[c]ross-cutting funding data do not adequately support congressional oversight," and the Office of Management and Budget's "annual reports to Congress on combating terrorism ...[are] not as useful a tool as [they] might be..."

The report was in response to a request made by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information; Bob Graham (D-FL) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee; and Congressmen F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.

Senator Feinstein's statement follows, as well as a brief summary of the GAO report.

"In July 2001, several of my colleagues and I asked the GAO and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to conduct the first-ever comprehensive review of the federal terrorism budget, because we were unable to get an answer to a simple question: 'How much money is the U.S. government spending on combating terrorism?'

Unfortunately, the answer given in both reports seems to be, 'We don't really know.' The one clear conclusion to draw here is that the government as a whole, and the intelligence community in particular, has inadequate mechanisms for gathering and assessing the necessary budget data. That is not acceptable.

Anticipating these results, I supported legislation that would require that portion of the National Foreign Intelligence Program budget used to combat terrorism be broken out in a separate line in the budget. This legislation has been passed by Congress and will soon be signed into law by the President.

This is necessary, but not enough. Early in the next Congress, I intend to explore possible legislation to ensure that the OMB and the new Department of Homeland Security provide complete, accurate, and timely information to Congress, so that we can exercise our constitutional power of the purse in a responsible and effective manner. Such legislation would also improve America's overall ability in combating terrorism - which is, after all, the point of spending the money in the first place."

The full GAO report is available at www.gao.gov. However, the following is a summary of the report's major findings:

The only readily available government-wide analysis of the terrorism budget is an OMB report that is required to be submitted to Congress each year. OMB has repeatedly submitted this report well after the statutory deadline and failed to fulfil other statutory requirements as well. For example, the report is supposed to discuss overlap and duplication in terrorism programs and activities. However, the OMB report has never done this, except in the most cursory fashion.

To be useful, the OMB report should also identify obligations for relevant programs and activities. Such identification is needed to determine how much funding from prior years is available to offset new requests; whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated; and what the size of the program is for that year and over time. However, the OMB report has never done this.

The OMB report also does not use a common structure to categorize combating terrorism activities. It should use categories linked to appropriations accounts - the level that funds are appropriated - so that Congress can properly compare appropriations to agency funding requests and spending. OMB has agreed to do this for the first time for the next fiscal year.

The National Strategy for Homeland Security was an important first step but did little to clarify the terrorism budget and ensure appropriate fiscal accountability and transparency. That strategy should have clear performance goals and measures by which progress can be evaluated and future resources allocated. Congress needs to be able to see whether funding increases have been allocated to highest-priority programs or whether we are throwing money away at extraneous programs and activities.

The GAO report was coupled with a classified report prepared by the audit staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.