Following the money on Iraq, homeland security not easy

If there's one thing that Congress takes seriously, it's the power of the purse. But over the past few weeks, it's become more and more clear that the House and Senate are having trouble monitoring funding when it comes to homeland security and the war effort in Iraq.

First, there's the dispute over Iraq. Immediately following Sept. 11, Congress granted the Bush administration a great deal of discretion on how to spend parts of a $40 billion supplemental spending bill for homeland security and to help the victims of the terrorist attacks.

Congress did require that the administration submit quarterly reports on how the money was being spent. Late last month, however, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., wrote the Office of Management and Budget stating, that during 2002, "We were provided no consultations by the White House, as required by law, about the use of the $20 billion of funds that were made available to the president for allocation."

Byrd and Obey also said that, based on Bob Woodward's new book, Plan of Attack, the administration used $700 million to prepare military bases in the Persian Gulf for a war with Iraq, without consulting Congress. After the Woodward book was published, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., said the book's claims were so general, it was difficult to respond to them.

Just this week, OMB finally delivered an explanatory letter to appropriators, along with a six- to eight-inch stack of supplemental notebooks, a Democratic House Appropriations Committee aide said. He added that the appropriations staff had not yet had time to sift through the material.

But the administration's belated response could still have implications, as the appropriations season drags on. The aide said he expects the lack of information to "at least be discussed" as Congress writes the fiscal 2005 defense and homeland security funding bills.

A Republican House Appropriations Committee aide went a bit further, predicting that the administration may not be given as much discretion on spending in future supplementals. "You kind of know what you're getting into when you give them flexibility," he said. The aide blamed former OMB Director Mitch Daniels for the lack of response. Daniels, however, resigned nearly a year ago, and this week received the GOP nomination for Indiana governor.

The problem goes beyond administration secrecy, however. A new report by the Congressional Budget Office makes it clear that tracking homeland security money is easier said than done. Funding for homeland security "is split among 200 different appropriation accounts in the federal budget and involves many different functional areas of the government," CBO said. "That accounting arrangement makes it difficult for budget analysts to distinguish and track homeland security spending."

In many agencies, money for homeland security is not separated from accounts with different missions. Complicating matters is the lack of clear definition as to what homeland security really is. "Despite its name," CBO said, "the Department of Homeland Security's activities are not strictly limited to that mission."

Take the Coast Guard, for instance. Homeland security is part of the Coast Guard's mission, so it was included in the new department. But the guard's mission also includes marine safety and navigation support.

Such issues, members of Congress and their aides say, creates problems for anyone trying to monitor the huge sums of money devoted to the war on terrorism and homeland safety since Sept. 11.