Order Code RL31406
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
May 10, 2002
Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Supplemental Appropriation for FY2002: Combating
Terrorism and Other Issues
Summary
On March 21, 2002, President Bush requested $27.1 billion in emergency
supplemental funding to continue the war on terrorism and provide additional
assistance for New York City, and aviation security as well as other homeland
security needs. If enacted, this second emergency supplemental would bring total
emergency funding dedicated to combating terrorism since the September 11, 2001
to $67.1 billion.
Although there is broad congressional support for the new supplemental, several
areas may be debated as Congress considers the Administration’s request, including
the distribution of funding between Defense Department needs and those of other
agencies, the amount of funding needed for new aviation security enhancements
enacted after the attacks, the adequacy of aid for New York City, and Administration
proposals to increase funding for “front-line” foreign nations working with the U.S.
to combat terrorism, as well as a proposed new role for the Department of Defense
in allocating assistance to those states.
In the weeks leading up to a May 9 House Appropriations Committee markup,
congressional leaders engaged in negotiations with the White House and among
Members regarding the overall price tag of the bill and several controversial
provisions, including finding ways to offset the non-emergency costs of the bill. The
Administration and some Members argue that the measure should not exceed the
total proposed by the President.
The “chairman’s mark,” circulated on May 6 by Committee Chairman Bill
Young, recommended $29.8 billion, about $2.7 billion above the request. Further
negotiations prior to the markup pared the chairman’s mark to $29.1 billion,
including $1 billion for Pell student grants ($276 million less than the request), $15.8
billion for defense ($1.8 billion higher than requested), and $5.8 billion for homeland
security ($522 million above the proposal). During markup on May 9, the
Committee adopted several amendments, including an additional $200 million in
assistance to Israel. The Committee further agreed to drop a provision that would
have raised $150 million in offsets by doubling the tax on airline tickets. The
Committee concluded deliberations on May 9 without completing debate on all
amendments. The size of the bill stands at about $29.4 billion, but is subject to
further change.
Action on the supplemental is preceding movement on the regular FY2003
appropriations bills, and with a shorter congressional session because of this year’s
elections, a sense of urgency about moving the request appears to be developing.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Composition of FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Administration’s request by agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Administration’s request by policy priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Similarities between FY2002 request and ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Differences between FY2002 request and ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Potential Congressional Issues Raised by the President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Congressional Action – Overview Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Administration’s request for the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The cost of the war in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Mobilizing reservists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Increasing munitions stockpiles and unmanned aerial vehicles . . . . . . 12
Command, control, communications, and classified programs . . . . . . 13
Coalition support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Congressional action on the Administration’s defense request . . . . . . 14
Foreign Aid to “Front-Line” States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Congressional action on the Administration’s foreign aid request . . . 20
Aviation Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
New Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cost of enhanced aviation security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Congressional action on the Administration’s aviation request . . . . . 22
Aid to New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
FEMA request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
HUD Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Transportation grant funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Congressional action on the Administration’s New York City
request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix – FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request Organized by
Appropriations Bill and Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

---

List of Tables
Table 1. Allocations of Funds in FY2002 Emergency Supplemental to
Combat Terrorism by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Policy Priorities in the FY2002 supplemental and the Emergency
Terrorism Response Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table 4. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 supplemental with ETR and the
FY2003 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 5. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted & Requested . . . . . . . 17
Table A-1. Summary of All Appropriations Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request by Agency . . . . . . 28

---

Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
Most Recent Developments
On May 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee began, but did not
complete, markup of the President’s $27.1 billion emergency supplemental spending
measure (unnumbered). The supplemental package is sought to fund continuing
costs of the war on terrorism and provide additional resources for homeland security
and economic revitalization activities in response to the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001.
In the weeks leading up to the Committee markup, congressional leaders
engaged in negotiations with the White House and among Members regarding the
overall price tag of the bill and several controversial provisions, including finding
ways to offset the non-emergency costs of the bill. The Administration and some
Members argued that the measure should not exceed the total proposed by the
President. The “chairman’s mark,” circulated on May 6 by Committee Chairman
Bill Young, recommended $29.8 billion, about $2.7 billion above the request.
Further negotiations prior to the markup pared the chairman’s mark to $29.1 billion,
including $1 billion for Pell student grants ($276 million less than the request),
$15.8 billion for defense ($1.8 billion higher than requested), and $5.8 billion for
homeland security ($522 million above the proposal). During markup on May 9, the
Committee adopted several amendments, including an additional $200 million in
assistance to Israel. The Committee further agreed to drop a provision that would
have raised $150 million in offsets by doubling the tax on airline tickets.
When the Committee concluded deliberations on May 9, the price tag of the bill
stood at about $29.4 billion. According to the Committee, markup will resume on
May 14, with House floor debate possible for that week.
Introduction
Submitted on March 21, 2002 as an emergency supplemental request to combat
terrorism, the Administration’s $27.1 billion request is not subject to the budget
ceilings that apply to FY2002. The Administration’s request is split almost evenly
between the Department of Defense (52% or $14 billion) and other agencies (48%
or $13 billion). Like the Emergency Terrorism Response (ETR) supplemental, the
first supplemental to combat terrorism, the FY2002 request would provide additional
funding for the war in Afghanistan, to New York City, and enhancing airport
security. Other policy priorities, such as bioterrorism and investigative activities,

---

CRS-2
receive less emphasis in this request. The Administration also includes new funding
proposals and policy provisions in foreign assistance.
On the defense side, the request includes $14 billion to continue support of the
war in Afghanistan, enhance security at defense installations, increase munition
stockpiles, and upgrade command, control, communications and intelligence. Over
half of the request is related to continued prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. Like
the first supplemental to combat terrorism, the DOD request includes substantial
funding for intelligence and classified programs.
The Administration is requesting general provisions that would grant the
Department of Defense new authorities to select the recipients and administer up to
$580 million in funds that could be used to support foreign governments who play
a significant role in assisting the U.S. in the “global war on terrorism.”1 These
proposed authorities, which would set new precedents, have generated some
controversy on the Hill.
On the non-defense side, the request provides $5.5 billion in additional aid for
New York, whose needs were considered by some Members of Congress to have
been shortchanged in the first emergency supplemental. The $5.5 billion included in
the request is intended to fulfill the President’s March 10, 2002 pledge to the new
Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, to provide New York City with a total of
$21.5 billion to help it recover from the terrorist attacks.2 The New York aid would
be dedicated to additional disaster recovery activities, rebuilding mass transit and
utility infrastructure, and community development block grants. Like last year’s
debate about the first supplemental, the composition of aid to New York – for
example, how much would be dedicated to transit as opposed to other needs – as well
as the total amount needed may resurface as major issues.
Finally, another potential arena for controversy may be the Administration’s
request for $4.4 billion for the newly-established Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to upgrade aviation security where there remains considerable
uncertainty about the extent of the funding needed, as well as the size of the new
federal workforce required to provided the augmented airport security.
1 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March 2002, see pages 18,26, and 28; for web site access, see
[www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf]
2 Raymond Hernandez,”Bush Reassures New Yorkers on aid package,” New York Times,
March 8, 2002.

---

CRS-3
Composition of FY2002 Emergency Supplemental
Request
Of the $27.1 billion request by the Administration, 52% would be provided to
the Department of Defense (DOD) with the remaining $13.1 billion split among non-
defense agencies (see Table 1).
The Administration’s request by agency
As discussed below, the requested funds would not only support the continued
prosecution of the war in Afghanistan and related areas for the remainder of the year,
but also homeland security activities. Such activities include maintaining higher
security levels at stateside bases and combat air patrols on both coasts, and building
up DOD’s stocks of precision guided munitions and enhancing various command,
control, communications and classified programs (see below).
Table 1. Allocations of Funds in FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental to Combat Terrorism by Agency
(in billions of dollars and percentage of total)
Department/
Administration As percent
House
Senate
Enacted
Agency Totals
Request
of total
action
action
Total Supplemental
$27.1
100.0%
-
-
-
Defense subtotal
$14.0
51.7%
-
-
-
Non-defense subtotal
$13.1
48.3%
-
-
-
Transportation
$6.6
24.4%
-
-
-
FEMA
$3.1
11.4%
-
-
-
State
$1.0
3.7%
-
-
-
Labor
$0.8
3.0%
-
-
-
HUD
$0.8
3.0%
-
-
-
USAID
$0.6
2.2%
-
-
-
Treasury
$0.1
0.4%
-
-
-
Justice
$0.1
0.4%
-
-
-
GSA
$0.1
0.4%
-
-
-
Other non-defense
$0.1
0.4%
-
-
-
Sources: Letter of President George Bush to Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, transmitting
t h e F Y 2 0 0 2 E m e r g e n c y S u p p l e m e n t a l r e q u e s t , M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 2 ;
[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/amkndsup.html], and CRS calculations. Totals may not
add due to rounding.

---

CRS-4
For non-defense agencies, the Transportation Department would receive $6.6
billion, a quarter of the total request to pay for new explosive detection equipment
and civilian guards at airports and to rebuild public mass transportation in New York
City.3 Funding requests for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also part of the
aid for New York City. The Labor Department’s request is for aid for dislocated
workers. The Administration’s request also includes $1.6 billion for the State
Department and USAID for various foreign assistance initiatives, focused primarily
on those countries deemed to be “front-line” states in the war against terrorism.
The Administration’s request by policy priorities
Funding proposed in the FY2002 supplemental can be grouped into several
major categories for purposes of identifying and understanding significant policy
priorities and how these priorities continue or depart from resource allocations
enacted last year in the FY2001 Emergency Terrorism Response (ETR)
supplemental. Major policy priorities are defined the textbox below, while Table 2
shows the amounts requested for each policy area in the Administration’s request and
compares them with the ETR supplemental.
Similarities between FY2002 request and ETR. Both emergency
supplementals emphasize defense and recovery needs, with physical security of
infrastructure and aviation close behind. Although DOD would receive substantial
funding in both the Emergency Terrorism Response (ETR) supplemental of 2001and
the new supplemental, DOD’s share in the FY2002 request is almost 10 percentage
points more than in the enacted level of the FY2001 supplemental. (Congress
decreased the Administration’s request for DOD in the FY2001 supplemental from
53% to 43% of the total, partly in anticipation of a second supplemental for
additional costs of the war.)4 The purposes for the DOD funding are also similar –
prosecuting the war, enhancing security at military bases, and investing more in
surveillance and reconnaissance, also referred to as command, control, and
communication programs.
Both supplementals also target substantial resources for the recovery needs of
New York City. The second supplemental places greater emphasis on aviation
security, reflecting the cost of carrying out new security standards enacted after the
attacks.
Differences between FY2002 request and ETR. Because much of the
funding was provided in the wake of the attacks, the second supplemental includes
less monies than in the first supplemental for victim relief and for investigation and
law enforcement efforts to unravel terrorist networks. The second supplemental also
includes somewhat more for foreign aid, but would distribute it in much larger
proportions for security assistance rather than for humanitarian relief activities was
3 FEMA grants would also help rebuild mass transportation; see below.
4 See CRS Report RL31187, Combating Terrorism: 2001Congressional Debate on
Emergency Supplemental Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels, March 20, 2002,
p. 9 and p. 19.

---

CRS-5
the case in the ETR supplemental. This reflects the Administration’s priority to aid
front-line states, including Pakistan, Jordan, and others who are cooperating with
U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. (see below).
Spending Category Definitions
Defense – paying for military operations in Afghanistan and related areas, activating
reservists for base security as well as wartime responsibilities, enlarging munitions
stockpiles and more reconnaissance and surveillance, repair, and renovation of the
Pentagon, and support for nations working with the U.S. to combat terrorism worldwide.
Bioterrorism – countering potential biological, disease, and chemical threats to civilian
populations.
Humanitarian Assistance - USAID operations in Afghanistan, and food and refugee
relief in Central Asia.
International Security Assistance - Economic Support Fund (ESF) grants and financing
of sales of U.S. military equipment and support of counter narcotics and law enforcement
activities to “front-line” states cooperating with the U.S. in the war on terrorism, and
peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan.
Investigation and Law Enforcement – agency investigative and law enforcement work
and initiatives following the September 11 attacks.
Preparedness – training, technical assistance and other activities aimed at strengthening
the capacity to respond to future terrorist events.
Public Diplomacy – enhanced U.S. broadcasts and media outreach capabilities to the
people in Central and Southwest Asia.
Recovery – debris removal, repair, replacement, or rebuilding of damaged equipment and
infrastructure (including utilities and mass transit),and relocation of dislocated offices
and workers (excluding Pentagon repairs).
Security of Infrastructure/Personnel – strengthened security at critical U.S. facilities
worldwide (excluding DOD facilities) and evacuation of overseas personnel.
Security of Aviation Facilities – enhanced security at U.S. airports and on-board aircraft
(excluding DOD funding to station National Guard personnel at airports).
Victim Relief – assistance to individuals, families, and businesses directly and indirectly
affected by the September 11 attacks.

---

CRS-6
Table 2. Policy Priorities in the FY2002 supplemental and the
Emergency Terrorism Response Act
(percent of total)
FY2002
Emergency Terrorism
Policy Priority
Supplemental
Response supplemental
Bioterrorism
0.3%
7.5%
Defense
51.8%
42.8%
Humanitarian Assistance
0.2%
1.5%
International Security Assistance
4.5%
2.4%
Investigation and law enforcement
0.2%
6.4%
Preparedness
1.4%
1.0%
Public Diplomacy
0.1%
0.2%
Recovery from attacks
20.2%
17.7%
Security
18.4%
11.7%
Victim relief
2.8%
8.8%
TOTAL
100.0%
100.0%
Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities
(in millions of dollars and percentage of total)
Department/
Admin.
As % of
House
Senate Enacted
Agency Totals
Request
total
action
action
GRAND TOTAL
$27,098.9 100.0%
-
-
-
Bioterrorism
$87.1
0.3%
-
-
-
Defense
$14,046.1
51.8%
-
-
-
Humanitarian aid
$62.0
0.2%
-
-
-
International Security Asst
$1,220.5
4.5%
-
-
-
Investigation/law enforcement
$54.4
0.2%
-
-
-
Preparedness
$379.3
1.4%
-
-
-
Public Diplomacy
$24.9
0.1%
-
-
-
Recovery
$5,479.5
20.2%
-
-
-
Security-Infrastructure & Personnel
$597.6
2.2%
-
-
-
Security-Aviation facilities
$4,390.0
16.2%
-
-
-
Victim Relief
$757.5
2.8%
-
-
-
Notes: For definition of policy priorities, see box above.
Sources: Letter of President George Bush to Speaker of the House, the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,
transmitting the FY2002 Emergency Supplemental request, March 21, 2002. See also
[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/us budget/fy2003/amndsup.html]. Calculations are by CRS. Totals may not
add due to rounding.

---

CRS-7
Potential Congressional Issues Raised by the
President’s Request
A variety of issues about both the amounts and the composition of the
President’s request for emergency supplemental spending of $27.1 billion, as well as
the policy implications raised by several general provisions that are included in the
request may arise during congressional debate. Although there is generally broad
support for defense requests, particularly now, last year Congress significantly
adjusted both the total amount as well as the types of spending requested by the
Administration in the first supplemental’s defense request.5
Several Members have or are considering offering amendments to add funding
in several areas, either at the Committee markup or during floor debate. Attaching
an increase in the debt ceiling desired by the Administration is another consideration
some may offer.6 At the same time, the Administration, as well as some Members
of the Congress, have raised concerns about increases above the total requested.7 At
the same time, the Administration has proposed a variety of offsets to the
appropriators – press reports mention a $5.2 billion package – but those offsets have
not been endorsed by the House Appropriations Committee.8
Congressional Action – Overview Summary
On May 9, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee began, but did not
complete, markup of the President’s $27.1 billion emergency supplemental spending
measure. The “chairman’s mark,” circulated on May 6 by Committee Chairman Bill
Young, recommended $29.8 billion, about $2.7 billion above the request. Further
negotiations prior to the markup pared the chairman’s mark to $29.1 billion,
including:
! $1 billion for Pell student financial assistance ($276 million less
than the request).
! $15.8 billion for defense ($1.8 billion higher than requested).
! $5.8 billion for homeland security ($522 million above the
proposal), including $4 billion for the new Transportation Security
Administration ($400 million less than requested).
! $1.6 billion for foreign assistance ($250 million more than
proposed), mainly for security aid to the “front-line” states in the war
5 See CRS Report RL31187, Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on
Emergency Supplemental Allocations by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.
6 BNA, Daily Report for Executives, “Supplemental Spending Bill May Include Debt
Ceiling Hike, FY2003 Spending Cap,” May 1, 2002 and “OMB Offset Proposal for
Supplemental Draws Bipartisan Criticism: Timetable Unclear,” April 30, 2002.
7 BNA, Daily Report for Executives, “House Panel Delays Consideration of Supplemental,
Citing Rising Costs,” April 29, 2002.
8 BNA, Daily Report for Executives “OMB Offset Proposal for Supplemental Draws
Bipartisan Criticism,” April 30, 2002.

---

CRS-8
on terrorism, but also including $200 million to combat global
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases.
! $175 million in grants to first responders, as requested, but provided
through the Office of Homeland Security rather than FEMA, as
proposed.
! $650 million for election administration reform.
During markup on May 9, the Committee adopted several amendments,
including an additional $200 million in assistance to Israel. The Committee further
agreed to move the first responders funds from the Office of Homeland Security to
the Justice Department, a change more acceptable to the Administration. The House
panel also dropped a provision that would have doubled the tax on airline tickets,
raising $150 million to offset other costs in the bill but strongly opposed by the
airline industry.
When the Committee concluded deliberations on May 9, the price tag of the bill
stood at about $29.4 billion. According to the Committee, markup will resume on
May 14, when it will consider further amendments.
The sections below discuss the potential issues that may be raised by the major
initiatives included in the Administration’s request.
Administration’s request for the Department of Defense
The Administration has requested $14 billion for the Department of Defense
in the FY2002 emergency supplemental. If enacted, DOD would receive a total of
$31.1 billion in emergency funds from P.L. 107-38 enacted last year and the new
supplemental. This includes not only funding for the war itself but other initiatives
as well. In FY2003, DOD is requesting an additional $20.1 billion to continue the
“global war on terrorism.”
Table 4 below compares the Administration’s request for DOD to the amounts
included in the ETR, the first emergency supplemental, and to funding for the same
purposes in the FY2003 request. This table combines the new functional categories
adopted by the Defense Department in its FY2002 emergency request with those used
in the first emergency supplemental to combat terrorism.9
9 In the ETR, the first emergency supplemental, DOD requested funds using ten functional
categories created for that request. Categories ranged from “Increased Situational
awareness” for intelligence and classified programs, to “Increased worldwide posture, for
funds for the war in Afghanistan and activating reservists; see CRS Report RL31187,
Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental Allocations,
p. 24 - 25. DOD used these same ten categories (plus several new categories) in its FY2003
budget request. However, DOD presents it FY2002 supplemental request in different
functional categories, such as “Military operations,” and “Weapons and munitions.” For
Table 3, CRS developed a crosswalk between the two sets of categories based on the more
detailed description of the programs provided to the Appropriations committees. DOD also
presented its FY2002 request in regular appropriation accounts as required in P.L. 107-117;
those categories are shown in the appendix of this report.

---

CRS-9
Table 4. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 supplemental with ETR
and the FY2003 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2002
ETR
FY2003
Emergency
Category
Supplemental of
Request
Supplemental
2001
Request
Military Operations
$6,715.9
$3,656.0
$10,000.0
Weapons and Munitions/a/
$548.0
$1,831.0
$1,695.9
Mobilization of reservists
$4,103.0
$1,051.0
NS
Command, control,
$1,548.0
$6,525.0
$3,125.8
communications and Intelligence
Coalition support/b/
$420.0
$216.0
NS
Enhanced physical security/c/
NS
$1,613.0
$2,680.2
Initial crisis response/d/
$0.0
$648.0
$0.0
Pentagon repair and renovation
$0.0
$1,470.0
$328.0
Airport security/e/
$0.0
$261.0
$0.0
Support of new Homeland
[75.0]
NA
$341.0
commander/f/
Combat air patrols/d/
$300.0
NS
$1,200.0
Air Force personnel costs/g/
$206.0
NA
NA
Nuclear Posture Review/h/
NA
NA
$685.0
Other/i/
$181.1
$100.0
$0.0
TOTAL
$14,022.0
$17,109.0
$20,055.9
NA = Not applicable; NS = Not specified; [ ] = Included within other category.
Notes:
a. Includes funding to increase the industrial capacity and purchase additional smart munitions to
enlarge DOD stocks, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles used for surveillance.
b. Funding to be distributed to unspecified allies who provide military and logistical support to U.S.
forces in the “global war on terrorism.”
c. Erecting additional barriers and purchasing surveillance and detection equipment to improve
security at U.S. military installations; cost of those activated reservists performing guard duties
at U.S. installations is not specified within “mobilization of reservists.”
d. DOD’s support to FEMA and New York City; combat air patrols, later in military operations.
e. Cost of stationing National Guard at airports, now funded by TSA.
f. New Homeland Commander in Chief (CINC) set up by DOD after the attack; cost of keeping
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.
g. Cost of retaining additional Air Force personnel needed for the war on terrorism.
h. Cost of carrying out DOD’s proposed new nuclear policy to upgrade strategic missiles.
I. Unspecified costs in FY2002 request; funds potential increase in fuel prices in ETR.
Sources:
Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental request to continue the global war on Terrorism,
March 2002; [ www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf]; CRS Report RL31187,
Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental Allocations by Amy
Belasco and Larry Nowels, March 20, 2002; OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003, Appendix, February 2002, p. 277, and CRS calculations.

---

CRS-10
To preserve flexibility to respond to changes in the pace of operations of the war
in Afghanistan and its use of reservists at home, DOD requested that $11.3 billion
of the $14 billion be appropriated to the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF),
a transfer account from which DOD can move monies into and out of other
appropriations accounts as needs arise without returning to Congress for prior
approval. DOD contends that funding flexibility is needed because of the
uncertainties of events in the next several months.
Congress has expressed some concern about use of the DERF, in part because
it makes tracking of emergency funds more difficult since funds lose visibility as they
are combined with those in the regular appropriation accounts, a problem
acknowledged by DOD’s comptroller, Dov Zakheim.10 The remaining $2.7 billion
of DOD’s request would be in regular appropriation accounts where Congress must
be consulted about re-allocations.
The Administration’s proposal includes several general provisions that would
give DOD new authorities to dispense funds to nations who work with the U.S. in the
worldwide war on terrorism. These general provisions have generated concerns in
appropriations hearings on foreign operations (see below).
Using DOD’s illustrative allocations, Table 4 compares the Administration’s
priorities in this second supplemental with its request in the ETR and the FY2003
budget request. The second emergency supplemental places more emphasis on
continuing to carry out the war in Afghanistan and related areas and paying for the
costs of mobilizing reservists, with less emphasis on command, control and
communication and classified programs.
In its regular FY2003 budget proposal, DOD also asks Congress for substantial
flexibility by requesting $20.1 billion in the DERF account. That total includes $10
billion to “fund continued operations for the war on terrorism.”11 The Administration
includes no details about the use of these funds and acknowledges that this figure is
only a rough estimate reflecting the uncertainty about future plans to combat
terrorism in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The remaining $10.1 billion are requested in
the broad functional categories shown below.
The cost of the war in Afghanistan. DOD’s request does not explicitly
provide an estimate of total cost to continue the war in Afghanistan in FY2002.
DOD does, however, estimate that the cost of military deployments will be $10.4
billion, of which $3.7 billion was provided in the first emergency supplemental.
DOD’s request for an additional $6.7 billion reflects its belief that costs in the
remainder of the year are likely to be comparable to those experienced in the first
10 Briefing to congressional staffers on execution in the Defense Emergency Response Fund
and DOD’s FY2002 emergency supplemental request, April 19, 2002.
11 OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, February
2002, p. 277

---

CRS-11
third.12 This approach assumes that despite the defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda
forces, military operations by U.S. forces will continue to require about the same
resources.13 Based on this conservative approach, DOD estimates that wartime
military operations in 2002 will cost about $865 million per month.14
That cost for military deployments includes the resources to deploy and support
units and their equipment, to operate equipment at a higher operating tempo to carry
out wartime operations, to rotate deployed forces between stateside and overseas, to
pay active duty forces at higher levels, and to repair and replace equipment damaged
or destroyed in combat. That cost does not include the those reservists who were
activated for the war or the cost of replacing munitions expended during the war.
According to a recent estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget Office that
uses these categories and relies on actual cost data from operations as well as DOD’s
experience in other operations, the cost of the war in Afghanistan in the second half
of FY2002 will be about $750 million per month, about 75% of CBO’s estimated
cost for the first half of the year. CBO’s lower cost estimate for the second half of the
year reflects the recent withdrawal of naval forces, lower munitions usage, and the
absence of certain one-time costs incurred at the beginning of the conflict.15 If the
number of forces remained the same but the pace of operations slowed, CBO
estimates that the monthly cost of the war would drop to about $600 million per
month.16
The difference between DOD and CBO’s estimates is somewhat greater than
appears from the figures above because CBO’s numbers include the cost of replacing
expended munitions and the cost of activating about 20,000 reservists, and DOD
includes those costs elsewhere. If DOD’s figures are adjusted to be comparable to
those used by CBO, DOD’s estimate of the total cost of the war for the year would
be about $12.6 billion rather than the $10.4 billion assumed by DOD.17
Mobilizing reservists. The second largest piece of DOD’s FY2002
supplemental request is $4.1 billion to pay for the cost of activated reservists for the
last eight months of the year. (DOD’s request assumes that $1 billion was provided
12 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 5; [www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf]
13 Briefing to congressional staffers by OSD/Comptroller staff, April 19, 2002. DOD’s
estimate for deployment costs in its justification materials includes $3.7 billion for the first
four months of 2002 and $6.7 billion for the rest of the year, an average of $865 million per
month for both periods. DOD also used plans for unit deployments to estimate future costs.
14 CRS calculations based on Ibid, DOD’s FY2002 supplemental request; divides total of
$10,388.9 million requested for “deployment costs,” see p. 7.
15 CBO, Letter to Senator Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
United States Senate, April 10, 2002; see [http://www.cbo.gov].
16 Ibid, p. 2-3.
17 Based on DOD cost factors, the cost of replacing expended munitions would be about $80
million per month and the cost of activating 20,000 reservists to support the war would be
about $85 million per month.

---

CRS-12
in the first emergency supplemental.18) That proposal generated concern in Congress
among some Members who believe that this amount may not be adequate to fund the
reservists currently on active duty.19
According to DOD, the $4.1 billion in its request assumes a level of 80,000
reservists for the remainder of the year, a number that is close to the 81,235 reservists
currently on active duty.20 DOD assumes that the number of reservists will fall in the
latter part of the year as the frequency of combat air patrols on the east and west coast
– carried out primarily by Air Force reservists – is reduced and as the services trim
the number of activated reservists who are currently carrying out guard duty at
stateside military installations.
Although DOD has not provided definitive information about the tasks that
reservists are performing, it appears that many of the reservists activated by the
services are being used as guards at U.S. military installations, reflecting the
heightened concerns of the military in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Some have
suggested that the number of guards could be reduced as DOD completes security
enhancements for bases - such as more fences and barriers - for which $1.6 billion
was allocated in the first emergency supplemental. DOD could also reduce the cost
by using civilian rather than military to perform these duties. In fact, DOD has
requested lifting the current statutory provision on contracting out security duty
functions in the 2002 supplemental in order to permit DOD to use private guards who
would be considerably less costly than the $66,000 per person cost of relying on
activated reservists.21
In its regular FY2003 budget, DOD requested an additional $2.6 billion to
improve physical security at military installations but has not specified whether
reservists would continue to be used as guards at military installations (see Table 3
above). If that request is approved, DOD would receive a total of $3.9 billion over
two years for additional physical security at bases.

Increasing munitions stockpiles and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Another major DOD initiative begun in the first emergency supplemental is to
expand current industrial capacity to produce precision-guided or “smart munitions,”
particularly, the weapon of choice in Afghanistan – the Joint Direct Attack Munitions
(JDAM). DOD is requesting $4 billion for weapons and munitions in the ETR, the
FY2002 supplemental and the FY2003 request, including the funding for JDAMs
(see Table 4). This category funds not only smart munitions but also replacement and
an increase in the number of Global Hawk (unmanned air vehicles – UAVs) and
18 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 7.
19 James Dao, “Budget Concerns Are Raised on Continued Use of Guard,” New York Times,
April 26, 2002.
20 Department of Defense press release, “National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of May
1, 2002;” see [www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/d200201ngr.pdf].
21 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 28-29.

---

CRS-13
Predators (armed UAVs) that are being used for surveillance and reconnaissance in
Afghanistan.
Concerned that JDAMs were being consumed faster than they could be replaced,
DOD requested and received funding to increase the current productive capacity of
about 1,500 per month. According to DOD, the additional funding requested in the
FY2002 supplemental “will allow the JDAM production rate to increase in a more
orderly manner,” will achieve the new, higher delivery rate of 2,800 missiles per
month in August 2003 rather than July 2004, and will purchase an additional 17,900
missiles.22
Although some have questioned whether the plan to double productive capacity
this quickly is realistic, apparently the military leadership were convinced by the
manufacturers that a doubling of capacity in about a year is possible. Any expansion
will be dependent on both the level and timing of funding. The high expenditure
rates for JDAMs that were experienced in the early part of the war, which generated
such concern among the military, may also have fallen in more recent months as the
nature of the war has shifted towards surveillance rather than combat.

DOD’s FY2002 request for weapons and munitions also includes replacing one
Global Hawk UAV and two sensor packages, and accelerating the production of
Predator UAVs to two vehicles per month.23 DOD also plans to purchase additional
UAVs with funds provided in the first emergency supplemental, and with funds
requested in the FY2003 budget.24
Command, control, communications, and classified programs. If
the levels requested in the FY2002 supplemental and the FY2003 budget request are
approved, DOD would receive an additional $11.2 billion in command, control,
communications, and classified programs to combat terrorism. (These funds would
be in addition to the $33.6 billion in the 2000 budget before the buildup to combat
terrorism.25) There is little visibility on most of this request because many of the
programs are classified. For example, of the $1.5 billion requested in the FY2002
supplemental, $1.4 billion is for classified programs. Similarly, there is no
unclassified information on the FY2003 request of $3.1 billion, which includes $2.6
billion for classified programs, and $540 million for continuity of operations, that is,
for plans to protect key government personnel and facilities in case of attack.
22 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 20. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman
Corporation, while the Predator is made by General Atomics Corporation.
23 Ibid, p. 10.
24 The table above includes the funding for “Offensive Counter-terrorism” and
“Procurement” in the ETR and the 2003 Defense Emergency Response Fund request as for
weapons and munitions. In FY2003, $800 million for procurement in the DERF funds both
UAVs and KC-130 and KC-135s surveillance aircraft; see OMB, Budget of the United
States, Appendix, FY2003, p. 277.
25 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget
Estimates for 2003, March 2002, p. 80; [www.defenselink.mil/budget].

---

CRS-14
Coalition support. DOD’s FY2002 request also includes up to $550 million
that DOD could distribute to countries who aid the U.S. in the “war on terrorism,”
including $420 million for those countries who provide military and logistical
support, indigenous forces who support the U.S., and other foreign governments who
fight terrorism. These proposed new general provision would represent a new use
of DOD funds, as well as signal a new role for DOD in the distribution of assistance
to foreign governments as discussed below.
Congressional action on the Administration’s defense request. In
preliminary deliberations, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) recommends
$15.778 billion for the Department of Defense, an addition of $1.756 billion. The
committee also provides $378.4 million for Department of Energy defense-related
activities, an increase of $352 million over the request, and $30 million for military
construction, for which no money was requested. As the Administration requested,
HAC provides most of the money for defense in the Defense Emergency Response
Fund (DERF), agreeing that the Pentagon needs flexibility in allocating the funds.
The committee did, however, extend last year’s requirement for quarterly reports on
the allocation of DERF funds and required DOD to track war costs separately as part
of the regular reporting.
The major committee changes to the request include:
! $790 million added for reserve mobilization costs in the DERF.
This has been a controversial matter. On May 7, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee that
DOD had not requested and did not need the additional funds. The
Administration specifically objected to the original draft of the
House Appropriations Committee bill, which would have required
the Administration to release the added money for reserve
mobilization in order to gain access to the other defense money.
That provision was reportedly altered in committee markup by an
amendment offered by Committee Chairman Bill Young.
! $604 million added in the DERF for additional support of service
counter-terrorism operations.
! $117 million for Army overseas operations not provided in the
DERF.
! $36.5 million for F-15 radio upgrades.
! $20 million in research and development for remote chemical-
biological weapons detection.
! $30 million for classified projects.
! $30.5 million for military construction projects.

---

CRS-15
! $135 million for the Department of Energy for security at nuclear
weapons facilities and for weapons and material transportation
security.
! $5 million for the Department of Energy for international non-
proliferation measures, including implementation of the U.S.-North
Korea “Agreed Framework.”
! $67 million for the Department of Energy for security at
environmental cleanup sites.
! $16.6 million for the Department of Energy for security of facilities
closure projects.
Foreign Aid to “Front-Line” States
The Administration seeks $1.28 billion in additional FY2002 Foreign
Operations funding, primarily to increase economic, military, and counter-terrorism
assistance to so-called “front-line” states in the war on terrorism. Although the
complete list remains classified, the United States has placed a growing priority on
increasing assistance to over 20 nations representing not just those bordering
Afghanistan or located in the region, but including countries globally that have
committed to helping the United States in the war on terrorism. Administration
officials have publically identified some of those front-line states for whom
supplemental assistance is sought.26
If enacted, the supplemental would nearly double the level of assistance
allocated in FY2002 for emergency foreign assistance to combat terrorism.
Beginning in October 2001, the President distributed $1.5 billion for Foreign
Operations programs, drawn from the $40 billion emergency terrorism supplemental
approved by Congress shortly after September 11 (P.L. 107-38). The proposed
supplemental also includes several policy changes related to foreign aid activities that
may raise controversy during congressional debate.
Funding Issues. The content of the $1.28 billion foreign aid supplemental
sharply contrasts with the types of assistance previously provided to front-line states
and appears to respond somewhat to critics, including many in Congress, who argued
that the President’s FY2003 Foreign Operations budget did not adequately address
the new terrorism threat. Much of the $1.5 billion emergency aid already distributed
focused on two areas: 1) economic support to Afghanistan and neighboring countries
in anticipation of food shortages, displacement and other social disruptions that
would occur during the military campaign; and 2) efforts to stabilize the security and
economic situation in Pakistan and demonstrate support for President Musharraf. By
contrast, the proposed $1.28 billion supplemental would distribute additional
economic and military assistance among 23 countries in all regions of the world.
26 The Administration has not identified those states that DOD would assist for their help
in the war on terrorism.

---

CRS-16
When the Administration announced its FY2003 budget request in early
February, officials said that amounts for Afghan reconstruction needs beyond 2002
would be added to the request later, though a decision about whether to seek
supplemental foreign aid this year had not been reached. Initial congressional
reaction, however, was critical, with Appropriation Subcommittee chairmen
Representative Kolbe and Senator Leahy, calling the request inadequate in face of the
war on terrorism.27 The budget plan for FY2003 includes large amounts for a few
key front-line states – Jordan, Pakistan, and India. But for many others, aid would
grow only modestly, leading some to characterize the request as a “business-as-
usual” foreign aid budget.
In several respects the $1.28 billion supplemental proposal reflects what many
said should have been incorporated in the FY2003 plan. Although like the FY2003
budget, the request includes significant amounts for Pakistan ($145 million) and
Jordan ($125 million), it distributes considerable amounts of aid to Central Asian
states that would not receive substantial increases in FY2003 and to nations globally.
Key highlights include:
! Afghanistan – $250 million in economic, military, and counter-
narcotics support. This comes on top of $297 million pledged for
reconstruction needs this year.
! Middle East – in addition to Jordan, nearly $80 million (mostly
military aid) for three key regional countries – Bahrain, Oman, and
Yemen – that have provided considerable support to the United
States.
! Philippines – $40 million to help Manilla combat its own terrorist
insurgency in the Mindanao region.
! Africa – $55 million to several key regional states cooperating in the
war on terrorism.
! Central Asia – $135 million for five regional states, exceeding
amounts requested for FY2003 for Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and
Uzbekistan.
! Turkey – $228 million, primarily for economic support.
! Colombia – $35 million, with most focused on anti-kidnaping
training.
27 See statement of Congressman Kolbe during a February 13, 2002, hearing of the House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the FY2003 foreign affairs budget; and a February 26,
2002, press release by Senator Leahy regarding the Senate Foreign Operations
Subcommittee hearing on the FY2003 request for the U.S. Agency for International
Development.

---

CRS-17
Table 5 provides details on country and program distributions in the supplemental
request, and compares that request to enacted aid levels for FY2001 and 2002, and
to requested amounts for FY2003.
Table 5. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted &
Requested
($s – millions)
FY2002
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Country/Program
Supplemental
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Request
South Asia:
Afghanistan
– $297.0
$250.0
TBD
Nepal
$21.3
$30.0
$20.0
$41.2
Pakistan
$3.5
$921.0
$145.0
$305.0
Middle East
Bahrain
$0.2
$0.4
$28.5
$0.5
Jordan
$226.2
$227.0
$125.0
$450.4
Oman
$0.0
$0.3
$25.0
$20.3
Yemen
$4.2
$5.5
$25.0
$12.7
Economic Initiative
–
–
$50.0
–
East Asia
Indonesia
$121.0
$124.7
$16.0
$71.9
Philippines
$50.4
$92.1
$40.0
$93.1
Africa
Cote d’Ivoire
$2.0
Djibouti
$0.2
$0.2
$6.0
$0.2
Ethiopia
$40.6
$46.8
$12.0
$51.1
Kenya
$34.6
$40.7
$22.0
$48.8
Mauritania
$1.0
Nigeria
$2.0
Southern Sudan
$4.5
$11.4
$10.0
$22.3
Europe/Eurasia
Georgia
$97.8
$100.9
$20.0
$95.2
Kazakstan
$48.4
$48.6
$3.5
$47.0
Kyrgyz Republic
$35.2
$37.6
$42.0
$41.1
Tajikistan
$16.7
$19.9
$40.0
$22.5
Turkey
$1.7
$22.7
$228.0
$20.3
Turkmenistan
$7.3
$7.6
$4.0
$8.2
Uzbekistan
$28.4
$95.6
$45.5
$41.5

---

CRS-18
FY2002
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
Country/Program
Supplemental
Enacted
Enacted
Request
Request
Latin America
Colombia
$49.0
$381.7
$35.0
$538.2
Mexico
$31.1
$35.6
$25.0
$43.6
Ecuador
$16.4
$47.5
$3.0
$65.8
Regional Border Control
–
–
$5.0
–
Global
Antiterrorism Training
$38.0
$83.5
$20.0
$64.2
Terrorist Financing
–
–
$10.0
–
Terrorist Interdiction
$4.0
$8.0
$10.0
$5.0
USAID admin/security
–
–
$7.0
–
Defense admin costs
–
–
$2.0
–
TOTAL
$880.7
$2,686.3
$1,279.5
$2,110.1
Source: Department of State.
Policy Issues. The supplemental request includes several general provisions
that would change current policy positions regarding the distribution of military aid,
assistance to Colombia, and conditions under which regular foreign aid is transferred.
Each are expected to be closely examined during congressional debate.
DOD’s role in military aid allocations. Currently, the State Department
receives funding through the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) account of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations and provides broad policy direction for U.S.
military assistance programs. DOD frequently administers FMF activities, but under
the policy guidance of the State Department. The Administration proposes in the
FY2002 supplemental to grant DOD authority to use up to $30 million to support
indigenous forces engaged in activities combating terrorism and up to $100 million
to support foreign government efforts to fight global terrorism. The $130 million
total would come from defense funds, and be directed by the Secretary of Defense
and be available “not withstanding any other provision of law.” A third provision
proposes $420 million in DOD Operation and Maintenance funding for payments to
Pakistan, Jordan, and “other key cooperating states for logistical and military support
provided” to U.S. military operations in the war on terrorism that would also be
under DOD’s policy purview.
DOD officials say that these provisions are essential to help reimburse countries
for costs they incur in assisting U.S. forces engaged in the war on terrorism. The
United States had to delay payments to Pakistan for support provided in Operation
Enduring Freedom because of competing demands on regular military aid funds and
the absence of agreements between DOD and the Pakistan military that would allow
such transfers out of the defense budget. Nevertheless, critics charge that such a
change would infringe on congressional oversight and the State Department’s
traditional role in directing foreign aid policy and resource allocations. By including
a “notwithstanding” proviso, the request further would remove human rights and

---

CRS-19
other conditions that must be observed by countries in order to qualify for U.S.
security assistance.
At a House hearing on April 18, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage told the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee that although the State Department
supports the “intent” of the provisions, the Administration drafted the legislation in
a “rather poor way” and that the authority “is a little broader in scope than we really
intended.” Secretary Armitage pledged that both State and DOD officials would
work with Congress to adjust the provisions in a way that would protect the
prerogatives of the Secretary of State as the “overseer of foreign policy and foreign
aid.”28
Colombia aid restrictions. An additional supplemental general provision
seeks to broaden DOD and State Department authorities to utilize unexpended Plan
Colombia, FY2002 and FY2003 appropriations to support Colombia’s “unified
campaign against narcotics trafficking, terrorist activities, and other threats to its
national security.”29 The provision would broaden significantly the scope of how U.S.
assistance could be used by Colombia – not only for counter narcotics operations, but
also for military actions against Colombian insurgents and any other circumstances
that threatened Colombian national security.
Although the most immediate effect of the change would be to permit the
United States to expand how it shares intelligence information with Colombian
security forces, the provision would also allow helicopters and other military
equipment provided over the past two years to fight drug production to be used
against any threat to Colombia’s security.
The Administration, however, is not asking Congress to soften two other
Colombia aid restrictions concerning a 400 person limit on U.S. personnel inside
Colombia and the prohibition of aid to Colombian military and police units that are
engaged in human rights violations (Leahy amendment). Despite the inclusion in the
request that past and future FY2003 aid be available “notwithstanding any provision
of law” – except for the two restrictions noted above – Administration officials say
they are not seeking to remove other enacted conditions on Colombian aid, such as
those related to human rights and aerial coca fumigation. Coupled with a pending
FY2003 $98 million military aid request to help protect Colombia’s oil pipeline and
other infrastructure against guerilla activity, critics argue that the U.S. objective in
Colombia is shifting from one of combating narcotics production and trafficking to
a counter-terrorism and insurgency strategy.
Removal of restrictions for other economic and military assistance.
The Administration’s supplemental submission asks Congress to provide most of the
economic and military aid funds “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” This
28 Testimony by Secretary of State Armitage before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
Senate Appropriations Committee, April 18, 2002.
29 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March 2002,see page 28; for web site address, see
[www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf].

---

CRS-20
is a relatively unusual request for foreign aid appropriations, usually reserved for
situations where humanitarian assistance or aid in support of the highest U.S. foreign
policy interests would be prohibited due to existing legislative restrictions on
assistance to governments that violate human rights, engage in weapons proliferation,
came to power through a military coups, do not cooperate in counter-narcotics
activities, or a series of other similar aid conditions.
Because of its sweeping and broad nature, Congress has often been reluctant to
enact such a waiver without fully understanding the implications of excluding foreign
aid restrictions. More often, Congress prefers to waive specific legislative constraints
rather than approving across-the-board waivers. Administration officials have said
that the impediments apply to Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ethiopia because they are
overdue in making debt payments to the U.S. (Brooke amendment, section 512 of the
Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002) and to Cote d’Ivoire because of the
military coup against a democratically elected government in 1999 (section 508 of
the Foreign Operations Appropriations, FY2002).
Congressional action on the Administration’s foreign aid request.
In preliminary action taken during the House Appropriations Committee markup of
May 9, the panel had approved about $1.85 billion, roughly $575 million more than
requested. New items added by the Committee include $200 million in assistance to
Israel, $50 million for the Palestinians, and $200 million to combat HIV/AIDS,
malaria, and tuberculosis. The House Committee also raised assistance to
Afghanistan for reconstruction and security support to $360 million, $110 million
higher than the request. In most other areas, the Committee recommends amounts
as requested (see Table 5, above).
On policy issues, the Appropriations Committee removed the requested
“notwithstanding any provision of law” provisos, but grant specific waivers that will
permit the State Department to program most of the funds as proposed. On
Colombia, the panel’s substitute language is similar but less sweeping than the
Administration’s request. The draft bill text would allow Colombia to use American
aid for a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, against organizations
designated as terrorist groups, and for humanitarian rescue operations. All current
restrictions on Colombian aid, however, would remain in effect. After initially
denying DOD authority to directly fund military assistance to foreign countries, the
draft bill includes a provision permitting such spending after the Defense and State
Departments consult with the Committee.
Aviation Security Issues30
Established on November 19, 2001 by the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71), the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation. Responsibility for
airport security is transferred from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) control
to the new agency.
30 This section was prepared by D. Randy Peterman, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.

---

CRS-21
To pay for enhancements in aviation security mandated in the new law, the
ATSA may collect fees from passengers, and air carriers. The Administration is also
requesting a supplemental appropriation of $4.4 billion to pay for enhanced airport
security.

In hearings, controversy is developing about several issues, including:
! whether the TSA will be able to meet the new security requirements
that were enacted in the wake of the terrorist attacks;
! whether the funding requested in the FY2002 emergency
supplemental is adequate and sufficiently defined in the request;
! whether the size of the aviation security workforce can be accurately
estimated at this time;
! the appropriate mix of types of explosive detection equipment for
baggage screening; and
! whether TSA should reimburse airports fully for federally-required
increases in security costs rather than funding those costs with
airport capital improvement funds.
New Security Requirements. To enhance aviation security, the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act required several significant changes in current
procedures, including:
! the screening of all individuals, goods, property, vehicles, and other
equipment that move within secure areas at airports;
! the replacement of privately-hired contract screeners with federal
workers by November 19, 2002;
! the use of federal workers for all screening activities at all but five
commercial airports (where pilot programs using contract private
screeners under federal oversight would be used) for two years;
! the deployment of Federal Air Marshals on every passenger flight
that may present a high security risk; and
! the installation of explosive detection systems in place at airports by
December 31, 2002.
Cost of enhanced aviation security. In addition to the $4.4 billion
requested in the supplemental, the TSA is expected to collect about $1 billion from
new customer fees and about $700 million to $1 billion per year from air carriers
authorized by the new law.31 The TSA’s FY2002 regular budget is $2.4 billion.
In the FY2002 emergency supplemental, the Administration requested $2.5
billion as an emergency appropriation and an additional $1.9 billion as a “contingent
emergency”appropriation to be held in reserve until the Administration has a better
understanding of what the TSA’s needs are. For FY2003, the President requested
$4.8 billion for the agency.
31 After two years, airports will have the option of contracting with private companies for
screening rather than using federal workers. The air carrier fee is also only authorized for
two years.

---

CRS-22
Among issues that may arise are whether Congress will approve funds
designated as contingent emergency funds, if Congress would not know how the
monies would be spent, whether airports can meet the current deadline for deploying
explosive detection systems, the size of the new federal workforce to be hired, and
the adequacy of the Administration’s request.
Funding Issues. The Administration’s proposal that Congress approve $1.9
billion as a contingent emergency, with no detail about costs, was not well received
by some appropriators, who likened it to signing blank checks. On the other hand, the
DOT’s Inspector General suggested that Congress actually make an even larger
portion of the Administration’s request - $2 to $2.25 billion rather than $1.9 billion -
contingent on TSA submitting periodic detailed budget estimates in light of the
uncertainty surrounding the agency’s needs for the current fiscal year.
The Transportation Security Administration has not definitely decided the
number or the type of explosive detection systems needed to check baggage. Nor
does the agency know the size of the required total workforce. One machine under
consideration is the size of a small minivan and relies on computed tomography
(CT), the same technology used for medical purposes. These large machines cost $1
million apiece but require fewer screeners than a smaller, less sophisticated, and
cheaper machine that relies on swabbing of bags to detect explosive materials, and
would cost $45,000 each but require more screeners and be more intrusive.
When the Act was passed, it was estimated that about 30,000 employees would
be needed for aviation security. The new requirement to screen luggage as well as
passengers could require an additional 25,000 to 30,000 employees. With other
administrative personnel, some have estimated that the number of TSA employees
could reach 70,000.32
Another significant unknown is the cost of reconfiguring airports to make use
of the explosive detection systems. One estimate puts this cost at $2 billion.33 It is
not yet clear who would pay for this additional cost. Nor is it clear whether enough
machines can be manufactured in time to meet the deadline. These uncertainties
about the types of machines, the size of the workforce, and the likelihood of meeting
statutory deadlines have already surfaced during congressional consideration of the
Administration’s request for $4.4 billion in emergency supplemental funding for
TSA.
Congressional action on the Administration’s aviation request.
Preliminary decisions taken by the House Appropriations Committee reduce by $400
million – to $4 billion – spending for the Transportation Security Administration.
After initially adding a provision that would double the tax on airline tickets – thus
providing a $150 million offset – the House panel voted to delete the section, which
32 See statement of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Key Budget Issues Facing the Transportation Security Administration.
Testimony before the House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on
Transportation, April 17, 2002.
33 Ibid.

---

CRS-23
faced strong opposition from the airline industry. Instead, the committee supported
a $75 million reduction in prior appropriations for secure airline cockpit doors and
an additional $75 million in unspecified cuts to the Transportation Security
Administration’s budget.
Aid to New York City
In a Rose Garden meeting with Governor George Pataki and New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg on March 7th, President Bush pledged to give New York
City a total of $21.5 billion in aid to help the city recover from the terrorist attacks
on September 11th, 2001. This announcement was intended to meet the President’s
earlier commitment shortly after the attacks to give the city more than $20 billion in
aid as well as respond to congressional concerns raised during debate about the
Emergency Terrorism Response (ETR) supplemental. Congressional concern
paralleled the language included in the ETR, which called for not less than $20
billion to be “allocated for disaster recovery activities and assistance related to the
terrorist acts in New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia on September 11, 2001.”34
Combining the request for $5.5 billion for aid to New York in the FY2002
emergency supplemental with $5 billion in business tax credits for Lower Manhattan
passed by the House in early March, and funding already provided in the ETR, the
Administration contends that New York City would receive a total of $21.5 billion.35
The FY2002 emergency supplemental includes $5.5 billion in funding for aid to New
York provided by FEMA disaster assistance, Community Development block grants
and transportation grants to rebuild mass transit, and roads.36
FEMA request.37 Of the Administration’s $3.1 billion request for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), $2.75 billion, or 88%, is for the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF) administered by FEMA.38 That fund is used to help communities
recover from and rebuild after major disasters as designated by the President under
the Stafford Act.39 Combined with $6.6 billion allocated to FEMA in the first
emergency supplemental, the total for disaster assistance would be $9 billion, a
historic high for eligible costs. According to FEMA, most of the funds allocated to
34 P.L. 107-38.
35 Raymond Hernandez, “Bush Reassures New Yorkers on Aid Package,” New York Times,
March 8, 2002. The Administration apparently assumes that $10 billion is included for New
York City in the ETR.
36 Letter of OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, to President George Bush forwarding request for
$ 2 7 . 1 b i l l i o n i n e m e r g e n c y f u n d i n g , M a r c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 ; ”
[http://w3.access.gpo/gov/usbudget/fy2003/amndsup.html]
37 This section was prepared by Keith Bea, Government and Finance Division.
38 The remaining $326.5 million is for grants to state and local governments for first
responder teams, see Appendix A.
39 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., popularly known as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.

---

CRS-24
New York City in the first emergency supplemental were released within two months
of the attack.40
Some, however, may contend that considerably more recovery assistance is
needed. For example, a report issued by a partnership of economic development
organizations in New York City reported that “the city’s economy will sustain a gross
loss of approximately $83 billion due to the attack, including $30 billion in capital
losses, $14 billion in cleanup and related costs and $39 billion in loss of economic
output to the economy.”41 Only some of those types of costs, however, would be
eligible for FEMA funding.
The Stafford Act limits FEMA assistance to individuals and families, state and
local governments, and non-profit organizations that provide essential services.
Although some have argued that the Stafford Act should be amended to authorize
federal assistance to for-profit enterprises such as utilities and medical centers, others
want to retain the current criteria, and rely on other federal programs to aid private
corporations.
HUD Community Development Block Grants.42 In order to meet the
needs of utilities and other businesses - reportedly in need of millions of dollars in
assistance after the September attacks - the Administration’s request includes $750
million for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered
by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). According to press
reports, these funds are intended primarily to help Con Edison and Verizon rebuild
their facilities.43
One of the chief advantages of these grants is that state and other eligible local
governments are given broad discretion and flexibility in the use of funds. Although
the Community Development Block grants program is designed to foster economic
development and benefit primarily low- and moderate-income persons, Congress has
routinely waived specific programmatic requirements, and used the funds to support
disaster recovery efforts, including assistance to Oklahoma City following the
bombing of the Alfred Murrah Building, and to aid utilities affected by disasters,
notably the ice storm that paralyzed much of New England in 1998.44
40 U.S. Federal emergency Management Agency, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, personal communication with CRS, Nov. 13, 2001.
41 New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce, Working Together to Accelerate
New York’s Recovery, (New York, 2002); see
[http://www.nycp.org/impactstudy/EconImpactStudy.pdf].
42 This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Government and Finance Division.
43 Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.
44 Consistent with the practice in previous disasters, the FY2002 emergency supplemental
would permit HUD to waive the specific programmatic requirements of the statute - that
programs benefit primarily low and moderate income persons, help eliminate slums or
counter urgent health and safety threats - the grants would still have to comply with
(continued...)

---

CRS-25
Under the 2001 Emergency Terrorism Response supplemental, New York City
received $2.7 billion in CDBG funding for disaster recovery activities that is to be
administered by the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation (LMDC). A non-
profit corporation created to direct the redevelopment of the World Trade Center
area, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is to use those funds to assist
individuals, non profits, and small businesses recover from economic losses resulting
from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The President’s proposed FY2002 supplemental appropriations request would
appropriate $750 million in additional CDBG assistance to be administered by the
LMDC. These funds would be used to rebuild utility infrastructure damaged or
destroyed by the September 11, 2001 attacks, and to reimburse New York State and
New York City’s regular CDBG allocation for costs incurred in response to the
September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.
One potential issue that may arise during the debate on the supplemental may
be the desire by some to use this funding for other needs - particularly transportation
needs. According to press reports, some New York City officials believe that the
funding requested in the supplemental for rebuilding New York City’s mass transit
system may be inadequate.
Transportation grant funds. The Administration’s FY2002 emergency
supplemental includes $1.8 billion to pay the costs of rebuilding Manhattan’s public
mass transit that would not be covered by FEMA funds for disaster recovery as well
as $167 million to repair roads like the West side highway that are eligible for federal
funds.
FEMA funds can only be used to remove debris, and repair and replace subways
and train stations, but not to redesign or modernize current systems as desired by
New York officials. In a meeting with Members of Congress in mid-April, New
York officials outlined a proposal to modernize and rebuild the Lower Manhattan
transportation system that would cost $7.3 billion.45 Those plans could require using
a mix of FEMA funds from those already available or the new request as well as
tapping other sources in the FY2002 emergency supplemental. Congress is likely to
face some pressure to add to or re-allocate funds included in the Administration’s
request to help New York City to carry out these plans.
Congressional action on the Administration’s New York City
request. Action taken by the House Appropriations Committee during its un-
finished markup of May 9 provides the full $5.5 billion in aid to New York City, as
requested. The panel, however, allocates $175 million for first responder support to
the Department of Justice rather than FEMA, as proposed. Initially, the Committee
44 (...continued)
regulations related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, environmental review, and labor
standards. For use of CDBG funds to aid utilities in 1998, see P.L. 107-174, 112 Stat. 76.
45 Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 Billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.

---

CRS-26
recommended that the money be managed by the Office of Homeland Security, but
switched to the Justice Department after White House objections.

---

CRS-27
Appendix – FY2002 Emergency Supplemental
Request Organized by Appropriations Bill and
Account
The following 13 tables provide details of the $27.1 billion FY2002 emergency
supplemental allocation, organized according to appropriation bills and accounts.
Table A-1. Summary of All Appropriations Bills
($s – millions)
Administration
Appropriations Bill
House
Senate
Enacted
Request
Agriculture & Related Agencies
$0.0
Commerce, Justice, State
$386.3
Defense & Military Construction
$14,043.0
District of Columbia
$0.0
Energy & Water Development
$26.4
Foreign Operations
1224.5
Interior
$0.0
Labor, Health/Human Services,
$750.0
Education
Legislative Branch
$7.5
Transportation
$6,631.8
Treasury, Postal Serv, Executive
$146.3
Office of President, & Gen Govt
Veterans, Housing & Urban Dev,
$3,865.9
& Independent Agencies
TOTAL
$27,081.7

---

CRS-28
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request by Agency
(millions of dollars)
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Commerce, Justice State/
Commerce Department
Departmental
Increased guard and protection services.
0.4
SEC
4.8
-
-
-
management/
Salaries and Expenses
Export Administration,
Initiate information sharing program for
8.7
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
Operations and
homeland security.
Administration
National Institute of
Develop standards for
4.0
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
Standards and technology
chem/bio/nuclear/radiological explosive
threat detecting equipment and biomedical
recognition equipment.
Commerce, Justice State/
Justice Department
General
Funds fingerprint identification system to be
5.8
INV/LE
5.0
-
-
-
Administration/Salaries
used by INS inspectors to conduct criminal
and Expenses
background checks of suspect aliens.
FBI/Salaries and
Funds equipment for multi-agency task
10.0
INV/LE
50.0
-
-
-
Expenses
force working to keep foreign terrorist and
their supporters out of the U.S.
INS/Salaries and
Funds air and sea port security initiatives
35.0
SEC 189.3
-
-
-
Expenses
and makes up for drop in immigration user
fee revenue.
Commerce, Justice State/
State Department
Diplomatic and Consular
Support operation in Kabul and Tajikistan.
20.3
SEC
0.0
-
-
-
programs

---

CRS-29
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Diplomatic and Consular
Supports security and emergency medical
8.3
SEC
96.7
-
-
-
programs
response.
Diplomatic and Consular
Restore mail operations contaminated by
15.3
SEC
10.0
-
-
-
programs
anthrax.
Diplomatic and Consular
Expand public diplomacy.
7.5
PUB DIP
62.9
-
-
-
programs
Capital investment Fund
For development of a classified, anti-
2.5
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
terrorism global database.
Educational and Cultural
For Educational and Cultural Exchange
10.0
PUB DIP
62.9
-
-
-
Exchange Program
programs.
Embassy security,
New construction in Tajikistan ($80M) and
200.5
SEC
0.0
-
-
-
construction, and
rehabilitation of Kabul compound ($120M).
maintenance
Emergencies in the
For humanitarian payments to injured
8.0
NA
NA
-
-
-
Diplomatic and Consular
individuals and their families in connection
Service
with April 20, 2001 incident with civilian
floatplane in Peru.
Contributions to
For U.S. share of UN Special
7.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
International
Representative’s operation in Afghanistan.
Organizations
Contributions for
For U.S. share of UN peacekeeping
43.0
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
International
operations.
Peacekeeping Activities
Commerce, Justice State/
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court/ Care of
Perimeter security enhancements at
10.0
SEC
31.3
-
-
-
buildings and grounds
Supreme Court.
US Courts of Appeals for
Security upgrades.
0.9
SEC
0.0
-
-
-
the Federal Circuit/
Salaries and expenses

---

CRS-30
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Court of Appeals, District
Protective window film and other security
3.1
SEC
82.2
-
-
-
courts/salaries and
measures.
expenses
Defense and Military Construction/
Department of Defense
Military Personnel, Air
Funds full end strength of 358,800
206.0
DEFENSE
NA
Force
including those AF required to stay because
of global war on terrorism.
Defense Emergency
A transfer account for operational and
11,300.0
DEFENSE
15,883.3
Response Fund (DERF),
special pay costs associated with conflict in
a transfer account/b/
Afghanistan and elsewhere, including
replacement of equipment and intelligence
activities, cost of activating reservists for
enhanced security at bases and other
activities, and cost of combat air patrol in
U.S./b/
Operation and
Funds communication program ($5.2M),
107.0
DEFENSE
/c/
Maintenance, Army
and classified programs.
Operation and
Classified programs.
36.5
DEFENSE
/c/
Maintenance, Navy
Operation and
Replace intelligence and surveillance
41.0
DEFENSE
/c/
-
-
-
Maintenance, Air Force
equipment, including support of Predator
($9 million), and classified programs
($32M).
Operation and
Funds payments to Pakistan, Jordan and
420.0
DEFENSE
[288.0]
Maintenance, Defense
other “key cooperating nations” for
wide
logistical and military support.
Operation and
Replaces various intelligence and
319.0
DEFENSE
/c/
Maintenance, Defense
surveillance and reconnaissance equipment
wide
($35.5M), and classified programs
($283.5M).

---

CRS-31
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Other Procurement,
Replaces various intelligence and
79.2
DEFENSE
/c/
Army
surveillance and reconnaissance equipment
($68.8M), and classified programs
($10.4M)).
Aircraft Procurement,
Upgrades White House Communications
22.8
DEFENSE
/c/
Navy
($14.8M) and classified programs ($8M).
Procurement of
Nearly doubles production rate of Joint
262.0
DEFENSE
[443.5]/d/
Ammunition, Navy and
Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) from
Marine Corps
1,500. month to 2,800 a month and buys
additional munitions.
Other Procurement, Navy
Funds various intelligence, surveillance and
2.5
DEFENSE
/c/
reconnaissance classified programs.
Aircraft Procurement, Air
Accelerates production of Predator
93.0
DEFENSE
NS
Force
unmanned aerial vehicles to two per month
($37M), retrofits ground station ($8M), and
buys one replacement Global Hawk UAV
($35M), and two sensor packages ($13M).
Procurement of
Nearly doubles production rate of Joint
115.0
DEFENSE
[443.5]/d/
Ammunition, Air Force
Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) from
1,500 month to 2,800 a month and buys
additional munitions.
Other Procurement, Air
Funds classified command, control, and
752.0
DEFENSE
/c/
Force
communication programs.
Procurement, Defense
Replaces and upgrades intelligence,
99.5
DEFENSE
/c/
wide
surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment
($38.1M), funds classified programs
($46.9M), and White House
communications upgrades ($14.8M).
RDT&E, Army
Funds fielding of new medical treatment for
8.2
DEFENSE
/c/
wounds.
RDT&E, Navy
Funds upgrades to White House
19.0
DEFENSE
/c/

---

CRS-32
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
communications systems and other
command, control, and communications
systems.
RDT&E, Air Force
Accelerates upgrades to unmanned aerial
60.8
DEFENSE
/c/
vehicles ($23M), and classified programs
($37.8M).
RDT&E, Defense wide
Funds improvements to equipment for
99.5
DEFENSE
/c/
special operations forces ($37.8M), and
classified programs ($46.9M), and upgrades
to White House communications ($14.8M).
Energy and Water Development/
Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security
Improve emergency response of
19.4
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
Administration/ Weapons
radiological search teams in urban areas
Activities
($8.8M), support law enforcement officials,
consequence management teams and other
local emergency responders.
Environmental and other
Vulnerability assessments of critical
7.0
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
defense activities/Other
infrastructure and training, conferences, and
defense activities
logistical support for energy assurance
activities.
Foreign Operations
US AID Operating
Funds US AID’s presence in Afghanistan.
7.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Expenses
US AID Disaster
For international reconstruction projects.
40.0
HUM AID
50.0
-
-
-
Assistance
Economic Support Fund
Economic and development assistance for
80.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Afghanistan.
Economic Support Fund
Economic and development assistance for
40.0
HUM AID
600.0
-
-
-
Pakistan.

---

CRS-33
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Economic Support Fund
Economic support for $100M for Jordan,
100.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
$5M for Yemen, $50M for Middle East
Economic Initiative.
Economic Support Fund
Economic support for Philippines ($15M).
15.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Economic Support Fund
Economic support for Turkey ($200M).
200.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Economic Support Fund
Economic Support for Southern Sudan,
35.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti, and other
African nations.
International Narcotics
For counter narcotics and law enforcement
60.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Control and Law
activities in Afghanistan ($60M).
Enforcement
International Narcotics
For counter narcotics and law enforcement
20.0
HUM AID
73.0
-
-
-
Control and Law
activities in Pakistan ($20M).
Enforcement
International Narcotics
For border security with Mexico ($25M),
34.0
HUM AID
0.0
-
-
-
Control and Law
Western Hemisphere Regional ($5M),
Enforcement
Colombia ($4M).
Independent States,
Funds assistance to Central Asian nations of
110.0
HUM AID
46.5
-
-
-
Former Soviet Union
Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, including
$22 million for drug law enforcement and
$12M for border security.
Foreign Military
Military aid for Turkey ($28M) and
39.0
SEC ASSIST
45.0
-
-
-
Financing
Uzbekistan ($11M).
Foreign Military
Military aid for Afghanistan ($50M), Nepal
145.0
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
($20M), and Pakistan ($75M).
Foreign Military
Military aid for Bahrain ($28.5M), Jordan
98.5
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
($25M), Oman ($25M), Yemen ($20M).
Foreign Military
Military aid for Philippines ($25M).
25
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing

---

CRS-34
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Foreign Military
Military aid for Djibouti ($2M), Ethiopia
20
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
($3M), Kenya ($15M).
Foreign Military
Military aid for Georgia ($20M), Kazakstan
34
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
($2M), Tajikistan ($3M), Kyrgyz Republic
($9M) .
Foreign Military
Military aid for Colombia ($6M), and
9
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
Ecuador ($3M).
Foreign Military
Defense administrative costs ($2M).
2
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
Financing
Non-proliferation, anti-
Training/equipment for counter-terrorist aid
53.0
SEC ASSIST
45.5
-
-
-
terrorism, De-mining,
to Pakistan ($10M), Indonesia ($8M),
and related programs
Colombia ($25M), and others ($10M).
Non-proliferation, anti-
Terrorist interdiction training to various
30.0
SEC ASSIST
46.4
-
-
-
terrorism, De-mining,
countries as needed.
and related programs
Peacekeeping Operations
Funds salaries of Afghanistan military
28.0
SEC ASSIST
0.0
-
-
-
forces who support U.S. operations, and
training of civilian and military personnel to
support peacekeeping in Indonesia.
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education/Department of Labor
Training and
National Emergency Grants of at least $550
550.0
VIC RELIEF
32.5
-
-
-
Employment Services
million to states to aid dislocated workers.
(Contingent Emergency)
Training and
Demonstration training projects.
50.0
VIC RELIEF
0.0
-
-
-
Employment Services
(Contingent Emergency)
Training and
Transfer to Commerce Department for long-
40.0
VIC RELIEF
0.0
-
-
-
Employment Services
term economic assistance programs.
(Contingent Emergency)
Training and
Grants under Workforce Investment Act.
110.0
VIC RELIEF
0.0
-
-
-

---

CRS-35
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Employment Services
(Contingent Emergency)
Legislative Branch
Library of Congress
To fund shortfall in copyright Office from
7.5
VIC RELIEF
0.0
-
-
-
lower receipts in FY2002.
Transportation and Related Agencies/
Department of Transportation
Coast Guard operating
Funds six months of additional expenses for
189.0
SEC
227.2
-
-
-
expenses
personnel ($82M), operating costs ($60M),
and maritime security initiatives ($46M).
Coast Guard, Acquisition,
Acquire and replace patrol boats ($24M),
63.0
SEC
0.0
-
-
-
Construction, and
monitoring systems ($23M), improve
Improvements
communications and infrastructure ($14M)).
Transportation Security
Funds initial and then Federal screener
2,445.0
SEC
325.0
-
-
-
Administration
personnel, airport managers, law
enforcement, National Guard provided by
DOD, and other support personnel, with up
to $1 billion for explosive detection
equipment.
Transportation Security
For additional equipment, screeners, law
1,945.0
SEC AV
325.0
-
-
-
Administration
enforcement personnel, staff, and
(Contingent Emergency)
consultants for aviation security to be
further defined in a later request.
Federal Aviation
Provides more guards and barriers at air
NA
SEC AV
599.0
-
-
-
Administration
traffic control facilities to be paid for with
Operations
fees ($100M).
Federal Highway Admin.,
Funds repair and restoration of highways
167.0
REC
75.0
-
-
-
Federal-aid Highways,
and roads in NYC damaged by attacks that
Emergency Relief
are eligible for federal funding.
Federal Motor Carrier
Funds personnel, and efforts to detect
19.3
INV/LE
0.0
-
-
-
Safety Administration,
license frauds.

---

CRS-36
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Border Enforcement
Program
Federal Transit
To fully fund rebuilding of public mass
1,800.0
REC
0.0
-
-
-
Administration, Capital
transportation in Manhattan that are not
Investment Grants
eligible for FEMA funds.
(Contingent Emergency)
Research and Special
Upgrades new center to monitor crises.
3.5
PRE
2.5
-
-
-
Programs
Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Govt.
US Postal Service, US
To provide additional protection to postal
87.0
BIO
675.0
-
-
-
Postal Service Fund
employees and customers from
biohazardous material.
Executive Office of the
Funds outfit of off-site facility for Office of
5.0
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
President, Office of
Homeland Security.
Administration, S&E
GSA, Real property
Increases security services at federal
51.8
SEC
135.1
-
-
-
Activities/Federal
buildings.
Buildings Funds
GSA, General
Funds new office to assess potential
2.5
PRE
0.0
-
-
-
Activities/Policy and
disruptions in information technology.
Operations
Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies
FEMA, Disaster Relief
Covers remaining response and recovery
2,750.0
REC
6,356.9
-
-
-
efforts in NYC that are eligible for federal
reimbursement.
FEMA, Emergency
Provides equipment and training grants to
326.7
PRE
220.0
-
-
-
Management Planning
states and localities for first response teams.
and Asst
HUD, Community
Provides grants to Lower Manhattan
750.0
REC
2,000.0
-
-
-
Planning and
Development Corporation to rebuild and

---

CRS-37
ETR Funding
Subcommittee/Agency
Admin
for same
or Department &
Spending
House
Senate
Purpose
FY2002 Supp
spending
Enacted
Appropriation account
Category /a/
action
Action
Request
category
Development/Community
restore utility infrastructure and equipment
Development Block
destroyed in lower Manhattan.
Grants
EPA, Hazardous
For additional expenses for anthrax
12.5
REC
41.3
-
-
-
Substance Superfund
investigation and cleanup of U.S. Capitol
and Congressional offices.
National Science
Funds additional Cybercorps/Scholarships
19.3
INV/LE
0.0
-
-
-
Foundation/Education
for Service programs for undergraduates
and Human Resources
and graduates studying computer security.
Broadcasting Board of
Funds IBC’s operations in Afghanistan.
7.4
PUB DIP
0.0
-
-
-
Governors/International
Broadcasting Operations

---