Order Code RL31406
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
Updated July 19, 2002
Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Supplemental Appropriations 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. With the $1.3 billion FY2002 supplemental request for Pell grants
in the President’s February budget, the Administration’s request is $28.4 billion.
Although there is broad congressional support for the new supplemental,
Congress has been debating the total spending level, the amount for homeland
security, and whether to add budget ceilings for FY2003, as well as other policy
issues. As passed by the House, H.R. 4775 (H.Rept. 107-480) totaled $28.8 billion,
or about $400 million above the request. Using Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
scoring, however, the House bill total is $30.1 billion compared to $31.5 billion in
the Senate-passed bill. The Senate bill is $3.1 billion above the request.
The chief funding differences between the two houses’ bills are in the amounts
provided for defense and homeland security. The House bill is $1.8 billion above
both the request and the Senate bill for the Department of Defense, and the Senate
bill is $3 billion above the House bill and the Administration’s request for homeland
security. The House bill also provides $550 million less than either the
Administration’s request or the Senate bill for aviation security. Both bills add
funding for election reform ($450 million), HIV/AIDS ($200 million), and assistance
to Israel ($200 million) and Palestine ($50 million) that was not included in the
Administration’s request.
After returning from the July 4th recess, the conferees met and agreed to a total
of $30.4 billion in spending. The Administration, however, threatened to veto any
bill that exceeded $28.8 billion, a demand that rankled House and Senate
Appropriations leaders in both parties, and led to cancellation of a planned
conference. OMB Director Mitch Daniels also suggested that the Administration was
considering cutting the request to $18 billion, contending that it might be difficult to
spend all the funds in the remaining months of FY2002.
After the House rejected a new $28.8 billion compromise offered by Senate
appropriators, House appropriators developed their own package totaling $28.9
billion. That package, which appears to be acceptable to the Administration, is the
conference version of H.R. 4775 and is expected to reach the floor in both houses
early next week. The conference version of the bill includes $14.5 billion for DOD,
$6.7 billion for homeland security, $5.5 billion for assistance to New York, $2.1
billion for foreign assistance and embassy security, $1 billion for Pell grants, and
$400 million for election administration reform. New items in this version include
over $200 million for disaster assistance for fires and floods, and $205 million for
AMTRAK.

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Composition of FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Distribution of Funds by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Administration’s Request by Policy Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Similarities Between FY2002 Request and ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Differences Between FY2002 Request and ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Proposed Congressional Funding by Policy Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Potential Congressional Issues Raised by the President’s Request . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Status of H.R. 4775 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Conference Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Resolution of major funding issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
New items added in conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Designating Funds as emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Change to the Highway Trust Fund Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Releasing Funding for International Family Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Change to rural Medicare formulas and Textile trading preferences . . 14
House Action
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
House Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Senate Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Senate Markup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Senate Floor Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Likely Conference Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Policy Issues for Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Areas of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Administration’s Request for the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Cost of the War in Afghanistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Mobilizing Reservists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Increasing Munitions Stockpiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles . . . . 32
Command, Control, Communications, and Classified Programs . . . . 33
Coalition Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
House Action on the Administration’s Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . 34
Senate Action on the Administration’s Defense Request . . . . . . . . . . 35
Foreign Aid to “Front-Line” States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Congressional Action on the Administration’s Foreign Aid Request . 41
Aviation Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
New Security Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Cost of Enhanced Aviation Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Funding Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
House Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request . . . . . . . . . . 45
Senate Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request . . . . . . . . . . 46

Aid to New York City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
FEMA Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
HUD Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Transportation Grant Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
House Action on the Administration’s New York City Request . . . . . 49
Senate Action on Administration’s New York City Request . . . . . . . 49
Aid for Dislocated Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
House Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Senate Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix – FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request Organized by
Appropriations Bill and Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
List of Tables
Table 1. Allocations of Funds in FY2002 Emergency Supplemental to
Combat Terrorism by Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Policy Priorities in the FY2002 Supplemental and the Emergency
Terrorism Response Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Table 4. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 Supplemental with ETR and the
FY2003 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Table 5. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted & Requested . . . . . . . 38
Table A-1. Summary of All Appropriations Bills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request by
Appropriation Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table A-3. Non-Emergency Spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table A-4. Rescissions and Offsets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
Most Recent Developments
Floor action on the conference version of the FY2002 supplemental is expected
on Tuesday, July 23rd, 2002 and the conference report (as yet unnumbered) is to be
filed by midnight July 19, 2002. On July 18, House and Senate negotiators agreed
to a $28.9 billion spending package that meets the Administration’s spending goals
and resolves differences between the two houses. Put together by House
appropriators, this version was developed after a Senate compromise package was
rejected by the House earlier in the week.

The conference version of the bill includes $14.5 billion for the Department of
Defense, $6.7 billion for homeland security, $5.5 billion for assistance to New York,
$2.1 billion for foreign assistance and embassy security, $1 billion for Pell grants,
and $400 million for election administration reform. In addition, the conference bill
adds over $200 million for disaster assistance for fires and floods, and $205 million
for AMTRAK.

The conference version also splits the bill into two parts, with almost $24 billion
in spending designated by both Congress and the Administration as emergency
spending while the remaining $5 billion in funding that was not requested by the
Administration is designated as a contingent emergency. If the President wishes to
spend any of that funding, all of the $5 billion must be designated as emergency
funding and spent. The $5 billion portion includes about $500 million in additional
DOD funding, $400 million for veterans’ medical care, and about $1 billion for
foreign assistance including aid for Israel and HIV/AIDS funding.

Passage of the FY2002 supplemental was delayed by a dispute between the
Administration and Congress, and between the two houses, over the total spending
level and the mix of spending in the bill. A $30.4 billion package that was agreed to
by Congressional appropriators in early July was rejected by the President. OMB
Director Mitch Daniels said that the Administration would veto any bill exceeding
$28.8 billion, and suggested that the Administration was considering cutting the
request to as low as $18 billion arguing that not all of the funding could be easily
spent in FY2002. A $28.8 billion package, developed by Senate appropriators from
both parties in mid-July, was rejected by House appropriators.

The supplemental package was developed 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.


CRS-2
Introduction
Submitted on March 21, 2002 as an emergency supplemental request to combat
terrorism, most of the Administration’s $28.4 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 (DOD) ($14.0 billion) and other agencies
($14.4 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, New York City, and airport security. Other
policy priorities, such as bioterrorism and investigative activities, 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 DOD’s 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.
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
[http://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 $28.4 billion request by the Administration, 49% would be provided to
the Department of Defense (DOD) with the remaining $14.4 billion split among non-
defense agencies (see Table 1), including the Administration’s request of $1.3 billion
for Pell grants.
The Distribution of Funds by Agency
As discussed below, the funds requested by the Administration 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).
The major changes to the Administration’s request shown in Table 1 are
discussed below and in the sections on congressional action.
For non-defense agencies, under the Administration’s request, 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 February
budget also included $1.3 billion for Pell grants that was to be offset by rescissions
in the Labor, HHS funding.4
3 FEMA grants would also help rebuild mass transportation; see below.
4 The Administration requested $1.276 billion for Pell grants as a non-emergency FY2002
supplemental in the FY2003 budget, and proposed that the full amount be offset by cutting
all funding for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that
was added by Congress last year. The higher funding for Pell grants was not part of the
FY2002 emergency supplemental request to Congress that was submitted on March 21,
2002.

CRS-4
Table 1. Allocations of Funds in FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental to Combat Terrorism by Agency
(in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Department/
Admin.
House
Senate
Enacted
Agency Totals
Request
action
action
Total Supplemental/a/
$28.4
$28.8
$31.5
-
Defense subtotal
$14.0
$15.8
$14.0
-
Non-defense subtotal
$14.4
$13.0
$17.5
-
Transportation
$6.6
$5.1
$7.4
-
FEMA
$3.1
$2.9
$3.5
-
Dept. of Education/a/
$1.3
$1.0
$1.0
-
Foreign Ops
$1.1
$1.6
$1.5
-
Labor
$0.8
$0.3
$0.4
-
HUD
$0.7
$0.2
$0.4
-
State
$0.3
$0.3
$0.2
-
VA/b/
$0.1
$0.4
$0.4
-
Justice
$0.1
$0.4
$0.9
-
HHS
($0.1)
$0.0
$0.4
-
Agriculture
$0.1
($0.4)
$0.4
-
Exec. Off. Of Pres.
$0.0
$0.4
$0.0/c/
-
Dept. of Energy
$0.0
$0.4
$0.3
-
EPA
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
-
Commerce
$0.0
$0.0
$0.1
-
Other non-defense/d/
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
-
Notes:
a Includes supplemental request for Pell grants in Administration’s FY2003 budget.
b Excludes $1.4 billion increase in mandatory spending for VA disability claims that was
requested by the Administration on May 21, 2002, and included by the Senate.
c Funding of $5 million in the Senate bill for the Office of Homeland Security is available
only with establishment of the position of Director of Homeland Security, to be
appointed by the President and approved by the Senate; see Section 1102 of H.R. 4775
as passed by the Senate.
Sources: Letter of President George Bush to Speaker of the House, J. Dennis Hastert, transmitting the
FY2002 Emergency Supplemental request, March 21, 2002, available on GPO’s Web site at
[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/amndsup.html], H.R. 4775 as passed by the House and
Senate, H.Rept. 107-480 and S.Rept. 107-156, and CRS calculations. Totals may not add due to
rounding.

CRS-5
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 text box below, and Table 2
shows the amounts requested for each policy area in the Administration’s request and
compares them with the ETR supplemental and with House and Senate action.
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.)5 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
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).
5 See CRS Report RL31187, Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on
Emergency Supplemental Allocations
, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels, March 20, 2002,
p. 9 and p. 19.

CRS-6
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.
Proposed Congressional Funding by Policy Priorities
As of the completion of floor action, both the House and the Senate propose
significant changes to the policy priorities reflected in the Administration’s request
as well as the total amount of funding. With a total of $28.8 billion, the House bill
is about $350 million above the Administration’s request and reflects a similar mix
of policy priorities. At $31.5 billion, the Senate bill is $3 billion higher than the
Administration’s request and reflects significantly different policy choices (see Table
2
, Table 3, and Table A-2).

CRS-7
Compared to the Senate bill, the House places greater emphasis on funding for
defense: 55%vs. 45% of the total in the supplemental and $1.8 billion more than
requested by the Administration. This higher level primarily reflects the belief
among House appropriators that the cost of activating reservists will be higher than
anticipated by the Administration. Dissatisfied with the validity of the
Administration’s estimates of cost, the House bill reduces the Administration’s
request for aviation security, which the Senate funds fully.
Both houses provide higher funding levels for security, with much of the
increase concentrated in enhancing security at Department of Energy facilities as well
as additional funding to secure nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union (see
Table A-2). Both houses fully fund the Administration’s request for recovery funds
for New York city. Although both houses provide similar shares for international
security assistance , the total is $150 million higher than the Administration’s request
because of additional aid for Israel and the West Bank ( see foreign operations
section, and Table A-2). Both houses also reduced the Administration’s proposed
funding for aid to dislocated workers (see below).
The largest difference between the houses and with the Administration is the
proposed funding levels for homeland security activities. The Senate provides $2.8
billion more than the Administration and $2.2 billion more than the House for
bioterrorism, preparedness, and security activities. That additional funding would
renovate a research facility on animal pathogens ($278 million), provide additional
grants for communications and safety equipment and training for first responders,
and spend additional resources on security in various agencies (see Table A-2 in the
appendix). For discussion of likely conference issues, see below.

CRS-8
Table 2. Policy Priorities in the FY2002 Supplemental and the
Emergency Terrorism Response Act
(percent of total)
Emergency
FY2002
House
Senate
Terrorism
Policy Priority
Supplemental
action
action
Enacted
Response
Request
/a/
/a/
supp.
TOTAL/a/
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
-
100.0%
Bioterrorism
0.3%
0.4%
1.5%
-
7.5%
Defense
49.4%
54.9%
44.5%
-
42.8%
Humanitarian
0.2%
0.7%
0.7%
-
1.5%
Assistance
International Security
4.5%
5.0%
4.4%
-
2.4%
Assistance
Investigation and law
0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
-
6.4%
enforcement
Preparedness
1.3%
1.3%
3.8%
-
1.0%
Public Diplomacy
0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
-
0.2%
Recovery from attacks
19.4%
19.0%
17.2%
-
17.7%
Security -Infrast. &
2.1%
4.0%
6.9%
-
9.0%
Pers.
Security - Aviation
15.5%
14.1%
14.6%
-
2.7%
Victim relief
2.9%
1.3%
1.8%
-
8.8%
Other /b/
4.2%
-1.5%
4.2%
-
NA
Notes: For definition of policy priorities, see box above.
a Includes Administration request of $1.276 billion for Pell grants in its February 2002 budget
submission. Excludes $1.1 billion increase in mandatory VA disability payments requested by
the Administration on May 21, 2002, and included in the Senate bill.
b ‘Other’ includes non-emergency appropriations, rescissions, offsets and Pell funding request, which
does not fit into categories as defined in box.
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/usbudget/fy2003/amndsup.html]; House Appropriations Committee tables;
and H.R. 4775. Calculations are by CRS. Totals may not add due to rounding.

CRS-9
Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities
(millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Department/
Admin.
House
Senate
Enacted
Agency Totals
Request
action
action
GRAND TOTAL/a/
$28,412.8
$28,774.5 $31,498.2
-
Bioterrorism
$87.1
$107.0
$464.0
-
Defense
$14,022.1
$15,799.5 $14,022.0
-
Humanitarian aid
$54.0
$214.0
$212.0
-
International Security Asst
$1,275.5
$1,452.5
$1,374.5
-
Investigation/law enforcement
$35.1
$154.6
$105.0
-
Preparedness
$379.3
$376.4
$1,192.6
-
Public Diplomacy
$24.9
$52.6
$16.4
-
Recovery
$5,498.8
$5,476.3
$5,418.1
-
Security-Infrastructure & Personnel
$600.3
$1,149.8
$2,184.6
-
Security-Aviation facilities
$4,400.0
$4,050.0
$4,600.0
-
Victim Relief
$832.5
$382.5
$572.5
-
Other/b/
$1,203.2
($440.7) $1,336.50
-
Notes: For definition of policy priorities, see box above.
a Excludes mandatory $1.1 billion in funding for additional disability payments for veterans that the
Administration requested on May 21 and the Senate included in its bill.
b Includes non-emergency spending, rescissions and offsets, and Pell grants, which do not fit into the
definitions. See Tables A-3 and A-4 for more detail on non-emergency spending and offsets.
The Senate designated the Pell grants as contingent emergency funds.
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/usbudget/fy2003/amndsup.html]; House Appropriations Committee tables;
H.R. 4775 as amended in the House and the Senate. Calculations are by CRS.
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 $28.4 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

CRS-10
adjusted both the total amount as well as the types of spending requested by the
Administration in the first supplemental’s defense request.6
Several Members have or are considering offering amendments to add funding
in several areas, and raise the debt ceiling as desired by the Administration.7 At the
same time, the Administration, as well as some Members of Congress, have raised
concerns about increases above the total requested.8
Status of H.R. 4775
On May 24, the House passed H.R. 4775 by a vote of 280 to 138, and on June
7, 2002, the Senate passed its version of the bill (substituted for the text of H.R.
4775) by a vote of 71 to 22. The House reported its version of H.R. 4775 on May 20
(H.Rept. 107-480), and the Senate reported its version on May 29 (S. 2551, S.Rept.
107-156). Although conferees met, and floor action in both houses was originally
anticipated for the week before the July 4th recess, agreement was not reached.
On June 17, the Administration issued its views on the ongoing conference,
stating its general agreement with the House version and its strong opposition to the
overall spending level in the Senate bill and to several policy provisions, including
restrictions on the President’s ability to designate spending as emergency, to spend
international family planning assistance, and to cancel the Army’s Crusader program
(see discussion below under likely conference issues and foreign operations).9
Although Congress had hoped to resolve outstanding issues and pass the bill
before the July 4th recess, that proved not to be possible. Shortly before recessing in
response to the President’s urging, the House passed a freestanding increase of $450
billion in the debt ceiling, matching the Senate’s action earlier, and resolving one of
the issues that had deadlocked the conference.10
The President threatened to veto the supplemental if the total exceeded the
House level of $28.8 billion, using the Administration’s scoring of two savings
6 See CRS Report RL31187, Combating Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on
Emergency Supplemental Allocations
by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.
7 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.
8 BNA, Daily Report for Executives, “House Panel Delays Consideration of Supplemental,
Citing Rising Costs,” April 29, 2002.
9 OMB, Letter to the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, from Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., June 17, 2002, “Administration’s views
on FY 2002 Supplemental Bill as passed by the House and Senate; see Inside the Pentagon,
June 20, 2002, Volume 18, Number 25.
10 National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Despite Bush Appeal, Hill Impasse on Debt Ceiling
Increases,” June 26, 2002; Congress Daily, “Bush Urges Hastert, Gephardt to Increase Debt
Ceiling, “ June 25, 2002; Roll Call Daily, “Armey Says Congress May Leave Town Without
Increasing Debt Limit, June 25, 2002.

CRS-11
proposals included in the House bill. If either the savings proposals are dropped or
CBO scoring is adopted, the House bill would cost $30.1 billion rather than $28.8
billion that was reported.11
After returning from the July 4th recess, the conferees reached agreement on a
total spending level of $30.4 billion, apparently relying on CBO scoring. The
conferees’ attempt to complete a conference version were derailed by the
Administration’s opposition to the overall spending level agreed to by the conferees.
The Administration objected to the total and proposed a series of decreases in
spending and offsets to reduce the total to $28.8 billion, including:
! an unspecified cut of $400 million in defense spending;
! a $220 million reduction in spending for the Transportation Security
Administration;
! a $150 million cut in renovation spending for the Pentagon;
! a $100 million cut for AMTRAK;
! an $80 million reduction in embassy security funding; and
! a $50 million cut in aid for Pakistan and Jordan;
! Administration estimates of savings for capping the airline
emergency loan program.12
Although appropriators had also requested cuts from unspent monies appropriated
in last year’s Emergency Terrorism Response supplemental, the Administration
proposed only $250 million in savings. As of March 31, 2002, agencies had
obligated only about half of the appropriated funds, with some agencies at much
lower levels.13
Senate appropriators used some of the Administration’s proposals to develop
a bipartisan $28.8 billion package developed by Senate Appropriations Chair Robert
Byrd and Ranking Minority Ted Stevens using some of the cuts proposed by the
Administration. That package was rejected by House Appropriations Chair Bill
Young.14 Congressional appropriators also rejected OMB’s estimates of $1.1 billion
11 Congress generally follows CBO’s scoring. The dispute centers around two savings
proposals that are included in the House bill - the cap on emergency loans to airlines for the
rest of FY2002 and limits on the Agriculture Departments’s Export Enhancement Program.
Savings from the cap on loans to airlines were estimated to be $393 by CBO and $1,264
million by OMB, and savings from limiting the Export Enhancement Program were
estimated as zero by CBO and $450 million by OMB. Taking into account these scoring
differences, CBO scores the House bill at $30.1 billion; see Congress Daily, “ Despite Bush
Appeal, Hill Impasse on debt Ceiling Increases,” June 26, 2002.
12 National Journal’s Congress Daily, “ ... As They Also Criticize Administration-Proposed
Cuts,” July 12, 2002.
13 OMB Director, Mitchell Daniels, “Letter to Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, enclosing second quarterly report on the use of
the Emergency Response Fund,” April 2002.
14 BNA, Daily Report for Executives, “Appropriations: White House Pushes Anew for
Paring Back Size of FY 2002 Supplemental Spending Bill,” July 16, 2002; Roll Call Daily,
(continued...)

CRS-12
in savings from the airline loan program, an estimate of savings that exceeds CBO’s
estimate by about $800, and that Congressman Obey suggested was overstated
because only a couple of loan applications were received by the June 28, 2002
deadline.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee on July 16, OMB Director
Mitch Daniels stated that the Administration would veto any bill that exceeded $28.8
billion, and suggested that the Administration was considering reducing its request
to as low as $18 billion because the total amount of funding might not easily be spent
in the months remaining in the fiscal year, a position endorsed by Senate Minority
Leader Lott. Most of the funding in the supplemental could be available beyond
2002.
DOD Comptroller Dov Zakheim also warned that DOD needed the
supplemental to avoid facing cutbacks in operations because training funds have been
shifted to fund the war on terrorism. Senator Minority Leader Lott suggested,
however, that DOD and other agencies could accommodate a smaller supplemental
by shifting monies from other accounts.15 The appropriators, on their part, are facing
new pressures from western members to add $1 billion in emergency spending to
combat wildfires, droughts, and floods, spending that the Administration is
reportedly refusing to consider an emergency, instead requiring that it be offset with
cuts in other spending.16
On July 18, the House and Senate reached agreement on a spending compromise
of $28.9 billion that was developed by House appropriators, and the Administration
is reportedly pleased that the bill meets his spending goal.17 That package is the
conference version of the supplemental and is expected to reach the floor of both
houses early in the week of July 22nd. The conference report is to be filed by
midnight of July 19th (report not yet available).
Conference Version
Based on press reports, the $28.9 billion conference version of H.R. 4775 to be
considered on the floor of both houses next week, probably July 23rd, generally sets
14 (...continued)
“Supplemental in Limbo as House Appropriators Reject Byrd-Stevens Proposal,” July 16,
2002; National Journal’s Congress Daily AM, “Appropriations: House Conservatives Use
Interior Bill to Press Spending Fight,” July 17, 2002.
15 Inside the Navy, “Zakheim: Without Supplemental, DOD Starts Shutting Down Soon,”
July 15, 2002; Roll Call Daily, “Supplemental in Limbo as House Appropriator Reject
Byrd-Stevens Proposal,” July 16, 2002.
16 BNA, Daily Report for Executives, “Appropriators Look for Cuts; Daniels repeats Veto
threat,” July 17, 2002; National Journal’s Congress Daily AM, “Appropriations: Daniels
Again Demands Congress Act on Supplemental Bill, “ July 16, 2002; National Journal’s
Congress Daily
, July 17, 2002.
17 Dan Morgan, “Hill Negotiators Clear Extra Military Funds, Impasse with White House
Broken,” Washington Post, July 19, 2002.

CRS-13
funding levels between the House and Senate levels, includes savings of about $3
billion, and adds several new items. The conference version also resolves
outstanding differences on policy issues.
Resolution of major funding issues. Generally splitting the difference
between the two houses, the conference version of the bill includes the following
spending levels:
! $14.5 billion for the Department of Defense ($500 million above the
request);
! $6.7 billion for homeland security ($1 billion to $2 billion above the
request) with
! $3.85 billion for the Transportation Security Administration
($550 million below the request);
! $201 million for first responders;
! $175 million for grants to fire departments;
! $100 million for emergency FEMA grants;
! $175 million for the FBI.
! $5.5 billion for New York (the same as the request); and
! $2.1 billion for foreign assistance and embassy security, including
new funding for
! $200 million for international HIV/AID funding;
! $200 million for aid to Israel;
! $50 million for aid to the West Bank and Gaza; and
! $201 million for embassy security.
The conference bill also includes about $3 billion in savings and offsets, made
up of about $770 million in defense funding that could not be spent in FY2002, and
about $400 million for a new building for the Center for Disease Control, as well as
a variety of rescissions from previous supplementals. The controversial estimate of
savings of over $1 billion from halting the emergency loan program for airlines is not
included.18
New items added in conference. In response to new concerns about
wildfires and flooding in western states and AMTRAK’s financial status, the
conferees also added three items that were not included in either the House or Senate
versions of the bill:
! $205 million for AMTRAK;
! over $200 million for fire and flood relief; and
! $98 million for emergency highway repairs.
Designating Funds as emergencies. The conference version of H.R.
4775 resolves one of the most contentious policy issues in the FY2002 supplemental,
the “all or none” provision that required the President to accept all Congressional
18 “Appropriations: Conferees Agree on $28.9 billion FY02 Supplemental Bill,” National
Journal’s Congress Daily
, July 18, 2002, and BNA, Opcit, July 19, 2002

CRS-14
designations of non-defense funding as emergency in order to spend any of those
funds. The bill splits funding into two parts.
! about $24 billion where Congress adopts the same emergency
designation as in the President’s request;
! about $5 billion that Congress designates as “contingent emergency”
spending where the President has the choice of designating all or
none of that funding as an emergency. In other words, if the
President wants to spend any of that $5 billion, all of the funding
must be designated as emergency monies to be spent.19
That $5 billion in contingent emergency funding includes new items added by
Congress such as $200 million for aid to Israel, $50 million in aid for the West Bank
and Gaza, $400 million for election reform, $205 million for AMTRAK, $200
million in international aid for HIV/AIDS/malaria and tuberculosis. Funding
increases above the Administration’s request or not designated as an emergency such
as medical care for veterans, $500 million more for DOD, and $1 billion in Pell
grants are also in the contingent emergency portion. According to reports, the
Administration dislikes the provision but may want to spend some of the funding
included in the $5 billion.20
Change to the Highway Trust Fund Formula. The conference version
of H.R. 4775 bill also includes a change in the formula for setting funding levels for
highway spending that would increase highway funding by $4.4 billion from $23.4
billion to $27.7 billion. This spending is apparently not counted in the $28.9 billion
total for the bill.
Releasing Funding for International Family Planning. The conference
version of the bill does not include any language that addresses whether the
Administration is required to spend $34 million in FY2002 funds for international
family planning. The Senate version of the bill included language requiring that the
Administration release the funds if a State Department investigating team found that
the Chinese government did not engage in coercive family planning practices.
Change to rural Medicare formulas and Textile trading preferences.
Rejecting requests from some lawmakers, the conferees dropped House provisions
that would have authorized more generous Medicare payment formulas for rural
doctors in certain states to encourage them to remain. The conferees did, however,
19 Similar language was included in an emergency defense spending bill two years ago; see
David Rogers, “House, Senate Get Agreement on $28.9 billion spending bill,”Wall Street
Journal
, July 19, 2002.
20 Ibid, and Dan Morgan, “Hill Negotiators Clear Extra Military Funds, Impasse with White
House Broken,” Washington Post, July 19, 2002; BNA, “Appropriations: Conferees Adopt
$28.9 billion Supplemental Spending Package,” Daily Report for Executives, July 19, 2002;
David Rogers, “House, Senate Get Agreement on $28.9 billion spending Bill, “ Wall Street
Journal
, July 19, 2002.

CRS-15
include a provision that closed a loophole which allowed South American exporters
to undercut U.S. textile manufacturers thus threatening American jobs.
House Action
On May 9, 14, and 15, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee marked up
the President’s $27.1 billion emergency supplemental spending measure, producing
a bill that totaled $29.8 billion, about $2.7 billion above the request. Further changes
made during markup pared the chairman’s mark to $29.4 billion.
On May 22, 23, and 24, the House debated H.R. 4775, passing the bill just after
2:30 a.m. on the 24th by a vote of 280 to 138. As passed, the bill totaled $28.8
billion, or about $600 million below the reported level. That decrease resulted from
two actions:
! deletion of the proposal to end the grant program to airlines provided
in the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act enacted after
the terrorist attacks (eliminating savings of $250 million); and
! changing the scoring of the savings for the temporary cap on loans
to airlines provided under that act (increasing savings from $393
million to $1,254 million).21
House Markup. As reported, H.R. 4775 included:
! $1 billion for Pell student financial assistance ($276 million less
than the request).22
! $15.8 billion for defense ($1.8 billion higher than requested).
! $5.8 billion for homeland security ($522 million above the
proposal), including $3.9 billion for the new Transportation Security
Administration ($550 million less than requested).
! $1.6 billion for foreign assistance (about $350 million more than
proposed), mainly for security aid to the “front-line” states in the war
on terrorism, but also including $200 million to combat global
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases, and $200 million for Israel
and $50 million for Palestine.
! $175 million in grants to first responders, as requested, but provided
through the Justice Department rather than FEMA, as proposed.
! $450 million for election administration reform.
During markup, the Committee also agreed to move the first responders funds
from the Office of Homeland Security as initially proposed in committee to the
21 CBO had scored the cap on the airline credit at $393 million compared to OMB scoring
of $1,254 million. The House budget committee directed that CBO use the OMB scoring.
22 The Administration requested $1.276 billion for Pell grants in an amendment to the
FY2003 budget, and proposed that the full amount be offset by cutting all funding for the
Department of Education that was added by Congress last year. The higher funding for Pell
grants was not part of the FY2002 emergency supplemental request to Congress that was
submitted on March 21, 2002.

CRS-16
Justice Department, a change more acceptable to the Administration, and dropped a
proposal to double the tax on airline tickets, a provision that was strongly opposed
by the airline industry. Instead, the Committee further reduced the amount of funding
provided to the Transportation Security Administration.
To offset the $2 billion in the supplemental that was not designated as
emergency spending, the Committee included a variety of rescissions and offsets (see
Table A3 and Table A4 in the appendix). The rest of the spending in the bill is
designated as emergency spending and does not need to be offset.
According to OMB Director Mitch Daniels, the Administration is “comfortable”
with the House markup of the supplemental.23 Reportedly, however, some fiscal
conservatives are upset that the total in the bill exceeds the Administration’s request,
including the Committee’s decision to provide the Administration with an additional
$1.8 billion for the Defense Department, which Secretary Rumsfeld said in hearings
was not needed.24 Since the additional funds for DOD are designated as “contingent
emergency” funds, the Administration does not have to spend the money.
The Rules Committee adopted a “deeming” resolution that would set overall
spending levels for FY2003 at $759 billion as provided in the House budget
resolution, H.Res. 353, and the level desired by the Administration. The bill also
calls on the government to take “all steps necessary” to protect “the full faith and
credit of the government,” placeholder language that would permit the two houses
– if they reach agreement – to include language that would raise the debt ceiling.
Meanwhile, Democratic members of the Budget Committee who hoped to attract
some moderate Republicans to a proposed floor amendment that would couple an
immediate increase in the debt ceiling that is desired by the Administration with a
new requirement that the President submit a proposal to balance the budget by 2007
were not able to bring their proposal to the floor.25
The Rules Committee also added the following three specific provisions, which
proved to be controversial during floor debate:
! a provision providing for adjustments in certain Medicare payments
for hospitals and physicians in certain counties in New York and
Pennsylvania;
! a revision of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act that
would require that preferential trade treatment only apply to apparel
articles that are dyed, printed, and finished in the U.S.; and
23 National Journal, “FY02 Supplemental Passes in Markup, But Obstacles Remain,”
Congress Daily, May 16, 2002.
24 National Journal, “GOP Budge Hawks Unhappy with FY02 Supplemental,” Congress
Daily, May 16, 2002; testimony by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, May 7, 2002.
25 Erin P. Billings, “Democrats launch Bill to Balance the Budget by 2007,” Roll Call Daily,
May 16, 2002.

CRS-17
! a provision that would allow the Postal Service to continue to use
the bypass mail system in Alaska on main routes and in the bush
country.26
Policy Provisions Adopted During Markup. The Committee also
adopted a number of policy amendments, including:
! Increasing Fund for Highways. The appropriators added a
provision that would restore FY2003 highway funding to the
authorized level by voiding a $4.4 billion reduction that is required
by current statute. That statute sets highway funding based on
revenues to the Highway Trust Account.27 While there is general
support for increasing FY2003 highway funding to the authorized
level, there could be controversy over this provision, which some
feel may result in the permanent elimination of the formula that ties
highway funding to revenues rather than a one-time waiver of the
formula.
! Limiting DOD’s Responsibility for Water Use Under the
Endangered Species Act. DOD is responsible for water
consumption on its own installations and in the surrounding area.
The Committee’s markup would limit this responsibility to its own
installations. Some may argue that the provision is unnecessary
because a recent court case in Arizona already struck down a far-
reaching Fish and Wildlife Service opinion that would have made
DOD responsible for use of water in the surrounding area. Some
may also be concerned because the amendment could be seen as
setting a precedent for exempting DOD from other environmental
provisions as proposed by the Administration in a separate
legislative package this year.28
! Reimbursing Allies in the Global War on Terrorism. The bill
revises the Administration’s proposal to allow DOD to provide
military aid to foreign nations who support the U.S. in the “global
war on terrorism.” The bill narrows the scope, requires joint
notification from the Departments of State and Defense (rather than
giving DOD sole authority) as well as approval of the
Appropriations Committees to use up to $100 million to reimburse
26 See H.Rept. 107-480, House Rules Committee, Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775,
May 22, 2002.
27 RABA – Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority – is a mechanism in the highway program
authorizing legislation, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), that
adjusts the authorized funding level up or down depending on the level of Highway Trust
Fund revenues; it added $9 billion to the highway program over the past three years, but
requires a $4.4 billion reduction in FY2003.
28 See CRS Report RL31415, The Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and
Department of Defense Readiness Activities: Current Law and Legislative Proposals,
by
Pamela Baldwin.

CRS-18
foreign nations for “the costs of goods, services, or use of facilities
provided in direct support of operations by U.S. military forces in
the global war on terrorism.”29
! Military and Logistical Support. The bill does, however, include
the original language requested by the Administration that gives sole
discretion to the Secretary of Defense to reimburse “key cooperating
nations,” including Pakistan and Jordan, up to $420 million
altogether for “logistical and military support provided to United
States military operations in the global war on terrorism.”30
! Exempting U.S. Military Forces from International Military
Court. The bill adopts an amendment proposed by Representative
DeLay that exempts U.S. military forces who participate in
peacekeeping operations from being prosecuted in the International
Criminal Court for war crimes. Although the U.S. has already signed
the agreement, both President Clinton and President Bush have
voiced concerns about the agreement.31
Other Changes During Markup. In the final day of markup, the Committee
also softened several controversial amendments.
! The bill adopts report language opposing cancellation of the Army’s
Crusader howitzer rather than language proposed by Congressman
Sabo that would have prohibited the Administration from cancelling
the system.
! The bill requires that the Administration report by July 31 whether
it will release international family planning monies after
investigating whether allegations that China engages in forced
abortion rather than requiring the Administration to release the funds
as originally proposed by Representatives Lowey and Kolbe.
House Floor Action. During House debate on the bill, the chief areas of
controversy – some of which also surfaced on the Senate side – included the
following.
Raising the Debt Ceiling. Some members argued that the language in H.R.
4775 providing that the U.S. government would take “all steps necessary to guarantee
29 House Appropriations Committee, draft bill (unnumbered), and the amendments that were
adopted during markup are posted on the House Appropriations Committee’s web site,
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/info/2002/_sup_amend.pdf].
30 House Appropriations Committee, draft bill (unnumbered), and amendments adopted
during markup, available online from the House Appropriations Committee’s web site,
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/info/2002/_sup_amend.pdf].
31 See CRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by
Nina M. Seafino. On the Senate side, Senator Helms introduced language similar to that
added to the FY2002 supplemental on the House side.

CRS-19
the full faith and credit of the Government” was an indirect way of raising the debt
limit without requiring a direct vote by members.32 The language would permit the
issue of raising the debt ceiling to be raised during conference. Majority Leader
Daschle has said that he would prefer to pass a stand-alone bill and S. 2551, the
Senate version of the supplemental, does not include language about raising the debt
limit.
The “Deeming” Resolution. H.R. 4775 provides that House Concurrent
Resolution 353, the budget resolution passed by the House, would be “deemed” to
have passed both houses and hence would guide the appropriations committees in
their action on FY2003 appropriations actions. That resolution sets total
discretionary budget authority at $759 billion, the level proposed by the
Administration assuming that its proposal for accrual funding of benefits for civilian
government workers is not approved.33 Some Members raised concerns that the level
in the House resolution would not provide adequate funding in FY2003. The Senate
version of the supplemental does not include “deeming” language.
Provisions about Medicare Payments, Andean Trade Preference
Rules and Alaskan Mail. Members raised issues about the appropriateness of
adding provisions that would benefit particular areas or that would alter trade rules
as part of the supplemental. Members may raise similar issues about various, specific
provisions included in the Senate bill.
The House also deleted controversial provisions on monies included for family
planning (see discussion below under foreign operations).
Senate Action
On May 21, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up the FY2002
emergency supplemental (S. 2551/S.Rept. 107-156) producing a bill that totaled
$31.0 billion in discretionary budget authority, $2.2 billion above the House level and
$2.6 billion above the request. (An additional $1.1 billion in mandatory benefit
payments to veterans was also included that was requested by the Administration on
May 21 because more veterans are becoming eligible for disability payments as the
backlog of claims is reduced.34)
After returning from the Memorial Day recess, the Senate debated the bill June
3 and 4 and then invoked cloture.35 After further debate on June 5 and 6, the Senate
32 See House Rules Committee, H.Rept. 107-484, Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775,
and Congressional Record, May 22-May 24, 2002.
33 The Administration request included $9 billion to fund that proposal. Thus far, it does not
appear to be likely to be approved by Congress.
34 See Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 107-156, Making supplemental
appropriations for Further Recovery and Response to Terrorist Attacks
, Chapter 12, page
105 of text version of report.
35 Invoking cloture ensured that the bill could not be debated for more than 30 hours and
(continued...)

CRS-20
passed H.R. 4775 at 12:28 a.m. on the morning of June 7 by a vote of 71 to 22. (The
Senate adopted the number of the House bill, inserting its version as a substitute.)
After passage, the bill totals $31.5 billion, or $500 million higher than the
reported level, reflecting the effect of three amendments adopted on the floor (see
below). Although a variety of other amendments were adopted during floor debate,
most allocated funding previously appropriated or made minor changes in language.36
Senate Markup. S. 2551 differs substantially from both the Administration’s
request and the House-passed bill in both overall and specific funding levels for
individual agencies and programs and in policy language. The following issues were
debated on the Senate floor and are likely to be significant issues during conference.
Emergency Designation of Spending. Section 2002 of Title 2 in the
Senate version of H.R. 4775 provides that funds in the bill will not be available to the
President unless he designates all funds as “emergency spending” that are designated
that way in the bill. This “all or none”provision applies to all emergency funding
except for that provided to the Department of Defense, is opposed by the
Administration, and was not included in the House bill. The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, provides that both the President
and Congress must designate funding as emergency in order for those monies to be
exempt from budgetary ceilings. This provision would limit the President’s discretion
to make those designations.
A similar provision was proposed on the House side and withdrawn after
protests from the Administration.37 This provision could be particularly controversial
because the Senate bill differs considerably from both the Administration request and
the House bill (H.R. 4775) for non-defense spending.
Senate Confirmation of Director of Homeland Security. S. 2551
includes a provision (Chapter 11, Section 1102) that requires that within 30 days after
enactment, the Administration must establish a position for a Director for Homeland
Security who would be confirmed by the Senate.
Over the last several months, Senator Byrd has asked that Director of Homeland
Security Tom Ridge, testify before congressional committees. The Administration
has rejected that request on the basis that Tom Ridge is an advisor to the President
within the White House, and hence is not required to testify before Congress.38 The
House bill does not include this provision. This provision may be less controversial
35 (...continued)
limited the scope of amendments that could be offered to those ruled germane by the Chair.
36 See Congressional Record, June 5, and June 6, 2002.
37 National Journal, “Senate Appropriators Approve $31 billion Supplemental Spending
Bill,” Markup Reports, May 22, 2002.
38 National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Ridge: Bush Should Veto Cabinet-Level Security
Position, May 30, 2002.

CRS-21
in light of the Administration’s recent announcement of plans to create a new cabinet
level Homeland Security agency.
Overall Spending Level. The Administration has stated its concern about the
overall level of the Senate bill is above the Administration’s request – by about $2.5
billion – and that the funding priorities differ substantially with that request.
Although the Senate bill provides the same funding as requested by the
Administration for defense, S. 2551 provides considerably more funding than
requested for homeland defense (e.g. funding for first responders), as well as other
areas (see Table A-2 and discussion below). The Administration opposes the
funding level in the Senate bill.
Potential Funding Issues. In addition to these general provisions, and
differences in the overall funding level, there are substantial differences in funding
for particular agencies and programs (see Appendix A-1 and A-2 and individual
sections below) as described below.
! Transportation Security Administration: S. 2551 provides $4.4
billion, as requested by the Administration, compared to $3.9 billion
in the House bill.
! First Responders: S. 2551 includes about $1 billion or twice as
much as the Administration requested for various grants and
programs located in both FEMA and the Justice Department.
! Port Security and Coast Guard: S. 2551 provides almost $1
billion for various port security efforts, well above that in the House
bill or the Administration request.
! Bioterrorism and Water Safety: the Senate bill provides additional
funding for testing of drinking water systems ($100 million), and
infectious disease programs (almost $400 million) not in the
Administration request or the House bill.
! Nuclear Safety: S. 2551 provides an additional $100 million for
nuclear non proliferation efforts, and $200 million for improved
security at nuclear labs in the U.S.

Areas of Agreement. Both the House and Senate provide $450 million for
election reform, though with differing provisions about implementation. And both
houses added funds for assistance to Israel. Both houses also raised funding for
highways and provided funding for Pell grants. The Administration requested an
additional $1 billion for payments to eligible veterans on May 21, reflecting an
unanticipated draw down in the backlog of claims. Although only the Senate
included the funding in their bill, this increase is not likely to be controversial
because the funding is mandatory, i.e. required by existing law.
Senate Floor Action. On June 3 and June 4, the Senate debated S. 2551,
substituting its version of the bill in H.R. 4775 as passed by the House. On June 4,
the Senate adopted an amendment proposed by Senator Byrd that deleted a provision

CRS-22
in the bill that would temporarily cap emergency loans provided in the wake of the
terrorist attack to give relief to airlines.39 On June 4th, the Senate passed a cloture
motion that limited debate to 30 hours and limited amendments to those ruled as
germane by the Chair. As amended on the floor, the total cost of the bill increases to
$31.5 billion (see below).40
Rejected Amendments. The Senate rejected an amendment proposed by
Senators Gregg and Feingold that would set total spending limits for the next 5 years,
as well as re-institute various budget enforcement mechanisms to check spending that
lapse in 2002. Since both houses have not adopted a concurrent resolution on the
budget for FY2003, there are no overall targets for spending for this or later years.
In addition, Congress is no longer subject to enforcement tools, such as pay go -
which requires that changes to entitlement programs that increase spending are offset
– and sequestration – which require across-the-board cuts if budget ceilings are
exceeded.41 Proposals to include an increase in the debt ceiling were also rejected on
the floor.
Amendments that Increase Funding. The Senate adopted the following
three amendments that increased total spending in H.R. 4775 from $31.1 billion to
$31.5 billion:
! a $100 million increase in funding for international assistance for
HIV/AIDS (making the level $200 million, the same level as in the
House bill);
! a $22 million increase in funding for flood recovery in Michigan and
Illinois; and
! deletion of the cap on the airline credit program (eliminating savings
of $393 million).
Policy Amendments Passed. In addition, the Senate, like the House,
added the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, an act originally proposed in
the 106th Congress intended to shield U.S. service members from being subject to the
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. The proposed legislation prohibits
the participation of U.S. service members in U.N. peacekeeping missions unless there
are protections that would ensure that they would not be subject to the court. The
President, however, is also permitted to waive certain restrictions in the Act, subject
to various reporting requirements.
Although the U.S. signed the Treaty establishing the International Criminal
Court, former President Clinton voiced reservations about it and President Bush
withdrew U.S. support for the Treaty on May 6, 2002; the court is to be set up July
39 See Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.
40 CBO estimated that this provision to delay loans to airlines till FY2003 would save $393
millions. With deletion of this provision, these savings would not occur.
41 National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Feingold, Gregg Set to Unveil Multi-Year Spending
Caps, June 4, 2002.

CRS-23
1, 2002.42 The Senate also adopted an amendment by Senator Dodd that allows the
President to cooperate with the court in the pursuit of international efforts to bring
to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosovic, Osama bin Laden, or other foreign
national accused of war crimes.43

See individual sections below for background discussion of potential issues, and
see Appendix A-1 and A-2 for breakouts of the Administration’s funding request,
and House and Senate action by agency, bill and line item.
Likely Conference Matters
Although conferees have been meeting to resolve differences between the
House and Senate versions of H.R. 4775, the timing of a final conference and floor
action are now uncertain because of a dispute with the Administration about the total
spending level in the bill (see below).
Funding Issues. Several issues are likely to be difficult to resolve in
conference, including the overall funding level in the bill and funding levels for
individual agencies and programs.
Overall Funding Level. Although the total for the Senate bill is $2.6 billion
above the House level, the discrepancy in funding levels is actually closer to $4.4
billion when the House’s $1.8 billion increase for the Department of Defense is taken
into account.44 Although the Administration has stated that the additional funding
in the House bill for DOD - for paying the cost of activating reservists, and additional
funding for spares and depot maintenance - is not necessary, the House provided the
funds on a “contingent emergency” basis, meaning that the President can decide
whether to spend the monies. The other significant difference in funding between the
House and the Senate is the additional $3 billion for homeland security activities in
the Senate bill, including more spending for bioterrorism, preparedness activities, and
security enhancements (see section on policy priorities above).
Determining the overall difference in funding between the two bills is
complicated by differences in scoring between OMB and CBO. Although the House
reported the total for its bill as $28.8 billion, if the bill is scored using CBO’s
numbers, the total would be $30.1 billion, a total that is closer to the Senate level,
and above the Administration’s request. Although Congress generally uses CBO’s
estimates, the House chose to use higher OMB estimates of savings for several
offsets.
42 CRS Report RL31437, International Criminal Court: Overview and Selected Legal issues,
by Jennifer Elsea.
43 See Congressional Record, June 6, 2002, pages S5138ff.
44 Since the Senate bill does not include the $1.8 billion increase, the difference is $4.4
billion ($1.8 billion plus $2.6 billion).

CRS-24
Although the conferees reached agreement on a total spending level of $30.4
billion after returning from the July 4th recess, the Administration objected to that
total and proposed a series of decreases in spending and offsets to reduce the total to
$28.8 billion. That proposal was rejected by Congressional appropriators, in part
because of concern that OMB’s estimates overstated savings.45 Although OMB’s
proposals for cuts in spending to reduce the overall total are still under consideration,
several members have already objected, and suggested that the Administration look
elsewhere for savings, including from last year’s Emergency Terrorism Response
supplemental.46
“All or None Provision”. The White House objects not only to the funding
level in the Senate bill but also has threatened to veto the bill if Section 2002 in the
Senate , the “all or none” provision, is included. That provision would require that
the President designate as emergency spending all non-defense funding that is
classified as “contingent emergency” spending in the bill in order to spend any of
those funds. In other words, the President would not have the prerogative of
spending only some of the “contingent emergency” spending as would be the case in
the House bill.
According to the 1985 Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act as
amended, both the President and Congress must agree that spending is emergency for
those funds to be exempt from budgetary controls over total spending.47 (The final
year that those budgetary controls apply is FY2002.) If Section 2002 is adopted,
however, the President would no longer have the prerogative to select the spending
that would be classed as emergency spending and, hence, not subject to budget
controls. All non-emergency spending must be offset by cuts in other programs or
offsets. According to Senator Byrd, a similar provision was included in the 2001
Supplemental.48
Budget Controls and Increase in the Debt Ceiling. Some members have
suggested that the FY2002 supplemental should be the vehicle for Congress to adopt
budgetary controls on overall spending levels for FY2003 through FY2007 and for
an increase in the debt ceiling that is desired by the Administration. Ordinarily, those
controls would be included in a concurrent budget resolution, but there appears to be
little prospect for passage. As of floor action, the House had passed a “deeming”
45 Roll Call Daily, “Supplemental Stalled after OMB Initiates New Demands, “ by Erin P.
Billings, July 12, 2002; National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Legislators Rip Daniels’
Cancel Supplemental Session . . .” July 12, 2002.
46 OMB Director, Mitchell Daniels, “Letter to Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, enclosing second quarterly report on the use of
the Emergency Response Fund,” April 2002.
47 See Section 251 (b)(2)(A) of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 or 111 Stat. 699; see
CRS Report RS21035, Emergency Spending: Statutory and Congressional Rules by James
V. Saturno.
48 See Congressional Record, June 6, 2002, p. S5168.

CRS-25
resolution in the rule for H.R. 4775 that sets levels that match those in their budget
resolution, but the Senate did not include any overall spending levels.49
In comparing the concurrent budget resolution passed by the House and the
resolution reported by the Senate Budget Committee, the two houses are $19 billion
apart in the total allocated for discretionary spending in FY2003. Negotiations
between the two houses and with the Administration to resolve this issue are
currently underway, however, so a compromise may be reached.50 The two houses
could choose to adopt the higher level for non-defense spending on the Senate side
by allocating $10 billion that the Administration requested be set aside for a
contingency fund to cover the cost of the war on terrorism in FY2003.51 If that
solution is adopted, a FY2003 supplemental request for costs of the war would be
needed. Reaching common overall totals for discretionary spending in FY2003
would make it considerably easier for the two houses to resolve FY2003
appropriations bills.
The House also adopted “placeholder” language that would permit conferees to
include an increase in the debt ceiling. Before leaving for the July 4th recess, the
House followed Senate action and passed a freestanding $450 billion increase in the
debt ceiling, eliminating this issue.
Funding for Transportation. The House and the Senate are $2.3 billion
apart in their recommended spending levels for the Transportation Department, with
the Senate providing $7.4 billion and the House, $5.1 billion. Part of that total,
however, reflects the inclusion by the House of a cap on emergency airline loans that
was projected to save $1.3 billion. The Senate eliminated that cap during floor action
by a vote of 91 to 4.52 The remaining $1 billion difference between the houses reflects
the Senate’s proposal to add more funding for the Coast Guard ($373 million) and
to provide the full amount requested by the Administration for aviation security
rather than reducing the request ($550 million). Although both houses were
dissatisfied with the Administration’s presentation of its plans for aviation security,
the Senate chose not to cut the request.
49 Attempts by Senators Gregg and Feingold and Senator Daschle to include a “deeming”
resolution on the Senate side were defeated on the floor.
50 See CRS Report RL31305, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco, p. 14ff in June 14, 2002 update for a more complete
discussion of this issue.
51 The Senate Budget Committee’s level of $768 billion for total discretionary spending
includes$9 billion more for non-defense spending, and includes $10 billion for a DOD
contingency fund. The House passed level of $759 billion holds the $10 billion contingency
fund for FY2003 for DOD in a reserve fund but excludes $9 billion for accrual costs that
was requested by the Administration. The Senate Budget Committee rejects accrual funding
and allocates that $9 billion for non-defense programs.
52 See Congressional Record, “Daily Digest”, June 4, 2002. The gap in funding is wider
because the House also adopted OMB’s scoring for the savings rather than CBO’s scoring
(see discussion above).

CRS-26
Funding to Secure Nuclear Facilities and Materials. The Senate bill
provides $328 million, some $80 million more than the House, to secure Department
of Energy nuclear facilities and to safeguard nuclear materials in the former Soviet
Union. Although the goals are similar, each bill emphasizes different security
measures or locations (see Table A-2).
Policy Issues for Conference. Several significant policy issues will need
to be resolved in conference.
U.N. Family Planning Assistance. The Senate, but not the House, includes
language that would require the U.S. to release $34 million to the U.N. for family
planning activities as long as the President found that China is not engaging in
coercive family planning practices. A State Department team is expected to complete
a report on this issue by late June. Although the House bill initially included similar
language (but giving the President discretion about the funding level), that language
was deleted on the floor (see section on Foreign Operations below).
DOD’s Role in Military Aid Allocations. The House and the Senate bill
include different language governing a proposed new role for DOD in the
administration of up to $520 million in military assistance. Neither house adopted the
broad language proposed by the Administration. Although both houses would permit
DOD to transfer up to $420 million to Pakistan, Jordan, or other cooperating nations
for military and logistical support to U.S. forces, the Senate bill places control of
those funds with the State Department, whereas the House bill makes that DOD’s
prerogative. Moreover, only the House provides $100 million that could be used to
reimburse foreign government for goods, services, or the use of facilities that support
U.S. operations in the fight against terrorism, language that is narrower than
requested by the Administration. The Senate bill does not include this provision (see
Foreign Operations section below).
Restrictions on DOD’s Ability to Cancel the Crusader Program.
Since early May when DOD announced that the Army’s Crusader artillery system
would be cancelled, this issue has generated substantial controversy in Congress,
with the White House threatening a veto of any bill that placed any statutory
restrictions on cancellation.53 In a June 20 letter to Senator Byrd, Chair of the
Appropriations Committee, OMB Director Mitch Daniels reiterates this position,
stating that the President’s senior advisors would recommend a veto of the FY2002
supplemental if House report language that restricts his ability to cancel the Crusader
artillery program is made statutory.54 The House report directs that the Secretary of
Defense “shall take no action that would precipitously stop work on the Crusader
program until Congress had made a definitive judgment in legislation on the future
53 CRS Report RL31406, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco, p. 20
54 OMB, Letter to the Honorable Robert C. Byrd, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,
United States Senate, from Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., June 17, 2002, “Administration’s views
on FY 2002 Supplemental Bill as passed by the House and Senate; see Inside the Pentagon,
June 20, 2002, Volume 18, Number 25.

CRS-27
of the program.”55 The Senate bill includes no language on this issue. The House-
passed version of the FY2003 DOD Authorization bill (H.R. 4546) retains funding
for the Crusader system, while the Senate version as amended on the floor currently
gives the secretary of Defense the authority to re-allocate the funds.
Placement of Funding for First Responders. The House and the Senate
differ not only in the amount of funding provided for grants to first responders (e.g.
firefighters, rescue teams, emergency operations centers) but also in which agency
administers those grants. The Administration requested that FEMA administer $327
million in equipment and training grants, as part of its traditional roles in disaster
planning. The House and Senate, provide funding for first responders not only to
FEMA but also to the Department of Justice, which in recent years has administered
grants for first responders in a law enforcement context. Some consider that reliance
on the Justice Department is more appropriate for funding designed to combat
terrorism. This issue is now likely to be considered in the context of the President’s
new proposal to fold FEMA into a new agency to combat terrorism.
Placement of Funding for Election Reform. The House and the Senate
both provide $450 million for election reform, but the House temporarily lodges the
funds in the Executive Office of the President and the Senate places the funds in the
Justice Department. Both houses provide that the program will follow the provisions
in their respective versions of H.R. 3295, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Equal
Protection of Voting Rights. The House objects to the funds being administered by
the Justice Department.

Areas of Agreement. Several policy areas in which the two bills are similar
include the following.
! Aid to Israel and Palestine: both bills provide $250 million in
foreign assistance, split between Israel ($200 million) and Palestine
($50 million) (see foreign operations section below);
! Funding for HIV/AIDS: both bills provide $200 million for
HIV/AIDS to be distributed to the Global Fund to combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis or other organizations;
! International Criminal Court (ICC): both bills include the
American Servicemembers’ Protection Act, which prohibits the U.S.
from participating in U.N. peacekeeping efforts unless U.S. service
members are not subject to the international court and limits U.S.
cooperation with the court. After reporting to Congress, however,
the President can waive some provisions. The Senate bill also
includes a separate exemption that would allow the U.S. to
cooperate with the ICC in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, or
other terrorist leaders.
55 See H.Rept. 107-480, p. 19.

CRS-28
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.56
56 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-29
Table 4. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 Supplemental with ETR
and the FY2003 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2002
ETR
Emergency
FY2003
Category
Supplemental of
Supplemental
Request
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-30
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.57 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.”58 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
57 Briefing to congressional staffers on execution in the Defense Emergency Response Fund
and DOD’s FY2002 emergency supplemental request, April 19, 2002.
58 OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, February
2002, p. 277

CRS-31
third.59 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.60 Based on this conservative approach, DOD estimates that wartime
military operations in 2002 will cost about $865 million per month.61
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. DOD’s deployment cost does not include the expense of
activating reservists supporting Afghan operations 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.62 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.63
The difference between DOD and CBO’s estimates is somewhat greater than
appears from the figures above because CBO’s numbers include not only deployment
costs but also the cost of replacing expended munitions and the cost of activating
about 20,000 reservists, whereas 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 $12.4 billion rather than the $10.2
billion assumed by CBO, a $2.2 billion difference.64
59 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002,
p. 5;
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf]
60 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.
61 CRS calculations based on Ibid, DOD’s FY2002 supplemental request; divides total of
$10,388.9 million requested for “deployment costs,” see p. 7.
62 CBO, Letter to Senator Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
United States Senate, April 10, 2002; see [http://www.cbo.gov].
63 Ibid, p. 2-3.
64 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 (as CBO
assumes) would be about $85 million per month, or $1.1 billion for the year.

CRS-32
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
in the first emergency supplemental.65) 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.66
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.67 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.68
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
(JDAMs). DOD is requesting $4 billion for weapons and munitions in the ETR, the
65 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002
, p. 7.
66 James Dao, “Budget Concerns Are Raised on Continued Use of Guard,” New York Times,
April 26, 2002.
67 Department of Defense press release, “National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of May
1, 2002;” see [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/d200201ngr.pdf].
68 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002
, p. 28-29.

CRS-33
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
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.69
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.70 DOD also plans to purchase additional
UAVs with funds provided in the first emergency supplemental, and with funds
requested in the FY2003 budget.71
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.72) 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
69 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.
70 Ibid, p. 10.
71 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.
72 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget
Estimates for 2003, March 2002
, p. 80;
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/FY03GBpdf.pdf].

CRS-34
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.
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.
House Action on the Administration’s Defense Request. There were
several significant changes to the House bill during markup, but no changes to the
bill during floor consideration.
House Markup. In markup, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC)
recommends $15.808 billion for the Department of Defense, an addition of $1.786
billion. The additional funds are requested as contingent emergency funds leaving it
up to the President to decide whether the additional funds are needed. In testimony
before the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 7, 2002, Secretary of Defense
opposed proposed increases to DOD’s funding to activate reserves, stating that “ ...
we have not asked for that money ... the administration is not requesting $1.4
billion.”73
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.
Major Funding Changes. 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.
73 Secretary of Defense Daniel Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, May 7, 2002, Political Transcripts by Federal Document Clearing House, Dow
Jones Reuters.

CRS-35
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.
! $100 million to accelerate chemical demilitarization.
! $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.
! $125 million for the Department of Energy for security at nuclear
weapons facilities and for weapons and material transportation
security.
! $128 million for additional security for Corps of Engineers facilities.
! $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.
Major Policy Changes. The Committee also revises the language in two
controversial provisions proposed by the Administration, which would have
permitted the Department of Defense to provide $30 million to “indigenous forces”
and $100 million to “foreign nations,” in defense articles, services, training, for their
support to the U.S. in the global war on terrorism.
In addition to reducing the funding to $100 million, the Committee required that
the Secretaries of State and Defense send a joint notification and receive approval
from the Appropriations Committees. The bill also limits reimbursements to support
by foreign nations of U.S. military forces (see also section on congressional action
below). The Committee apparently did not modify, however, a similar provision
requested by the Administration, which gives DOD sole authority to use up to $420
million to reimburse nations who provide military and logistical support to the war
on terrorism.
Senate Action on the Administration’s Defense Request. The Senate
made no changes in funding of the DOD request in markup or on the floor. The
Senate provided the same amount of funding, and the same distribution as requested
by the Administration: $14.0 billion overall, with $11.3 billion of that total in the
Defense Emergency Response Fund for war-related costs. Since the House provided
$1.8 billion above the Administration’s request for additional operating expenses and
paying to activate reservists, the overall funding level will be a conference item. The
House provided the funds as a contingent emergency, allowing the President to
decide whether the funds are in fact, needed.

CRS-36
The Senate did, however, included different language than the House or the
Administration governing the provision of aid to nations who aid the U.S. in the war
on terrorism, making this a conference issue (see discussion below).
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.74
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.
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.75 The budget plan for FY2003 includes large amounts for a few
74 The Administration has not identified those states that DOD would assist for their help
in the war on terrorism.
75 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,
(continued...)

CRS-37
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 Manila 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.
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.
75 (...continued)
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-38
Table 5. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted &
Requested
($s – millions)
FY2002
FY2002 FY2002
FY2001 FY2002
FY2003
Country/Program
Supplemental
Supp.
Supp.
Enacted Enacted
Request
Request
Housea
Senatea
South Asia:
Afghanistan
– $297.0
$250.0
$370.0
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
– – $50.0
$25.0
$50.0

Initiative
Israel
$2,813.8 $2,788.0
$0.0
$200.0
$200.0
$2,700.0
Palestinians
$71.0
$72.0
$0.0
$50.0
$50.0
$75.0
East Asia
Indonesia
$121.0
$124.7
$16.0
$8.0
$16.0
$71.9
Philippines
$50.4
$92.1
$40.0
$93.1
Africa
Cote d’Ivoire
$2.8
$3.1
$2.0
$0.0
$3.1
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
Latin America
Colombia
$49.0
$381.7
$35.0
$538.2
Mexico
$31.1
$35.6
$25.0
$25.0
$43.6

CRS-39
FY2002
FY2002 FY2002
FY2001 FY2002
FY2003
Country/Program
Supplemental
Supp.
Supp.
Enacted Enacted
Request
Request
Housea
Senatea
Ecuador
$16.4
$47.5
$3.0
$65.8
Regional Border
– – $5.0

Control
Global
Antiterrorism
$38.0
$83.5
$20.0
$64.2
Training
Terrorist
– – $10.0

Financing
Terrorist
$4.0
$8.0
$10.0
$5.0
Interdiction
USAID
– – $7.0
$7.0
$5.0

admin/security
Defense admin
– – $2.0
$2.0

costs
HIV/AIDS, TB,
$573.0
$653.0
$0.0
$200.0
$200.0
$762.0
Malaria, & Global
Fund
Demining
$40.0
$40.0
$0.0
$0.0
$10.0
$45.0
Migration/Refugee
$698.0
$705.0
$0.0
$0.0
$50.0
$705.6
aid
TOTAL
$5,079.3 $6,947.4
$1,279.5
$1,816.5 $1,779.5 $6,400.8
Sources: Department of State and House Appropriations Committee.
a The House-passed and Senate-reported bills direct or recommend allocations for specific
countries/programs in only selected cases. These directives and recommendations are noted in this
column. The table does not include rescissions.
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

CRS-40
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
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.”76
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.”77 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.78
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.
76 Testimony by Secretary of State Armitage before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
Senate Appropriations Committee, April 18, 2002.
77 Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism,
March 2002, see page 28; also available on DOD’s web site at
[http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf].
78 For additional information, see CRS Report RL31383, Andean Regional Initiative (ARI):
FY2002 Supplemental and FY2003 Assistance for Colombia and Neighbors
, by Larry Storrs
and Nina Serafino.

CRS-41
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 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.
House and Senate action have increased foreign aid funding proposed by the
President, but have limited to some extent policy provisions and waivers sought by
the White House. Both chambers also introduced two new issues into the
supplemental debate – additional funding to fight global HIV/AIDS and the status of
U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA).
The House passed bill includes $1.82 billion for foreign aid, $537 million more
than requested. The Senate measure provides $1.78 billion, or $500 million higher
than proposed. New items added by both the House and Senate include $200 million
in assistance to Israel, $50 million for the Palestinians, and $200 million to combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Both versions increase aid to Afghanistan for
reconstruction and security support above the President’s $250 million request: the
House by $120 million and the Senate by roughly $110 million. The House measure
reduces funding for a Middle East Economic initiative, while the Senate provides full
funding. The Senate bill further adds $15 million to create an international exchange
program for students from countries with large Muslim populations, $7 million to

CRS-42
support media training activities, especially in Pakistan, Egypt, and elsewhere in the
Middle East, and $10 million for humanitarian demining. In most other areas, the
bills recommend amounts close to those proposed (see Table 5, above).
On policy issues, both bills remove the requested “notwithstanding any
provision of law” provisos, but the House legislation still grants specific waivers that
will permit the State Department to program most of the funds as proposed. The
Senate-passed measure waives the debt arrears provision for Afghanistan, but not for
other recipients that might fall under this restriction. On Colombia, both bills include
language similar but less sweeping than the Administration’s request. Each would
allow Colombia to use American foreign aid (money managed by the State
Department) 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. The
Senate bill further adds a new requirement regarding the newly elected Colombian
President and policies regarding human rights, military reforms, and financial
commitments to implement other reforms. The House and Senate differ, however,
on broadening the use of DOD funds for programs in Colombia. The House measure
allows the money to finance operations against terrorist groups, while the Senate bill
rejects the Administration’s request.
Both bills further deny DOD’s request for authority to use $30 million to
support indigenous forces engaged in activities combating terrorism, but approve
$420 million for payments to Pakistan, Jordan, and other cooperating states for
logistical and military support provided. The Senate bill, however, transfers the $420
million to the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program where it would fall under
control of the State Department. The bill calls for the State Department to consult
with DOD and OMB before dispensing funds and also allocates $50 million to the
Phillippines. The White House opposes the Senate language, arguing that the State
Department “should not be held accountable for managing or disbursing funds
directly related to military operations.79
H.R. 4775, as passed by the House, approves DOD’s request for $100 million
to support foreign government efforts to fight global terrorism, but with significant
changes. Transfers would be limited only to reimbursements for the costs of goods,
services, or use of facilities by U.S. military forces and any proposed commitment
of funds must be submitted jointly to the Committees by the Secretaries of State and
Defense 15 days in advance for Committee approval. The Senate measure does not
include a provision related to this issue.
During House Committee markup, another contentious foreign aid policy issue
was introduced. Since mid-January, the White House has maintained a hold on U.S.
contributions to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) because of allegations that
UNFPA is participating in the management of coercive family planning practices in
China. If the White House determines that this is the case, UNFPA would become
ineligible for American contributions. For FY2002, Congress provided “not to
79 Letter from OMB Director Daniels to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert
Byrd, June 17, 2002.

CRS-43
exceed” $34 million for UNFPA, and some Members have criticized the White
House for delaying a decision regarding UNFPA’s eligibility. A State Department
investigation team spent two weeks in China during May.
After initially adopting an amendment by Representatives Lowey and Kolbe
(32-31) that would require the President to transfer the full $34 million to UNFPA
by July 10 if the State Department team concludes that UNFPA is not involved in
coercive family planning practices in China, the Committee approved a further
amendment by Representative Tiahrt that over-rode the Lowey/Kolbe provision. The
Tiahrt amendment required the President to determine whether UNFPA participates
in the management of coercive family planning practices by July 31, 2002, but said
nothing about how much the President must contribute. Prior to final passage of
H.R. 4775, however, the second rule (H.Res. 431) under which the bill was debated
deleted both amendments from the legislation. As such, the House-passed measure
does not include any language regarding UNFPA. Nevertheless, the Senate bill
includes language nearly identical to Lowey/Kolbe text.
Under any of these amendments, a determination that UNFPA is involved in
coercive practices would result in the termination of U.S. support. Without such a
determination, however, the Senate and Lowey/Kolbe amendments would require the
President to transfer the full $34 million. Under the Tiahrt provision, however, the
President could reduce the U.S. contribution to something less than $34 million to
express displeasure over alleged coercive family practices in China and UNFPA’s
involvement. The White House strongly opposes the Senate language, but says it
plans to issue a determination regarding the UNFPA contribution by the July 10 date
referenced in the Senate bill.
Aviation Security Issues80
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.
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;
80 This section was prepared by D. Randy Peterman, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.

CRS-44
! 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. At least some members of Congress
expected that the TSA would be able to cover its budget requirements with the
proceeds of two fees it was authorized to levy – a security fee on passenger tickets
and a fee on the airlines. On an annual basis, the passenger fee is estimated to bring
in about $1.5 billion and the airline fee about $700 million.81 As the costs of carrying
out the enhanced security are becoming clearer, however, it appears that these fees
may not be sufficient.
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.
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.
81 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-45
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 70,000.82
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.83 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.
House Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request. In markup,
the House Appropriations Committee reduces spending for the Transportation
Security Administration by $550 million, to $3.9 billion. 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 faced strong opposition
from the airline industry. Instead, the committee reduced the amount of funding for
the Transportation Security Administration in the supplemental by an additional $150
million. The supplemental funding for enhanced aviation security includes:
! $630 million to purchase explosive detection systems to screen
baggage;
82 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.
83 Ibid.

CRS-46
! $850 million to remodel airports so they can accommodate the new
devices; and
! $75 million to improve port security.84
No changes were made during House floor debate.
Senate Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request. Although
both the House and the Senate were dissatisfied with the justification materials
provided by the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for its plans and
funding for aviation security, the House reduced the Administration’s $4.4 billion
request to $3.85 billion and the Senate provided the entire amount. The Senate was
also concerned about the privacy implications raised by the TSA’s decision to opt for
more trace detection machines which require that passengers open their bags.
In addition to aviation security, the Senate’s bill provides and additional $200
million for various port security initiatives that would develop ways to inspect cargo
at high volume ports. The total in FY2002 would be nearly $300 million. S. 2551
also provides additional funding for security measures at the perimeters of airports
and for bus operations as well (see Appendix A-2). During Senate floor debate, a
provision that would cap emergency loans to airlines was struck (see above).
Aid to New York City
In a Rose Garden meeting with Governor George Pataki and New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg on March 7, 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 11, 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.”85
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.86
The FY2002 emergency supplemental includes $5.5 billion in funding for aid to New
84 House Appropriations Committee, “Full Committee Reports FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental,” Press Release, May 15, 2002; for web access, see
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03supfull.htm].
85 P.L. 107-38.
86 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.

CRS-47
York provided by FEMA disaster assistance, Community Development block grants
and transportation grants to rebuild mass transit, and roads.87
FEMA Request.88 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.89 That fund is used to help communities
recover from and rebuild after major disasters as designated by the President under
the Stafford Act.90 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
New York City in the first emergency supplemental were released within two months
of the attack.91
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.”92 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.93 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
87 Letter of OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, to President George Bush forwarding request for
$27.1 billion in emergency funding, March 20, 2002”; text available online from GPO’s web
site at [http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/FY03GBpdf.pdf].
88 This section was prepared by Keith Bea, Government and Finance Division.
89 The remaining $326.5 million is for grants to state and local governments for first
responder teams, see Appendix A.
90 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., popularly known as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.
91 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, personal communication with CRS, Nov. 13, 2001.
92 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].
93 This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Government and Finance Division.

CRS-48
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.94
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 1998.95
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.
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
94 Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.
95 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
regulations related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, environmental review, and labor
standards. For use of CDBG funds to aid communities in 1998, see P.L. 105-174, 112 Stat.
76.

CRS-49
transportation system that would cost $7.3 billion.96 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.
House Action on the Administration’s New York City Request.
Action taken by the House Appropriations Committee during its markup 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 recommended that the money be
managed by the Office of Homeland Security, but switched to the Justice Department
after White House objections. No changes were made on the House floor.
Senate Action on Administration’s New York City Request. Like the
House, the Senate provided the $5.5 billion in aid for New York that was requested
by the Administration. New York City might also receive additional funding under
the various first responder grants programs.
Aid for Dislocated Workers
The Administration supplemental proposes $750 million in assistance for
dislocated workers. In markup, the Committee reduces that request to $300 million.
Of $450 total aid, $190 million would be provided as National Emergency Grants to
be used for projects that would link high-growth sectors where there are shortages of
workers with state, community college, and DOL training programs. The remaining
$110 million would restore a previous rescission of monies for states for dislocated
worker assistance.
House Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers. The House bill provides
$$300 million in aid for dislocated workers, $450 million below the request. The
funds are also limited to National Emergency grants and Workforce Investment Act
grants, with no funding for demonstration programs or long-term economic
assistance (see Appendix A-2). No changes were made on the floor.
Senate Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers. The Senate bill provides
$400 million in aid, with some funding targeted to demonstration projects and long-
term assistance (see Appendix A-2) though the total provided is $350 million below
the request. The Senate bill calls for targeting assistance to those states whose funds
were reduced as a result of changes in award formulas, and to those states who have
spent most of their funds.97 No changes were made on the Senate floor.
96 Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 Billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.
97 Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 107-156, Making Supplemental Appropriations
for Further Recovery
, “ May 29, 2002, p. 70.

CRS-50
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, discretionary budget authority)
House
Senate
Appropriations Bill
Request
Enacted
action
action
Agriculture & Related
$66.0
($345.0)
$352.5
-
Agencies
Commerce, Justice, State
$427.7
$753.6
$1,280.2
-
Defense & Military
$14,022.0
$15,799.5
$14,022.1
-
Construction
District of Columbia
$0.0
$0.0
$68.3
-
Energy & Water Development
$26.4
$378.4
$335.4
-
Foreign Operations
$1,122.50
$1,597.5
$1,545.5
-
Interior
($10.0)
$57.3
$50.5.0
-
Labor, Health/Human Services,
$1,976.00
$1,270.0
$1,802.0
-
Education/a/
Legislative Branch
$15.4
$25.2
$11.1
-
Transportation
$6,644.8
$5,075.3
$7,428.4
-
Treasury, Postal Serv,
$146.3
$651.5
$198.5
-
Executive Office of President,
& Gen Govt
Veterans, Housing & Urban
$3,975.5
$3,511.3
$4,433.8
-
Dev, & Independent
Agencies/b/
TOTAL/a/ /b/ /c/
$28,412.6
$28,774.6
$31,528.3
-
Notes:
a The Administration included a request for $1.3 billion in supplemental funding for FY2002 Pell
grants in its FY2003 budget, with equal offsets from reductions in funds added by Congress to
Labor, HHS, and the Department of Education. The House and the Senate Appropriations
Committees both provided $1 billion for Pell grants but did not accept the offset.
b Does not include $1.1 billion in mandatory spending for veterans eligible for disability payments,
requested by the Administration on May 15, 2002 and included by the Senate.
c Totals include rescissions and non-emergency spending; includes scoring of offset for airline credit
provision directed by the House.

CRS-51
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request by Appropriation Account
(millions of dollars)
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Agriculture
Food & Safety Inspection
Review foreign country equivalence agreements &
0.0
BIO
0.0
2.0
15.0
-
Service
foreign plants.
Food & Nutrition Service
Finance rising participation in Supplemental Nutrition
75.0
VIC
39.0
75.0
75.0
-
WIC Program*
Program for Women, Infants, & children
Animal & Plant Health
Aid State efforts to prevent & control transmissible
0.0
NA
105.0
10.0
60.0
-
Inspection Service: S&E
spongiform encephalopathy in farmed and free-ranging
animals.
National Resources Con-
Cancel funds to rehabilitate aging dams.
(9.0)
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
servation Service: Water-
shed Rehab (rescission)
Export Enhancement
Limits expenditures of Export Enhancement Program
0.0
NA
NA
(450.0)
0.0
-
Program
by $450 million
Office of the Secretary,
Improve lab security and set up a consolidated database
0.0
BIO
0.0
0.0
18.0
-
Animal and Plant Health
on biological agents at field labs.
Inspection Serv., Agric.
Marketing Serv. and/or
Food Safety and Inspection
Service
Agricultural Research
Assess agriculture’s vulnerability to plant and animal
0.0
BIO
0.0
0.0
16.0
-
Service - S&E
pathogens.
Agric. Research Service -
Renovate National Animal Disease Laboratory in
0.0
BIO
0.0
0.0
50.0
-
Building and Facilities*
Ames, Iowa, an infectious disease center.
Cooperative State
For first responders in agriculture extension services.
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
16.0
-
Research, Education, and
Extension Service
Natural Resources
For recovery from flooding in Illinois, Kentucky,
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
73.0
-

CRS-52
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Conservation Service,
Michigan, Virginia and West Virginia in May 2002.
Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations*
Conservation Service,
For recovery from storms, floods, fires and other
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
27.0
-
Watershed and Flood
natural disasters.
Prevention Operations
Rural Community
Upgrading security and conducting vulnerability
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
25.0
-
Advancement Program
assessments of rural water systems ($5M).
Rural Utilities Service
Rescinds guaranteed loans for local tv stations
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(20.0)
-
Rural Utilities Service*
Local tv loan Guarantee program
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
20.0
-
Food Stamp Program
Rescinds $33M for Employment and Training Prg.
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(33.0)
-
General Provision
Assistance to agricultural producers in Texas along Rio
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
10.0
-
Grande river
HHS
Food & Drug Admin-S&E
Medical devices & radiological health safety activities
0.0
BIO
0.0
18.0
0.0
-
TOTAL, Agriculture
66.0
(345.0)
352.0
-

CRS-53
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Commerce, Justice, State:
Commerce Department

Departmental
Increased guard and protection services.
0.4
SEC
4.8
0.4
0.4
-
management–S&E
Export Administration,
Initiate information sharing program for homeland
8.7
PRE
0.0
0.0
8.7
-
O&M
security.
National Institute of
Develop standards for
4.0
PRE
0.0
4.0
0.0
-
Standards and
chem/bio/nuclear/radiological explosive threat
Technology
detecting equipment and biomedical recognition
equipment.
National Institute of
New homeland security activities and
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
84.6
-
Standards and
requirements, including $40M for a cyber-security
Technology
initiative
NOAA-Fisheries
Set limits of $5M for direct loans and $19M for
(3.0)
NA
NA
(3.0)
(3.0)
-
Finance Program
traditional loans, reducing subsidy.
Gen’l provision, Sec. 208
Aid to New England fishery
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
11.0
-
Gen’l provision, Sec. 209
Aid to Northeast fishery
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
5.0
US Trade Rep - S&E
Increased security costs
0.0
SEC
0.0
1.1
0.0
-
US Trade Rep*
European Communities Music Licensing Dispute
3.3
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
International Trade
New homeland security activities
0.0
SEC
1.0
0.0
1.7
-
Administration, Ops and
Amin.
Bureau of the Census
Rescinds $20.9M for Suitland Federal Center
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(20.9)
-
NOAA - Operations,
Funds for mapping and charting backlogs
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
23.4
-
Research, and facilities

CRS-54
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
NOAA - Operations,
Enhance National Water Observation Network
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
3.0
-
Research, and facilities
NOAA - Operations,
Backup to critical satellite products and services
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
2.8
-
Research, and facilities
NOAA - Procurement,
Supercomputer backup
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
7.2
-
Acquisition & Construct.
NOAA - Procurement,
Rescinds funds for National Polar-Orbiting Operational
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(8.1)
-
Acquisition & Construct.
Environmental Satellite System
NOAA, rescission
Limits credits for Fisheries Financing, rescission
0.0
NA
NA
(3.0)
(3.0)
-
NOAA, general provision
Provides assistance to New England fisheries
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
5.0
-
(Sec. 208)*
NOAA, general provision
Provides assistance to Northeast fisheries
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
11.0
-
(Sec. 208)*
Justice Department
General Admin/S&E
Fingerprint identification system for use by INS
5.8
INV/LE
5.0
5.8
10.8
-
inspectors to conduct background checks of suspect
aliens.
General Admin/S&E *
Funds Principal Deputy Attorney General for
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
2.0
-
Combating Terrorism
General Admin/S&E,
For grants for pre-positioned equipment for first
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
[173.8] by
-
Office of Domestic
responders ($85M), regional training ($48M), and
transfer
Preparedness
exercises with state and local gov’ts ($34M), and
assessments ($6M).
US Marshals Service-S&E
Increased security requirements of high-threat terrorist
0.0
SEC
0.0
1.0
0.0
-
trials.

CRS-55
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Legal Activities, S&E, US
For courtroom technology.
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
5.2
-
Attorneys
Salaries and Expense, US
Rescinds $7M
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(7.0)
-
Attorneys
Salaries and Expense, US
Rescinds $2.1M from Training Academy for US
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(2.1)
-
Marshals
Marshalls.
Salaries and Expense, US
For anti-terrorism task forces from amounts provided in
0.0
INV/LE
45.0
0.0
[45.0]
-
Marshals
P.L. 107-77 and P.L 107-117
Salaries and Expense, US
For joint terrorism task forces from amounts provided
0.0
INV/LE
0.0
0.0
[113.2]
-
Marshals
in P.L. 107-77 and P.L.107-117
Salaries and Expense, US
For Foreign Terrorist Tracing Task forces from
0.0
INV/LE
0.0
0.0
[10.0]
-
Marshals
amounts available under P.L. 107-77 and P.L 107-117
FBI/S&E
Equipment, R&D, and cyber security measures ($56M).
10.0
INV/LE
821.6
112.0
75.5
-
Drug Enforcement Agency
Rescinds $13M
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(13.0)
-
- Violent Crime Reduction
Office of Justice Programs,
Grants to First Responders
[175.0]
PRE
400.0
175.0
173.8
-
Justice Assistance
requested
(transfer
for FEMA
to Dept’y
Att’y
Gen’l,
Dom.
Prep,)
Office of Justice
Establishes Election Reform Grant Program.
0.0
NA
NA
[450.0]
450.0
-
Programs*
under
OMB
Office of Justice Programs,
Rescinds $2M for Office of Assistant Attorney General
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(4.0)
-
Justice Assistance
and $2M for Office of Congressional and Public Affairs

CRS-56
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Office of Justice Programs,
Provides grants to states and localities to improve
0.0
PRE
400.0
0.0
85.0
-
Community Oriented
communication among law enforcement agencies
Policing Services
INS/S&E
Air and sea port security initiatives and shortfall in
35.0
SEC 89.7
75.0
35.0
-
immigration user fee revenue.
INS - Construction
For emergency construction expenses at border patrol
0.0
REC
99.6
0.0
84.0
-
stations.
Federal Prison System
Rescinds $30M for buildings and facilities
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(30.0)
-
State Department
Diplomatic & Consular
Support operations in Kabul and Tajikistan; supports
43.6
SEC
106.7
33.6
38.3
-
programs
security and emergency medical response; & restore
mail operations contaminated by anthrax.
Diplomatic and Consular
Expand public diplomacy.
7.5
PUB DIP
62.9
17.5
0.0
-
programs
Capital Investment Fund
Develop a classified, anti-terrorism global database.
2.5
PRE
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Ed & Cultural Exchanges
For Educational and Cultural Exchange programs.
10.0
PUB DIP
62.9
20.0
9.0
-
Embassy Security,
New construction in Tajikistan ($80M) and
200.5
SEC
0.0
200.5
210.5
-
Construction, &
rehabilitation of Kabul compound ($120M).
Maintenance
Emergencies in the
Payments to injured individuals & families in connec-
8.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
Diplomatic & Consular
tion with 4/20/01 incident with civilian plane in Peru.
Service
Contributions to
U.S. share of U.N. Special Representative’s operation
7.0
HUM AID
0.0
7.0
7.0
-
International Organizations
in Afghanistan.
Contributions for Int’l
U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping operations.
43.0
SEC
0.0
43.0
0.0
-
Peacekeeping Activities
ASSIST
Contributions for Int’l
Rescinds $35M from prior year appropriations
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(35.0)
-
Peacekeeping Activities
Int’l Broadcasting Ops
Surrogate broadcasting by RFE/RL to Afghanistan
7.4
PUB DIP
21.5
7.4
7.4
-

CRS-57
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Int’l Broadcasting Capital
Installation of a medium wave transmission facility in
0.0
PUB DIP
0.0
7.7
0.0
-
Improvements
Tunisia to support Arabic broadcasting initiative.
Judicial Branch
Supreme Court/ Care of
Perimeter security enhancements at Supreme Court.
10.0
SEC
31.3
10.0
10.0
-
Buildings and Grounds
US Courts of Appeals for
Security upgrades.
0.9
SEC
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
the Federal Circuit - S&E
Court of Appeals, District
Protective window film & other security measures,
3.1
SEC
82.2
6.2
9.7
-
Courts - S&E
including closed circuit transmission of Moussaoui
trial.
Related Agencies
Securities & Exchange
Additional staff for Commission’s growing oversight
20.0
NA
NA
20.0
20.0
-
Commission – S&E*
and enforcement workload
SEC – S&E
SEC New York Regional Office recovery costs.
0.0
REC
20.7
9.3
9.3
-
TOTAL, Commerce, Justice, and State Depts.
427.7
750.5
1,280.2
-

CRS-58
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Defense and Military Construction
Military Personnel, Air
Funds full end strength of 358,800 including those AF
206.0
DEFENSE
NA
206.0
206.0
-
Force
required to stay because of global war on terrorism.
Defense Emergency
A transfer account for operational and special pay costs
11,300.0
DEFENSE
15,883.3
11,300.0
11300.0
-
Response Fund (DERF), a
associated with conflict in Afghanistan and elsewhere,
transfer account/b/
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/
Defense Emergency
Adds funds for operational costs, training, spare parts,
0.0
DEFENSE
0.0
604.0
0.0
Response Fund (DERF)
and equipment maintenance.
Defense Emergency
Adds funds for reserve mobilization costs.
0.0
DEFENSE
0.0
790.0
0.0
-
Response Fund (DERF), a
transfer account/b/
Operation and
Funds communication program ($5.2M), and classified
107.0
DEFENSE
NA
107.0
107.0
-
Maintenance, Army
programs ($101.8M).
Operation and
Adds funds for overseas contingency operations.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
119.0
0.0
-
Maintenance, Army
Operation and
Classified programs.
36.5
DEFENSE
NA
53.8
36.5
-
Maintenance, Navy
Operation and
Replace intelligence and surveillance equipment,
41.0
DEFENSE
NA
41.0
41.0
-
Maintenance, Air Force
including support of Predator ($9 million), and
classified programs ($32M).
Operation and
Adds funds for classified programs.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
19.5
0.0
-
Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and
Funds payments to Pakistan, Jordan and other “key
420.0
DEFENSE
[288.0]
420.0
420.0
-
Maintenance, Defense wide
cooperating nations” for logistical and military support.
(to be
transfered
to State,
ESF)

CRS-59
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Operation and
Replaces various intelligence and surveillance and
319.0
DEFENSE
NA
319.0
319.0
-
Maintenance, Defense wide
reconnaissance equipment ($35.5M), and classified
programs ($283.5M).
Operation and
Adds funds for classified programs.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
13.0
0.0
-
Maintenance, Defense wide
Other Procurement, Army
Replaces various intelligence and surveillance and
79.2
DEFENSE
NA
79.2
79.2
-
reconnaissance equipment ($68.8M), and classified
programs ($10.4M)).
Aircraft Procurement,
Upgrades White House Communications ($14.8M) and
22.8
DEFENSE
NA
22.8
22.8
-
Navy
classified programs ($8M).
Procurement of
Nearly doubles production rate of Joint Direct Attack
262.0
DEFENSE
[443.5]
262.0
262.0
-
Ammunition, Navy and
Munitions (JDAMs) from 1,500. month to 2,800 a
Marine Corps
month and buys additional munitions.
Other Procurement, Navy
Funds various intelligence, surveillance and
2.5
DEFENSE
NA
2.5
2.5
-
reconnaissance classified programs.
Procurement, Marine
Funds classified command, control, and communication
3.5
DEFENSE
NA
3.5
3.5
-
Corps
programs.
Aircraft Procurement, Air
Accelerates production of Predator unmanned aerial
93.0
DEFENSE
NA
93.0
93.0
-
Force
vehicles to two per month ($37M), retrofits ground
station ($8M), and buys one replacement Global Hawk
UAV ($35M), and two sensor packages ($13M).
Aircraft Procurement, Air
Adds funds for F-15 VHF radios.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
36.5
0.0
-
Force
Procurement of
Nearly doubles production rate of Joint Direct Attack
115.0
DEFENSE
[443.5]
115.0
115.0
-
Ammunition, Air Force
Munitions (JDAMs) from 1,500 month to 2,800 a
month and buys additional munitions.
Other Procurement, Air
Funds classified command, control, and communication
752.3
DEFENSE
NA
735.3
752.3
-
Force
programs, including buying UAVs.

CRS-60
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Other Procurement, Air
Rescinds $29.0 million in FY2001 funds
0.0
NA
NA
(29.0)
0.0
Force
Procurement, Defense wide
Replaces and upgrades intelligence, surveillance, and
99.5
DEFENSE
NA
99.5
99.5
-
reconnaissance equipment ($37.8M), funds classified
programs ($46.9M), and White House communications
upgrades ($14.8M).
Procurement, Defense wide
Adds funds for classified programs.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
4.9
0.0
-
Procurement, Defense wide
Rescinds $30 million in FY2002 funds
0.0
NA
NA
(30.0)
0.0
-
RDT&E, Army
Funds fielding of new medical treatment for wounds.
8.2
DEFENSE
0.0
8.2
8.2
-
RDT&E, Navy
Funds upgrades to White House communications
19.0
DEFENSE
9.0
19.0
-
systems and other command, control, and
communications systems.
RDT&E, Air Force
Accelerates upgrades to unmanned aerial vehicles and
60.8
DEFENSE
NA
99.8
60.8
-
classified programs.
RDT&E, Defense wide
Classified programs.
74.7
DEFENSE
NA
52.0
74.8
-
RDT&E, Defense wide
Chem-Bio detection.
0.0
DEFENSE
28.0
20.0
0.0
MH-47 Helicopter-Sec 308
Purchase 3 MH-47 helicopters.
0.0
DEFENSE
0.0
93.0
0.0
-
Chemical Demilitarization-
Accelerate chemical weapons demilitarization.
0.0
DEFENSE
NA
100.0
0.0
-
Sec 309
Military Construction-Air
For upgrade at Diego Garcia to Support Operation
0.0
DEFENSE
0.0
8.5
0.0
-
Force
Enduring Freedom.
Military Construction-
Construction of a Joint Ops Complex at Ft. Bragg
0.0
DEFENSE
0.0
21.5
0.0
-
Defense-Wide
($19.6M) & planning & design ($1.9M).
TOTAL, Defense & Military Construction
14,022.0
15,799.5
14,022.1
-

CRS-61
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
District of Columbia
Public education system
Rescind surplus that resulted from lower than projected
0.0
NA
NA
(37.0)
(37.0)
-
student enrollment.
Home Support Services -
Increased adoption case rates, higher case loads for
0.0
NA
NA
11.0
11.0
-
Child & Family Services*
adoption, and emergency group home utilization.
Home Support Services -
Address Medicaid revenue shortfall.
0.0
NA
NA
26.0
26.0
-
Dept of Mental Health*
Repayment of loans &
Rescind repayment of loans and interest due to lower
0.0
NA
NA
(8.0)
(8.0)
-
interest
interest rates and borrowing.
Certificate of participation*
Finances lease for One Judiciary Square
0.0
NA
NA
8.0
8.0
-
Federal Payment to
Implementing District emergency ops plan, including
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
13.8
-
Children’s National
quarantine facilities and decontamination facility for
Medical Center
children and families.
Federal Payment to District
For District Emergency ops plan, for public safety for
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
14.7
-
of Columbia
special events
Federal Payment to District
For District Emergency Ops plan, for construction of
0.0
PRE
8.0
0.0
10.0
-
of Columbia
Hospital Containment facilities to support regional Bio
terrorism Hospital Preparedness Program.
Federal Payment to
To create a regional transportation back-up operations
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
25.0
-
METRO
control center
Washington Council of
For support of Regional Incident Communication and
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
1.8
-
Governments
Coordination System
Federal Payment to Water
To secure fire hydrants and manholes, monitor water
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
3.0
-
and Sewer Authority of
quality remotely, improve ventilation system
District of Columbia
DC Operating Funds,
Rescinds $100K from Dept. of Corrections for
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
(0.1)
-
Public Safety and Justice
Corrections Information Council
Corrections Information
For Corrections Information Council
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
0.1
-
Council
Governmental Direction
Revises language permitting up to $353K to be
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
[.4]
-

CRS-62
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
and Support*
available to Office of Corporation Council for Attorney
retention allowance if performance measures are
adopted.
Total, District of Colombia
0.0
0.0
68.3
-

CRS-63
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Energy and Water Development
Corps of Engineers, O&M
Security improvements at Corps facilities
0.0
SEC
139.0
128.4
0.0
-
Corps of Engineers, O&M
Security improvements at Corps facilities near
0.0
SEC
139.0
0.0
[6.5]
-
Mississippi River and tributaries, using funds from ETR
transfers
funds
Corps of Engineers, O&M*
Assist recovery from flooding in May 2002 in West
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
32.0
-
Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia ($10M), Eastern
Missouri and Upper Peninsula, Michigan ($22M)
Interior, Bureau of
Drilling of emergency wells in Santa Fe, New Mexico
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
3.0
-
Reclamation*
DOE Energy Programs -
Enhance safeguards and security at DOE Science labs.
0.0
SEC
0.0
29.0
0.0
-
Science
National Nuclear Security
Improve emergency response of radiological search
19.4
PRE
0.0
19.4
19.4
-
Administration/Weapons
teams in urban areas ($8.8M), support law enforcement
Activities
officials, consequence management teams and other
local emergency responders.
Secure transportation of nuclear weapons
0.0
SEC
25.0
18.0
18.0
-
Increased safeguards and security at DOE nuclear
0.0
SEC
111.0
88.0
104.3
-
weapons facilities, including cyber-security
For counter-terrorism, including National Center to
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
40.0
-
Combat Terrorism
Defense Nuclear
Enhance international safeguards activities; protect and
0.0
SEC
226.0
5.0
65.0
-
Nonproliferation
safeguard nuclear materials in Former Soviet Union
Develop sensors to prevent nuclear and other deadly
0.0
SEC
226.0
0.0
35.0
-
materials from entering the U.S.
Office of the Administrator
For additional emergency expenses
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
1.8
-

CRS-64
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Environmental and other
Enhance safeguards at various DOE environmental
0.0
SEC
0.0
67.0
0.0
-
defense activities/Defense
management cleanup sites.
Environmental Restoration
& Waste Management
Environmental and other
Enhance safeguards at several DOE sites.
0.0
SEC
8.2
16.6
40.0
-
defense activities/Defense
Facilities Closure Projects
Environmental and other
Vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure and
7.0
PRE
0.0
7.0
7.0
-
defense activities/Other
training, conferences, and logistical support for energy
defense activities
assurance activities.
DOE, Energy Supply, Non-
Rescinds $30 million from these accounts as provided
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(30.0)
-
Defense Environmental
in P.L. 107-66, with specifics to be submitted within 30
Management/Science,
days to the Appropriations Committees
Nuclear Waste Disposal/
and Departmental
Administration
TOTAL, Energy and Water
26.4
378.4
335.4
-

CRS-65
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Foreign Operations
Child Survival/Health
Combating AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
0.0
NA
NA
200.0
200.0
-
USAID OE
USAID’s presence in Afghanistan.
7.0
HUM AID
0.0
7.0
5.0
-
USAID Disaster Asst
Reconstruction & development projects in Afghanistan
40.0
HUM AID
50.0
190.0
[150.0]
-
and Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan.
USAID Disaster Asst
Humanitarian and reconstruction activities in
[40.0]
HUM AID
50.0
[190.0]
150.0
-
Afghanistan ($197.5M), West Bank and Gaza ($50M),
and administrative expenses of AID ($2.5M).
Economic Support Fund
Economic assistance for 13 “front-line” states in the
525.0
SEC ASST
600.0
460.0
[500.0]
-
war on terrorism, including Afghanistan, Jordan,
Turkey, and the Philippines
Economic assistance to “front-line” states, including
0.0
SEC ASST
600.0
[460.0]
500.0
-
$50 million for Middle East Economic Initiative, and
$7M for journalists and media in Middle East and
Pakistan, and $15M for Muslim student exchange
program.
Provides $200 million in aid to Israel and $50 million
0.0
SEC ASST
NA
250.0
200.0
-
to Palestine
(Israel
only)
International Narcotics
Counter narcotics & law enforcement activities in
80.0
SEC ASST
73.0
80.0
NS
-
Control & Law Enforce.
Afghanistan ($60M) and Pakistan ($20M).
Border security with Mexico ($25M) & Western
34.0
SEC ASST
0.0
34.0
NS
-
Hemisphere Regional ($5M), and Police Post support
for Colombia ($4M).
Counter narcotics & law enforcement, including $2.5M
[114.0]
SEC ASST
73.0
[114.0]
104.0
-
for Colombian park rangers and $4M for Indonesian
police.

CRS-66
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Independent States, Former
Aid Uzbekistan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan,
110.0
SEC ASST
46.5
110.0
110.0
-
Soviet Union
Kazakhstan & Turkmenistan, including $22 million for
drug law enforcement and $12M for border security.
Migration & Refugee Asst
Emergency activities in & around Afghanistan.
0.0
HUM AID
100.0
10.0
50.0
-
Foreign Military Financing
Military aid for 18 “front-line” states in the war on
372.5
SEC ASST
45.0
372.5
347.5
-
terrorism, including Afghanistan, Turkey, Afghanistan,
Uzbekistan, Pakistan, the Philippines, Jordan, Bahrain,
Oman, and Yemen.
Non-proliferation, anti-
Training/equipment for counter-terrorist aid to Pakistan
83.0
SEC
97.9
83.0
93.0
-
terrorism, De-mining, and
($10M), Indonesia ($8M), Colombia ($25M), and
ASSIST
related programs
terrorist interdiction training to various countries.
Peacekeeping Operations
Salaries of Afghan military forces supporting U.S.
20.0
SEC ASST
0.0
20.0
20.0
-
operations
Training of civilian and military personnel to support
8.0
SEC ASST
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
peacekeeping in Indonesia.
Special Payments to Intl
Rescission of unobligated balances of funds
(157.0)
NA
NA
(159.0)
(159.0)
-
Financial Institutions
appropriated in the 92d and 93d Congress’ for
maintenance of value payments to international
financial institutions.
Rescission-Sec 602
Rescission of FY2000 and prior year appropriations of
0.0
NA
NA
(60.0)
0.0
-
development assistance and ESF.
Rescission-Sec 604
Rescission of prior foreign operations and export
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(75.0)
-
financing aid
TOTAL, Foreign Operations
1,122.5
1,597.5
1545.5
-

CRS-67
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Interior
BLM-Management of
Repay unreimbursed law enforcement costs for security
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.7
0.0
-
Lands & Resources
at Dept of Interior building in Washington
US Fish & Wildlife-
Repay unreimbursed airport security, security costs at
0.0
SEC
0.0
1.4
0.4
-
Resource Management
Dept of Interior building in Washington, & other items
US Fish & Wildlife -
Facility and safety improvements related to security
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
3.1
-
Construction
Natl Park Service-Ops
Repay unreimbursed law enforcement costs for security
0.0
SEC
6.1
1.2
0.0
-
at Dept of Interior building in Washington
Natl Park Service-
Security screening at the Washington Monument
0.0
SEC
5.1
19.3
17.7
-
Construction
US Geological Survey-
Infrastructure mapping in 120 U.S. urban areas.
0.0
SEC
0.0
25.7
26.8
-
Surveys, Investigations
Bureau of Indian Affairs-
Repay unreimbursed law enforcement costs for security
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.1
0.0
-
Ops of Indian Programs
at Dept of Interior building in Washington.
Bureau of Indian Affairs-
Cancel funds for electric power operations at San
(10.0)
NA
NA
(5.0)
(10.0)
-
Ops of Indian Programs
Carlos Irrigation Project
Interior-Dept. Offices-
Interior Dept Office of Homeland Security & to repay
0.0
SEC
2.2
0.9
7.0
-
S&E
unreimbursed law enforcement costs for security at
Dept of Interior building in Washington.
Forest Service, Capital
Facility enhancements to protect property from
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
3.5
-
Improvement and
terrorism, vandalism, and theft
Maintenance
Smithsonian-S&E
Security improvements & ongoing operations.
0.0
SEC
21.7
11.0
0.0
-
Smithsonian-Construction
Planning, design and construction of an alcohol
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
2.0
-
collections storage facility
Pod 5 planning and design for storage of sensitive
0.0
SEC
0.0
2.0
0.0
-
materials.
TOTAL, Interior
(10.0)
57.3
50.5
-

CRS-68
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Department of Labor

Training & Employment
National Emergency Grants to states to aid dislocated
550.0
VIC
32.5
190.0
200.0
-
Services
workers.
RELIEF
Training and Employment
Demonstration training projects.
50.0
VIC
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Services (Contingent
RELIEF
Emergency)
Training and Employment
State formula grants for dislocated workers
0.0
VIC
0.0
0.0
80.0
Services
RELIEF
Training and Employment
Transfer to Commerce Department for long-term
40.0
VIC
0.0
0.0
10.0
-
Services (Contingent
economic assistance programs.
RELIEF
Emergency)
Training and Employment
Grants under Workforce Investment Act to restore
110.0
VIC
0.0
110.0
110.0
-
Services (Contingent
FY2001 rescission.
RELIEF
Emergency)
Department of Health and Human Services
Heath Resources & Servs
Cancel funds for the Community Access Program.
(20.0)
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
Natl Institute for Health-
Rescind funds for safety & compliance, repairs &
(30.0)
NA
NA
(30.0)
(30.0)
-
Buildings & Facilities
improvements, and Building 10 renovation.
Natl Institute for Health-
Security enhancements at NIH facility
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
72.0
-
Buildings & Facilities
Natl Institute for Health-
For screening and long-term health monitoring of
0.0
VIC
12.0
0.0
90.0
-
Office of the Secy
emergency services personnel who responded to WTC
RELIEF
attack, including $25M for firefighters
CDC, Disease Control,
Construct new facility and renovate existing CDC
0.0
BIO
0.0
0.0
278.0
-
Research, and Training
bioterrorism facilities in Atlanta
Improve security, including information security
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
37.0
-

CRS-69
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Department of Education
Student Financial Asst*/c/
Pell Grants Program/c/
1,276.0/c/
NA
NA
1,000.0
1,000.00
-
Offsets for Pell Grants /c/
Rescinds all Cong. adds in FY02 in Labor, HHS bill
[1,276.0]
NA
NA
0.0
0.00
-
General provision
Requires pro rata reductions in previous admin. and
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(45.0)
mgt expenses of DOL, HHS, and Dept. of Ed
TOTAL, Labor, HHS, and Education/c/
1,976.0
1,270.0
1,802.0
-
Legislative Branch
House-Standing Com-
Additional funds for the Permanent Select Committee
0.0
INV/LE
0.0
1.6
0.0
-
mittees, Special & Select*
on Intelligence
Library of Congress
To fund shortfall in copyright Office from lower
7.5
VIC
0.0
7.5
7.5
-
receipts in FY2002.
RELIEF
Congressional Printing and
Replenish shortfall from prior year
5.9
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
Binding
GPO Revolving Fund
Asbestos abatement in buildings
2.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
Capitol Police Board-
Computer equipment, training, & communications.
0.0
SEC
80.8
16.1
3.6
-
General Expenses
TOTAL, Legislative Branch
15.4
25.2
11.1
-

CRS-70
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Transportation and Related Agencies
Department of Transportation

Coast Guard operating
Funds six months of additional expenses for personnel
189.0
SEC
227.2
210.0
318.4
-
expenses
($82M), operating costs ($60M), maritime security
initiatives ($46M), reserves ($8M), port vulnerability
assessments ($12M), and PACAREA ship refueling
capability ($1M).
Coast Guard, Acquisition,
Acquire and replace patrol boats ($36M), monitoring
66.0
SEC
0.0
78.0
66.0
-
Construction, and
systems ($23M), improve communications and
Improvements
infrastructure ($14M)).
Additional patrol boats (6 to 8), communication
0.0
SEC
0.0
NS
281.7
-
equipment ($27.7M), and other security enhancements.
Transportation Security
Funds initial and then Federal screener personnel,
2,455.0
SEC
325.0
2,305.0
NS
-
Administration
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 enforcement
1,945.0
SEC AV
325.0
1,545.0
NS
-
Administration (Contingent
personnel, staff, and consultants for aviation security to
Emergency)
be further defined in a later request.
Transportation Security
For Federal screener personnel, airport managers, and
[4,400.0]
SEC AV
325.0
[3,850.0]
4,400.0
-
Administration
other law enforcement personnel and explosive
detection equipment.
Grants for security enhancements at high volume ports.
0.0
SEC
93.0
0.0
200.0
-
More law enforcement personnel to enhance perimeter
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
35.0
-
and terminal security.
Emergency communications and security
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
20.0
-
improvements for bus companies
Testing and deploying new safety measures for
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
27.9
-
container cargo.
Training port personnel in incident management for
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
20.0
-

CRS-71
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Develop new technology for screening air, rail, or
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
15.0
-
shipping cargo
Rescinds funding for criminal investigation
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(15.4)
-
Federal Aviation
Provides more guards and barriers at air traffic control
[100.0]
SEC AV
599.0
[25.0]
100.0
-
Administration Operations
facilities to be paid for with fees.
FAA-Grants in Aid for
Compensate airports for portions of the costs of new
0.0
SEC AV
175.0
200.0
100.0
-
Airports
security requirements.
FAA-Facilities and
Fix FAA’s long-range radars that track aircraft with
0.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
15.0
-
Equipment (Airway Trust
broken transponders, using Airway Trust Fund
Fund)
revenues.
Federal Highway Admin.,
Funds repair and restoration of highways and roads in
167.0
REC
75.0
167.0
167.0
-
Federal-aid Highways,
NYC damaged by attacks that are eligible for federal
Emergency Relief
funding.
Federal-Aid Highways
Rescinds highway contract authority
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(200.0)
-
Federal Motor Carrier
Funds personnel, and efforts to detect license frauds.
19.3
INV/LE
0.0
19.3
19.3
-
Safety Administration-
Border Enforcement
Hazardous Materials
Implement permit program for motor carriers
0.0
SEC
0.0
5.0
0.0
-
Security
transporting the most dangerous materials.
Federal Railroad
Grants for damaged equipment, security, and overhaul
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
55.0
-
Administration,
of rail passenger cars.
AMTRAK*
Federal Transit
To fully fund rebuilding of public mass transportation
1,800.0
REC
0.0
1,800.0
1,800.0
-
Administration, Capital
in Manhattan that are not eligible for FEMA funds.
Investment Grants
Research & Special
Upgrades new center to monitor crises.
3.5
PRE
2.5
0.0
3.5
-
Programs

CRS-72
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Airline Loan Program (Sec
Prohibits further federal loans to air carriers authorized
0.0
NA
NA
(1,254.0)
0.0
-
1103)
in P.L. 107-42 for the rest of FY2002.
Air Carrier Compensation
Rescinds unobligated balance for grants to airlines
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
(Sec 1104)
authorized in P.L. 107-42.
TOTAL, Transportation
6,644.8
5,075.3
7,428.4
-
Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President, and General Govt.
Treasury Department
Federal Law Enforcement
Additional instructors , facilities, & equipment to train
0.0
INV/LE
23.0
15.9
0.0
-
Training Center
new law enforcement staff.
Financial Management
Rescission of funds & transfer to more important IRS
0.0
NA
NA
(14.0)
(14.0)
-
Service (Sec 1201)
needs.
IRS (Sec 1201)
Business Systems Modernization
0.0
NA
NA
14.0
0.0
-
IRS, Information Systems
Rescission of prior year funds
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(10.0)
-
US Customs Service
Provide staff and technology to screen cargo at high
0.0
SEC
0.0
0.0
57.0
-
volume ports.
Monitor imports of goods made with forced labor
0.0
NA
0.0
0.0
2.0
-
US Secret Service-S&E
New protective details, new staff, recurring costs, &
0.0
SEC
104.8
46.8
17.2
-
costs of Electronic Crime Task Force.
U.S. Postal Service
US Postal Service, US
To provide additional protection to postal employees
87.0
BIO
675.0
87.0
87.0
-
Postal Service Fund
and customers from biohazardous material.

CRS-73
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Executive Office of the President
Exec. Office of President,
Funds outfit of off-site facility for Office of Homeland
5.0
PRE
0.0
0.0
5.0/e/
-
Administration, S&E
Security.
Exec. Office of President,
Rescission of OMB’s costs for the Office of Homeland
0.0
NA
NA
(0.8)
0.0
-
OMB
Security
Exec. Office of President,
Election administration reform/d/
0.0
NA
NA
450.0
[450.0]
-
Election Admin Reform*
Justice
Dept.
Federal Election Commission
Federal Election
Implementation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
0.0
NA
NA
0.8
0.0
-
Commission*
Act.
GSA
GSA, Real property
Increases security services at federal buildings.
51.8
SEC
135.1
51.8
51.8
-
Activities/Federal
Buildings Funds
GSA, General
Funds new office to assess potential disruptions in
2.5
PRE
0.0
0.0
2.5
-
Activities/Policy and
information technology.
Operations
TOTAL, Treasury, Postal Service, EXOP and Gen’l Gov’t
146.3
651.5
198.5
-

CRS-74
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies
Veteran’s Administration
VA Admin, Medical Care*
Medical care services to priority 1-6 veterans.
142.0
NA
NA
417.0
417.0 as
-
emerg.
Spending
VA, Compensation and
Additional benefit payments to eligible, disabled
[1,100.0]
NA
NA
0.0
[1,100.0]
-
Pensions*, mandatory/f/
veterans requested by Administration, May 21, 2002
mandatory
mandatory
VA Admin, Medical &
Rescission of funds for Medical and Prosthetic
(5.0)
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
Prosthetic Research
Research.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA, Disaster Relief
Covers remaining response and recovery efforts in
2,750.0
REC
6,356.9
2,750.0
2,660.0
-
NYC that are eligible for federal reimbursement.
FEMA, Disaster Asst for
To address unmet needs arising from Presidentially-
0.0
NA
NA
23.3
0.0
-
Unmet Needs
declared disasters in FY2002.
FEMA, Emergency
Provides equipment and training grants to states and
326.7
PRE
220.0
151.7
[326.7]
-
Management Planning and
localities for first response teams.
Asst
Funds operational disaster planning for state and local
NS
PRE
220.0
NS
175.0
-
governments.
Fire Grants
NS
PRE
220.0
NS
300.0
-
For urban search and rescue teams
NS
PRE
220.0
NS
92.0
-
Grants for interoperable communications equipment
NS
PRE
220.0
NS
115.0
-
Grants to state and local governments for emergency
NS
PRE
220.0
NS
63.0
-
ops centers.
Cerro Grande Fire Claims
To cover remaining liability claims from fire
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
80.0
-

CRS-75
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
HUD
HUD, Public & Indian
Rescission of unobligated balances available in the
0.0
NA
NA
(300.0)
(300.0)
-
Housing-Housing
Housing Certificate Fund and predecessor programs.
Certificate Fund
HUD, Community
Provides grants to Lower Manhattan Development
750.0
REC
2,000.0
750.0
750.0
-
Planning & Development,
Corporation to rebuild and restore utility infrastructure
Community Development
and equipment destroyed in lower Manhattan.
Block Grants
HUD, Community Plan-
Rescission of Rural Housing and Economic
(20.0)
NA
NA
0.0
0.0
-
ning & Develop., Rural
Development.
Housing & Econ Dev
HUD, Home Investment
Rescinds funds for down payment assistance initiative.
0.0
NA
NA
0.0
(50.0)
-
Partnerships Program
HUD, Housing Programs,
Rescinds contract authority in excess of required
0.0
NA
NA
(300.0)
0.0
-
Rental Housing Assistance
payments.
HHS
HHS, NIH, Natl Institute of
Undertake and continue research and worker training
0.0
PRE
0.0
8.0
0.0
-
Environmental Health
programs related to 9/11.
Sciences
HHS, Agency for Toxic
Reimburse for costs associated with 9/11 and to
0.0
PRE
0.0
11.3
0.0
-
Substances & Disease
enhance State capacity to respond to chemical terrorism
Registry, S&E
events.
EPA
EPA, Hazardous Substance
For additional expenses for anthrax investigation and
12.5
REC
41.3
0.0
12.5
-
Superfund
cleanup of U.S. Capitol and congressional offices.
[Funded
under Leg
Br.]
EPA, Science and
Assist small and medium communities to assess
0.0
SEC
34.0
0.0
100.0
-
Technology
vulnerability of drinking water.

CRS-76
Admin
Subcommittee/Agency or
Spending
FY2002
House
Senate
Department &
Purpose
Category
ETR Funding
Enacted
Supp
action
action
Appropriation account
/a/
Request
NSF
National Science
Funds additional Cybercorps/Scholarships for Service
19.3
INV/LE
0.0
0.0
19.3
-
Foundation/Education and
programs for undergraduates and graduates studying
Human Resources
computer security.
TOTAL, VA/HUD
5,075.5
3,511.3
5,533.8

CRS-77
Table A-3. Non-Emergency Spending
($s – millions)
Appropriation/Account
Non-emergency spending
Request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
Non-emergency spending:
Agriculture Dept., Food & Nutrition Service
Finance rising participation in Supplemental
75.0
75.0
75.0
-
WIC Program
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, &
children
Agriculture Dept., Agric. Research Service -
Renovate National Animal Disease
0.0
0.0
50.0
-
Building and Facilities*
Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, an infectious
disease center.
Agriculture Dept., Natural Resources Conservation
For recovery from flooding in Illinois,
0.0
0.0
73.0
-
Service, Watershed and Flood Prevention
Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia and West
Operations*
Virginia in May 2002.
Agriculture Dept., Rural Utilities Service*
Local tv loan Guarantee program
0.0
0.0
20.0
-
Commerce, NOAA, Sec, 208*
Assistance to New England fisheries
0.0
0.0
5.0
-
Commerce, NOAA, Sec. 209*
Assistance to Northeast fisheries
0.0
0.0
11.0
-
Justice, Office of Justice Programs*
Election Reform Grants Program
0.0
O [450.0 under
450.0
-
OMB]
Justice, Gen’l Admin/S&E*
Principal Depty Attorney Gen’l for
0.0
0.0
2.0
-
combating terrorism
Securities & Exchange Commission – S&E*
Additional staff for Commission’s growing
20.0
20.0
20.0
-
oversight and enforcement workload
US Trade Rep*
European Communities Music Licensing
3.3
0.0
0.0
-
Dispute
D.C., Home Support Services - Child & Family
Increased adoption case rates, higher case
0.0
11.0
11.0
-
Services*
loads for adoption, and emergency group
home utilization.
D.C., Home Support Services - Dept of Mental
Address Medicaid revenue shortfall.
0.0
26.0
26.0
-
Health
D.C., Certificate of participation
Finances lease for One Judiciary Square
0.0
8.0
8.0
-
D.C., Corrections Information Council
Corrections Information Council
0.0
0.0
0.1
-

CRS-78
Appropriation/Account
Non-emergency spending
Request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation*
Drilling of emergency wells in New Mexico
0.0
0.0
3.0
-
Legislative Branch, House-Standing Committees,
Additional funds for the Permanent Select
0.0
1.6
0.0
-
Special & Select*
Committee on Intelligence
Leg. Branch, Congressional Printing and Binding
Replenish shortfall from previous year.
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
Leg. Branch, GPO Revolving Fund
Asbestos abatement in buildings.
2.0
0.0
0.0
-
Transportation, Federal Aid Highways, Emergency
Highway Trust Fund
0.0
0.0
120.0
-
Relief Program*
Federal Railroad Administration, AMTRAK*
Grants for damaged equipment, security, and
0.0
0.0
55.0
-
overhaul of rail passenger cars.
Treasury, IRS, , Sec. 1201*
Business Systems modernization
0.0
14.0
0.0
-
Federal Election Commission*
Implementation of the Bipartisan Campaign
0.0
0.8
0.0
-
Reform Act.
VA Admin, Medical Care*
Medical care services to priority 1-6
142.0
417.0
142.0
-
veterans.
Dept. of Ed, Student Financial Asst*
Pell Grants Program/c/
1,276.0
1,000.0
0.0
-
Exec. Office of President,
Election administration reform.
0.0
450.0
0.0
-
Election Admin Reform*
TOTAL, Non-emergency spending
242.3
2,473.4
1,071.1
-

CRS-79
Table A-4. Rescissions and Offsets
($s – millions)
Appropriation/Account
Funds Rescinded/Offsets
Request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
Rescissions and Offsets:
Ag. Dept. , Natural Resources Conservation
Funds to rehabilitate aging dams.
(9.0)
0.0
0.0
-
Service, Watershed Rehabilitation
Ag Dept., Export Enhancement Program
Limits expenditures of Export Enhancement
0.0
(450.0)
0.0
-
Program by $450 million
Ag Dept., Rural Utilities Service
Rescinds guaranteed loans for local tv stations
0.0
0.0
(20.0)
-
Commerce, Bureau of the Census
Rescinds $20.9M for Suitland Federal Center
0.0
0.0
(20.9)
-
Commerce, NOAA
Rescinds funds for National Polar Orbiting
0.0
0.0
(8.1)
-
Operational environmental Satellite System
Justice, Salaries and Expenses, US Attorneys
Rescinds $7M.
0.0
0.0
(7.0)
-
Justice, Salaries and Expenses, US Marshals
Rescinds $2.1M from Training Academy
0.0
0.0
(2.1)
-
Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency
Rescinds $13M from Violent Crime Reduction
0.0
0.0
(13.0)
-
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Justice
Rescinds $2M from Off. Of Ass’t Attr’y Gen’l
0.0
0.0
(4.0)
-
Assistance
& $2M from Off. of Cong. And Public Affairs
Justice, Federal Prison System
Rescinds $30M for buildings and facilities
0.0
0.0
(30.0)
-
DOD, “ Other Procurement, Air Force, 01-03” and
Rescinds FY2001 and FY2002 procurement
0.0
(59.0)
0.0
-
“Procurement, Defense-Wide, 02-04”
funds
District of Columbia, Public education system
Rescind surplus that resulted from lower than
0.0
(37.0)
(37.0)
-
projected student enrollment.
District of Columbia, Repayment of loans &
Rescind repayment of loans and interest due to
0.0
(8.0)
(8.0)
-
interest
lower interest rates and borrowing.
D.C. Operating Funds, Public Safety and Justice
Rescinds $10K from Corrections Info. Council
0.0
0.0
(0.1)
-

CRS-80
Appropriation/Account
Funds Rescinded/Offsets
Request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
DOE, Energy Supply, Non Defense Environmental
Rescinds $30M from these accounts as
0.0
0.0
(30.0)
-
Mgt/Science, Nuclear Waste Disposal/ and
provided in P.L. 107-66, w/ specifics to be
Departmental Administration.
submitted to Appropriations Committee.
For Ops, Special Payments to International
Unobligated balances of 1972/73
(157.0)
(159.0)
(159.0)
-
Financial Institutions
appropriations for maintenance of value
payments to intl financial institutions to
maintain gold value of U.S. contributions.
For Ops, Development assistance and Economic
FY2000 and prior year appropriations from
0.0
(60.0)
0.0
-
Support Fund, Sec. 602
development assistance and Economic Support
Fund accounts.
Foreign Operations, Sec. 604
Rescission of prior foreign operations and
0.0
0.0
(75.0)
-
export financing aid
Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ops of Indian
Funds for electric power operations at San
(10.0)
(5.0)
(10.0)
-
Programs
Carlos Irrigation Project.
L/HHS, Health Resources & Services
Funds for the Community Access Program.
(20.0)
0.0
0.0
-
L/HHS, NIS, Buildings & Facilities
Savings available from the postponement of
(30.0)
(30.0)
(30.0)
-
several NIH construction projects.
General provision, Labor, HHS, Dept. of Ed.
Requires pro rata reductions in previous
0.0
0.0
(45.0)
-
admin. And mgt. Expenses of DOL, HHS, and
Dept. of Ed
NOAA
Limitation on fisheries loan program
(3.0)
(3.0)
(3.0)
-
Transportation, Federal Aid, Highways
Rescinds highway contract authority
0.0
0.0
(320.0)
-
Transportation, Air Carrier Compensation
Unobligated balances of grant fund available
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
under sec. 101(a)(2) of PL 107-42.
Transportation, Airline Loan Program
Prohibition of the further issuance of federal
0.0
(1,254.0)
0.0
-
credit instruments authorized under sec.
101(a)(1) of PL 107-42.
Treasury, Financial Management Service
Unobligated balances re-appropriated to IRS
0.0
(14.0)
(14.0)
-
for higher priority needs.

CRS-81
Appropriation/Account
Funds Rescinded/Offsets
Request
House action
Senate action
Enacted
Treasury, IRS, Information Systems
Rescission of prior year funds
0.0
0.0
(10.0)
-
Executive Office of the President, OMB
OMB’s costs for the Office of Homeland
0.0
(0.8)
0.0
-
Security
HUD, VA Administration, Medical & Prosthetic
Funds for Medical Prosthetic Research.
(5.0)
0.0
0.0
-
Research
HUD, Public & Indian Housing, Housing
Unobligated balances available in the Housing
0.0
(300.0)
(300.0)
-
Certificate Fund
Certificate Fund and predecessor programs.
HUD, Community Planning & Development, Rural
Funds for Rural Housing and Economic
(20.0)
0.0
0.0
-
Housing & Economic Development
Development which duplicate USDA
programs.
HUD, Home Investment Partnership Program
Rescinds funds for downpayment assistance
0.0
0.0
(50.0)
-
VA/HUD, Housing Programs, Rental Housing
Contract authority in excess of required
0.0
(300.0)
0.0
-
Assistance
payments.
TOTAL, Rescissions and Offsets
(254.0)
(2,679.8)
(1,196.2)
-
Notes:
* = non-emergency spending.
a Spending categories are described in box on page 5 above.
b Defense Emergency Response Fund is a transfer account, where DOD can move monies into other appropriations without being subject to normal reprogramming requirements, which
require that DOD notify Congress in advance of transfers between appropriations accounts or other changes.
c The Administration requested a $1.276 billion increase in Pell grants in FY2002 in its original FY2003 budget, and proposed that the funds be offset by eliminating all congressional
increases in the Department of Education that were passed by Congress. These funds were not requested in the emergency supplemental request submitted by the Administration
on March 21, 2002. Congressional scoring scores the Administration’s proposed offset as zero.
d The House Appropriations Committee is proposing that funding for election reform be appropriated to OMB to be transferred to other agencies once authorizing legislation that sets
up programs to improve the administration of elections is enacted.
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/usbudget/fy2003/amndsup.html], House Appropriations Committee tables, H.R. 4775, House Appropriations Committee, Making Supplemental
Appropriations for Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States for the Fiscal Year 2002, and for other purposes
, H.Rept. 107-480, and calculations
by CRS.