Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002: Combating Terrorism and Other Issues

Report for Congress
Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
Updated August 30, 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. With the $1.3 billion FY2002 supplemental request for Pell grants in
the President’s February budget, the Administration’s request was $28.4 billion.
Although there was broad congressional support for the new supplemental,
Congress debated the total spending level, the amount for homeland security, and
inclusion of budget ceilings for FY2003, as well as other issues from the time that
the bill was submitted in the spring to its final passage in late July.
Resolving differences between the two houses and between Congress and the
Administration proved to be difficult. The initial draft conference version developed
by the appropriators was rejected by the White House. A compromise package
designed by Senate appropriators was then rejected by the House. House
appropriators then put together a final $28.9 billion spending package that was
acceptable to both houses and the Administration.
That package, the conference version of H.R. 4775 (H.Rept. 107-593), passed
the House by 397 to 32 on July 23, and the Senate by 92 to 7 on July 24, 2002. The
President signed the bill on August 2, 2002 (P.L. 107-206). As cleared by both
houses, 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.
As enacted, P.L. 107-206 includes $25 billion in emergency spending and $5.1
billion in contingent emergency spending. The President had thirty days after
enactment (September 1) to decide whether to submit a budget amendment to
Congress that designates either all or none of that $5.1 billion of contingent spending
as emergency funding. The $5.1 billion portion includes about $1 billion in
additional DOD funding, $275 million for veterans’ medical care, $250 million in
aid to Israel and the Palestinians, $200 million in HIV/AIDS funding, and $450
million for election reform. The funding designated as contingent emergency
spending was either not requested by the President or reflects higher levels than
included in the Administration’s request.
On August 13, the President announced that he would not utilize the $5.1 billion
contingent emergency spending. White House officials said, however, that the
Administration would seek about $1 billion of that amount as an amended FY2003
appropriation request, including funds for Israel, the Palestinians, international
HIV/AIDS, and the Transportation Security Agency. Based on this action, the total
funding dedicated to combating terrorism since September 11 is $63.9 billion,
including $40 billion that was appropriated immediately after the terrorist attacks and
$24 billion in the FY2002 supplemental.

Contents
Most Recent Developments..........................................1
Introduction ......................................................2
Composition of FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request ................3
The Distribution of Funds by Agency..............................3
Policy Priorities in the Administration’s Request and the Enacted
Verison ..................................................5
Similarities Between FY2002 Request and ETR..................5
Differences Between FY2002 Request and ETR.................5
Proposed and Final Congressional Funding by Policy Priorities.........6
Congressional Issues Raised by the President’s Request..................10
Status of H.R. 4775...........................................11
Conference Version...........................................13
Resolution of Major Funding Issues..........................14
Designating Funds as Emergencies...........................14
Change to the Highway Trust Fund Formula...................19
Releasing Funding for International Family Planning.............19
Change to Rural Medicare Formulas and Textile Trading
Preferences ..........................................20
House Action ...............................................20
House Markup...........................................20
House Floor Action.......................................24
Senate Action................................................24
Senate Markup...........................................25
Senate Floor Action.......................................27
Conference Matters...........................................28
Funding Issues...........................................28
Policy Issues for Conference................................31
Areas of Agreement.......................................32
Administration’s Request for the Department of Defense..............33
The Cost of the War in Afghanistan..........................35
Mobilizing Reservists.....................................37
Increasing Munitions Stockpiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles...37
Command, Control, Communications, and Classified Programs....38
Coalition Support.........................................39
House Action on the Administration’s Defense Request..........39
Senate Action on the Administration’s Defense Request..........40
Foreign Aid to “Front-Line” States...............................41
Funding Issues...........................................41
Policy Issues............................................44
Congressional Action on the Administration’s Foreign Aid Request.47
Aviation Security Issues.......................................49
New Security Requirements................................49
Cost of Enhanced Aviation Security..........................50
Funding Issues...........................................50
House Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request..........51
Senate Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request..........51

FEMA Request..........................................52
HUD Community Development Block Grants..................53
Transportation Grant Funds.................................54
House Action on the Administration’s New York City Request.....54
Senate Action on Administration’s New York City Request.......54
Aid for Dislocated Workers.....................................54
House Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers...................55
Senate Action on Aid to Dislocated Workers...................55
Appendix – FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Request Organized by
Appropriations Bill and Account.................................56
Availability and Type of Funds..................................57
Purposes and Spending Category ................................57
List of Figures
Figure 1. Policy Priorities in Administration’s Request for FY2002
Supplemental .................................................8
Figure 2. Policy Priorities in Enacted Version of FY2002 Supplemental......8
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........................................9
Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities............10
Table 4. Contingent Emergency Funding Enacted in the FY2002
Emergency Supplemental......................................15
Table 5. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 Supplemental with ETR and the
FY2003 Request.............................................34
Table 6. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted & Requested.......43
Table A-1. Summary of All Appropriations Bills.......................56
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request and
Congressional Action by Appropriation Account....................58

Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002:
Combating Terrorism and Other Issues
Most Recent Developments
On August 13, President Bush announced that he would not utilize $5.1 billion
of contingent emergency spending Congress had provided as part of a $28.9 billion
FY2002 Supplemental Appropriation (P.L. 107-206; H.R. 4775).
The funding designated as contingent emergency spending was either not
requested by the President or reflected higher levels for certain programs than in the
Administration’s request. Under the terms of P.L. 107-206, the President had 30
days after enactment (September 1) to decide whether to designate all or none of the
$5.1 billion as emergency funding. If he chose to agree with Congress and use the
$5.1 billion, he would have had to submit a budget amendment specifying the
emergency designation. The August 13 decision, however, has the effect, in terms
used by the White House, of a “pocket veto” by the President of the contingent
emergency spending. Funds that will not be used include about $500 million for
DOD funding, $275 million for veterans’ medical care, and about $700 million for
foreign assistance including $250 million in aid for Israel and the Palestinians, and
$200 million in HIV/AIDS funding. White House officials said, however, that the
Administration would seek about $1 billion of the $5.1 billion as an amended
FY2003 appropriation request, including funds for Israel, the Palestinians,
international HIV/AIDS, and the Transportation Security Agency. (See Table 4
below for a complete list of the affected programs.)
The President’s decision not to use the contingency funds makes significant
changes in the policy priorities endorsed by Congress. DOD lost about $1 billion
in contingency funds, but maintained a 56% share of total funding in P.L. 107-206
compared with 50% in the bill as cleared by Congress. Homeland security funds for
preparedness activities had been allocated over $750 million in the enacted
appropriation but two-thirds of that amount was designated contingent emergency
and will not be spent. Likewise, Congress had included nearly $1.9 billion for
security of infrastructure and personnel in the enacted bill, two-thirds of which is
contingent emergency money. Resources for preparedness and
infrastructure/personnel security purposes had accounted for 9% of the
appropriation cleared by Congress, but represent only 4% of funds that are now
available.
As a result of the President’s August 13 decision not to utilize the contingent
emergency funds, the size of the FY2002 supplemental appropriation drops from
$28.9 billion to $23.9 billion. The total includes $13.4 billion for defense, $1.2
billion in foreign aid and embassy security aimed at combating terrorism aborad,
$5.5 billion for New York, and $4.4 billion for homeland security. Funding for Pell

grants ($1 billion) and other, non-terrorism related activities, combined with
recessions and offsets, brings the total appropriation to $23.9 billion.
Introduction
Submitted on March 21, 2002 as an emergency supplemental request to combat
terrorism, most of the Administration’s $28.4 billion request was not subject to the
budget ceilings that apply to FY2002. The Administration’s request was split almost
evenly between the Department of Defense (DOD) ($14 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, received less
emphasis in this request. The Administration also included new funding proposals
and policy provisions in foreign assistance.
On the defense side, the request included $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 was related to continued prosecution of the war in
Afghanistan. Like the first supplemental to combat terrorism, the DOD request
included substantial funding for intelligence and classified programs.
The Administration requested 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, generated some controversy
on the Hill.
On the non-defense side, the request provided $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 was the Administration’s
request for $4.4 billion for the newly established Transportation 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
[h ttp://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy 2003budget/fy 2002_supp.pdf]
² Raymond Hernandez, “Bush Reassures New Yorkers on Aid Package,” New York Times,
March 8, 2002.

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.
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 included
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 made by the House and the
Senate and final conference action are shown in Table 1 and discussed below and
in the individual 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) was also part of the aid for New York City. The
Labor Department’s request was for aid for dislocated workers. The
Administration’s request also included $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 was⁴

to be offset by rescissions in the Labor, HHS funding.
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 funds for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education that were
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.

Table 1. Allocations of Funds in FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental to Combat Terrorism by Agency
(in billions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Department/Admin.HouseSenateConf.Total, less^a
Agency TotalsRequestpassedpassedBillcontingent $
^{Total Supplemental}^b^$28.4^$28.8^$31.5^$28.9^$23.9
^{Defense subtotal}^$14.0^$15.8^$14.0^$14.4^$13.4
^{Non-defense subtotal}^$14.4^$13.0^$17.5^$14.5^$10.5
^{Transportation}^$5.6^$5.1^$7.4^$6.6^$5.5
^FEMA^$4.1^$2.9^$3.5^$3.2^$2.9
^{Foreign Ops}^$1.1^$1.6^$1.5^$1.5^$0.9
^{Dept. of Education}^c^$1.3^$1.0^$1.0^$1.0^$1.0
^Justice^$0.1^$0.4^$0.9^$0.5^$0.2
^{Dept. of Energy}^$0.0^$0.4^$0.3^$0.5^$0.2
^VA^d^$0.1^$0.4^$0.4^$0.4^$0.1
^{Exec. Off. Of Pres.}^$0.0^$0.4^$0.0^$0.4^$0.0
^State^$0.3^$0.3^$0.2^$0.3^$0.3
^Interior^($0.1)^$0.1^$0.1^$0.1⁽^$0.1)
^HHS^($0.1)^$0.0^$0.4^$0.1^$0.0
^{Postal Service}^$0.1^$0.1^$0.1^$0.1^$0.1
^Treasury^$0.0^$0.1^$0.1^$0.1^$0.0
^EPA^$0.0^$0.0^$0.1^$0.1^$0.0
^HUD^$0.7^$0.2^$0.4^$0.0^$0.0
^{Other non-defense}^e^$1.1^$0.0^$0.9⁽^$0.4)^($0.5)
^Notes^:^a
^{Reflects President Bush’s decision not to designa}^{te $5.1 billion in contingent em}^{ergency funding.}^b
^{Includes all spending, em}^{ergency, contingent}^em^ergeⁿ^c^{y, and non-em}^{ergency spending offset by}
^{rescissions and offsets.}^A^l^{so includes Adm}ⁱ^{nistration’s request for Pell grants that was}
^subm^{itted in Adm}ⁱ^{nistration’s FY2003 budget.}^c
^{Pell grant funds. The}^Admⁱ^nistration^had^reque^{sted $1.3 billion for FY2002 supplem}^{ental Pell}^grants
^{in its regular FY2003 budget subm}^{ission in February.}^d
^{Excludes $1.1 billion increase in}^m^a^ndatory^spending^for^{VA disability claim}^s^{that was requested}
^{by the Adm}ⁱ^{nistration on May 21, 2002, and included by the Senate, and in the}^{enacted version.}^e
^{“Other” includes activities unrelated to hom}^{eland security and}^com^b^ating^the^war^on^terrorism^,^such
^{as funds for election reform}^{and HIV/AIDS, as}^{well as m}ⁱ^{scellaneous rescissions and offsets.}
^Sources:^Letter^of^President^{Bush to the Speaker of the House transm}^itting^the^FY2002^Em^ergency
^Supplem^{ental request, March 21, 2002, available on GPO’s W}^e^{b site at [http://w}³^.^access.
^{gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/am}^ndsup.htm^l^{]; H.R. 477}⁵^as^p^a^ssed^b^y^t^h^{e H}^o^u^s^{e an}^d^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^{, H}^.^Rep^t^{. 107-}
^480,^S.Rept.^107-156,^{H.Rept. 107-593, and CRS calcu}^{lations. Totals m}^a^{y not add due}^to^rounding.

Policy Priorities in the Administration’s Request and the
Enacted Verison
Funding proposed in the FY2002 supplemental could 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 Figure 1
and Figure 2 and Table 2 below for the policy priorities and the amounts requested
for each policy area in the Administration’s request and compares them with the ETR
supplemental and with House, Senate, and conference action.
Similarities Between FY2002 Request and ETR. Both emergency
supplementals emphasized 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 was 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 were 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 targeted substantial resources for the recovery needs
of New York City. The second supplemental placed 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 included
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
included somewhat more for foreign aid, but would distribute it in much larger
proportions for security assistance rather than for humanitarian relief activities as
was the case in the ETR supplemental. This reflected the Administration’s priority
to aid front-line states, including Pakistan, Jordan, and others who were 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.

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 and Final Congressional Funding by Policy
Priorities
As of the completion of floor action, both the House and the Senate proposed
significant changes to the policy priorities reflected in the Administration’s request
as well as the total amount of funding (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below). With a
total of $28.8 billion, the House bill was about $350 million above the
Administration’s request and reflected a similar mix of policy priorities. At $31.5
billion, the Senate bill was $3 billion higher than the Administration’s request and
reflected significantly different policy choices (see Table 2 and Table 3. See Table
A-2 for specifics on items funded).

Compared to the Senate bill, the House placed 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 reflected the belief
among House appropriators that the cost of activating reservists would be higher than
anticipated by the Administration. Dissatisfied with the validity of the
Administration’s estimates of cost, the House bill reduced the Administration’s
request for aviation security, which the Senate funded fully.
Both houses provided 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 funded the Administration’s request for recovery
funds for New York City. Although both houses provided similar shares for
international security assistance, the total was $150 million higher than the
Administration’s request because of additional aid for Israel and the Palestinians (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 was the
proposed funding levels for homeland security activities. The Senate provided $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 conference issues, see below.
In the final conference version of the bill, Congress changed the mix of
spending proposed by the Administration (see Figure 1 and Figure 2 below and
Table 2). For example, Congress increased security funding requested by the
Administration threefold – from $625 million to $1.8 billion, with additional funding
for nuclear weapons and DOE facilities as well as international safeguard activities,
the Coast Guard, and port security measures. Congress also provided additional
funding for international security assistance, and to preparedness activities, such as
first responder programs. Congress also provided less funding for victim relief by
dropping $400 million in funding for dislocated workers. Congress did, however,
accord about the same relative priority as the Administration to Defense, and
aviation security.

Figure 1. Policy Priorities in Administration’s Request
for FY2002 Supplemental
^D^e^f^e^ns^e⁴⁹^%
^Iⁿ^t^.^S^e^c^.^A^ssi^st^.⁴^%^Vⁱ^c^t^im^R^e^li^e^f³^%
^P^r^ep^ar^ed^ne^s^s^1%^O^t^he^r^4%
^Se^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^-^-^Avⁱ^a^ti^on¹²^%
^R^e^co^ve^r^y²³^%
^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^ty^-^-^In^f^r^a^.^aⁿ^d^Pe^r^s^{. 2}^%
^Bⁱ^ot^er^r^o^rⁱ^s^m^0%^;^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^t^a^rⁱ^an^Aⁱ^d⁰^%^;^Iⁿ^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^oⁿ⁰^%^;^Pu^blⁱ^c^Dⁱ^p^l^o^m^a^c^y⁰^%
Figure 2. Policy Priorities in Enacted Version of
FY2002 Supplemental

^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^{e 50}^%
^Bⁱ^o^t^er^ro^rⁱ^s^m^1%
^H^u^m^aⁿⁱ^t^a^rⁱ^aⁿ^Aⁱ^{d 1%}^Ot^h^e^{r 1%}
^In^{t. S}^e^c.^A^ssi^s^{t. 5}^%^Iⁿ^v^e^s^tⁱ^g^atⁱ^{on 1}^%^Vⁱ^c^tⁱ^m^R^e^lie^f¹^%
^P^r^e^p^ar^ed^ne^s^s³^%
^Se^c^u^ri^t^y^-^-^A^vⁱ^a^tⁱ^on¹³^%
^Re^co^ve^r^y¹⁹^%
^S^e^c^u^ri^t^y^-^-^Iⁿ^f^r^a.^an^d^P^e^rs^.^6%
^Pu^blⁱ^c^Dⁱ^p^l^o^m^ac^y^0%

Notes for Figures 1, 2, and 3: Policy priorities are defined in box, “Spending Category
Definitions.” “Other” includes spending that is not related to combating terrorism (e.g., VA
medical care and election reform).
Sources: Administration request of March 21, 2002, and House and Senate reports.
Table 2. Policy Priorities in the FY2002 Supplemental and the
Emergency Terrorism Response Act
(percent of total discretionary budget authority)
PolicyAdmin. HouseSenateConf.P.L.^aETR
Priority Request passed passed Bill 107-206 Supp.
^TOTAL^b^100%^100%^100%^100%^100%^100%
^Bioterrorism^0%^0%^2%^1%^0%^8%
^Defense^49%^55%^44%^50%^56%^43%
^Hum^a^nitarian^0%^1%^1%^1%^0%^2%
^Assistance
^{International}^4%^5%^4%^5%^5%^2%
^{Security Aid}
^{Investigation &}^0%^1%^0%^1%^1%^6%
^{law enforcem}^ent
^Preparedness^1%^1%^4%^3%^1%^1%
^{Public Diplom}^acy^0%^0%^0%^0%^0%^0%
^{Recovery from}^23%^19%^17%^19%^23%^18%
^attacks
^{Security-Infrastruc.}^2%^4%^7%^6%^3%^9%
^{& Personnel.}
^{Security-Aviation}^12%^14%^15%^13%^14%^3%
^Victim^relief³^%¹^%²^%¹^%⁰^%⁹^%
^Other^c^4%^-2%⁵^%¹^%^-^3%^NA
^Note:^{For definition of policy priorities, see box above.}
^a^{Reflects President Bush’s decision not to desi}^{gnate $5.1 billion in contingent em}^{ergency funding.}
^b^{Includes Adm}ⁱ^{nistration request of $1.3 billion for Pell grants in its}^Fe^b^r^u^a^ry^{2002 budget}
^subm^{ission. Excludes $1.1 billion increase in}^m^a^{ndatory VA disability paym}^ents^requested^by
^{the Adm}ⁱ^{nistration on May 21, 2002, and included in the Senate bill.}^c
^{‘Other’ includes non-em}^{ergency appropriations, re}^{scissions, offsets, and funding item}^s^{which do not}
^{fit into categories for com}^b^{ating terrorism}^{as defined in box (e.g. election reform}^{, H}^I^V^/^A^I^D^S
^{funding, VA m}^e^{dical care).}
^Sources:^{Letter of President George}^Bush^to^Speaker^{of the House, the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,}
^transm^{itting the FY2002 Em}^{ergency Supplem}^{ental request, March 21, 2002. See also}
^{[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/am}^ndsup.htm^l^{]; va}^{rious versions of H.R. 4775,}^H.Rept.
^{107-48, S.Rept. 107-156, and H.Rept. 107-593. Calcul}^{ations and categorizations of}^spending^{are by}
^{CRS. Totals m}^a^{y not add due to rounding.}

Table 3. FY2002 Emergency Supplemental by Policy Priorities
(millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Department/Admin.HouseSenateConf. Total, less^a
Agency Totals RequestpassedpassedBillcontingent $
^{GRAND TOTAL}^b^$28,437.6^$28,775.2^$31,514.⁸^$28,911.4^$23,935.5
^Bioterrorism^$87.0^$107.0^$501.0^$168.0^$112.0
^Defense^$14,022.1^$15,799.5^$14,022.0^$14,381.5^$13,369.6
^Hum^a^{nitarian aid}^$54.0^$214.0^$212.0^$238.0^$54.0
^{Intl Security Aid}^$1,275.5^$1,452.5^$1,374.5^$1,410.0^$1,172.0
^{Investigation/law enforc}^e^$35.1^$154.6^$94.8^$217.5^$191.7
^Preparedness^$379.3^$376.4^$1,183.4^$761.2^$261.6
^{Public Diplom}^acy^$24.9^$52.6^$16.4^$40.1^$35.1
^Recovery^$6,528.8^$5,476.3^$5,251.1^$5,429.3^$5,420.0
^{Security-Infrastructure}^$625.2^$1,150.8^$2,132.6^$1,862.2^$687.7
^{& Personnel}
^{Security-Aviation}^c^$3,370.0^$4,050.0^$4,619.⁶^$3,860.0^$3,370.0
^Victim^Relief^$832.5^$382.5^$572.5^$172.5^$82.5
^Other^d^$1,203.2⁽^$441.0)^$1,534.90^$371.1⁽^$820.7)
^Notes:^{For definition of policy priorities, see box above.}
^a^{Reflects President Bush’s decision not to desi}^{gnate $5.1 billion in contingent em}^{ergency funding.}
^b^{Excludes m}^a^{ndatory $1.1 billion in funding for additi}^onal^{disability paym}^{ents for veterans that the}
^Admⁱ^{nistration requested on May 21 and the Senate, and the conferenc}^e^{included in its bill.}
^Includes^non-em^ergency^spending^{offset by rescissions and offsets and spending that}^does^not
^{relate to com}^b^{ating terrorism}^{(see other).}^c
^{The Adm}ⁱ^{nistration’s request for the Transportation Security Adm}ⁱ^{nistration was}^revised^from^$4.4
^{billion to $3.4 billion based on inform}^{ation provided to the appropri}^a^t^o^rs^b^y^{the Office of}
^Managem^e^{nt and Budget.}^d
^{‘Other’ includes funding for}^election^reform^{, HIV/}^{AIDS/VA m}^e^{dical care and}^{disaster assistance as}
^{well as rescissions and offsets.}

^Sources:^{Letter of President George}^Bush^to^Speaker^{of the House, the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert,}
^transm^{itting the FY2002 Em}^{ergency Supplem}^{ental request, March 21, 2002. See also}
^{[http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/am}^ndsup.htm^l^];^{H.Rept. 107-48,}^S.^{Rept. 107-156, and}
^{H.Rept. 107-593. Calculations are by CRS.}
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 were included in
the request arose during congressional debate. Although there was broad support for
defense requests, particularly now, last year Congress significantly adjusted both the

total amount as well as the types of spending requested by the Administration in the⁶
first supplemental’s defense request.
Several Members offered amendments to add funding in several areas, and raise⁷
the debt ceiling as desired by the Administration. At the same time, the
Administration, as well as some Members of Congress, repeatedly 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^th
originally anticipated for the week before the July 4 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 4^th 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.

proposals included in the House bill. If either the savings proposals were dropped or
CBO scoring was adopted, the House bill would cost $30.1 billion rather than $28.8
billion that was reported.¹¹
After returning from the July 4^th 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 airline¹²
emergency loan program.
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,
“Supplemental in Limbo as House Appropriators Reject Byrd-Stevens Proposal,” July 16,
(continued...)

in savings from the airline loan program, an estimate of savings that exceeded
CBO’s estimate by about $800 million, 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. He further 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 Lott suggested, however, that
DOD and other agencies could accommodate a smaller supplemental by shifting¹⁵
monies from other accounts. The appropriators, on their part, were facing new
pressures from western members to add $1 billion in emergency spending to combat
wildfires, droughts, and floods, spending that the Administration was 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. The
Administration reportedly was satisfied that the bill met its spending goal.¹⁷ That
package became the conference version of the supplemental.
Conference Version
On July 23^rd, the House passed the conference version of H.R. 4775, with a
funding total of $28.9 billion in discretionary budget authority. The Senate passed
the bill the following day and the President signed the bill on August 2 (P.L. 107-
206). The bill generally sets funding levels between the House and Senate levels
and includes rescissions and offsets of about $3 billion. The conference version (see
H.Rept. 107-593) also resolves outstanding differences on policy issues. (The $28.9

¹⁴ (...continued)
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 Appropriators 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.

billion total in discretionary budget authority does not include $1.1 billion in higher¹⁸
mandatory spending for VA pensions.) (This update discusses the major changes
in the conference version.)
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 Palestinians; and
^!$201 million for embassy security.
The conference bill also includes about $3 billion in savings and offsets, made
up of about $600 million in defense funding that was not needed, 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 not¹⁹
included.
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
designations of non-defense funding as emergency in order to spend any of those
funds. Under budget rules, both the Congress and the President must designate a
spending item as an “emergency” in order that the amount will not count against
discretionary spending caps that remain in place through FY2002. The bill splits
funding into two parts.
^!about $24 billion where Congress adopts the same emergency
designation as in the President’s request;

¹⁸ The conference report, H.Rept. 107-593 shows the total in the bill as $30.0B including that
$1.1 billion for veterans.
¹⁹ “Appropriations: Conferees Agree on $28.9 billion FY02 Supplemental Bill,” National
Journal’s Congress Daily, July 18, 2002, and BNA, Opcit, July 19, 2002

^!about $5.1 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 $5.1 billion, all of²⁰
the funding must be designated as emergency monies to be spent.
That $5.1 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
Palestinians, $400 million for election reform, $205 million for AMTRAK, $275
million for additional funding for medical care for veterans, and $200 million in
international aid for HIV/AIDS/malaria and tuberculosis. Funding increases above
the Administration’s request such as an additional $1 billion for DOD are also in the
contingent emergency portion.
On August 13, President Bush announced that he would not utilize the $5.1
billion of contingent emergency spending. The decision has the effect, in terms used
by the White House, of a “pocket veto” by the President of the contingent emergency
funds. Table 4 provides a complete list of items designated by Congress as
contingent emergency that will now not be allocated. Despite the President’s
decision, White House officials said that the Administration most likely would seek
about $1 billion of the $5.1 billion as an amended FY2003 appropriation request,
including funds for Israel, the Palestinians, international HIV/AIDS, and the
Transportation Security Agency.
Table 4. Contingent Emergency Funding Enacted in the FY2002
Emergency Supplemental
(millions of dollars of discretionary budget authority)
Department/^a Admin. House^c Senate^c Enacted
Agency Program Requestactionaction
Agriculture:
Food & Safety Inspection Service$0.0$2.0$15.0$13.0
Animal & Plant Health Inspection$0.0$10.0$60.0$33.0
Office of the Secretary$0.0$0.0$18.0$18.0
Ag. Research Service, S&E$0.0$0.0$16.0$8.0
Ag. Research Service, Buildings$0.0$0.0$50.0$25.0
Coop. State Research. Ed,$0.0$0.0$16.0$6.0
Extension
Natl Resources Conservation$0.0$0.0$27.0$50.0
Service
Rural Community Advancement$0.0$0.0$25.0$20.0

Prog.
²⁰ 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.

Department/^a Admin. House^c Senate^c Enacted
Agency Program Requestactionaction
HHS-Food & Drug Administration$0.0$18.0$0.0$17.0
Commerce, Justice, State Depts
^b
Natl Institute of Standards and$0.0$80.6$33.1
Tech.
NOAA-Ops, Research, & Facilities$0.0$0.0$2.8$2.8
NOAA-Procurement, Acquisition,$0.0$0.0$7.2$7.2
Construction
Justice-Admin, (entry-exit system)$0.0[$1.0]$0.0$1.0
Justice-Admin, S&E, Domestic$0.0$0.0$184.6$1.0
Prepare
US Marshals Service, S&E$0.0$1.0$0.0$37.9
^b
FBI, S&E$102.0$65.0$165.0
^b
Office of Justice Programs, First$175.0$0.0$151.3
Responders
Office of Justice Programs,$0.0$0.0$85.0$50.0
Community Oriented Policing
Services
^b
INS, Enforcement & Border Affairs$40.0$0.0$46.3
INS, Construction$0.0$0.0$84.0$32.1
^b
State, Ed & Cultural Exchanges$10.0$0.0$5.0
^b
State, Embassy Security$0.0$5.0$10.0
^b
Judiciary, Court of Appeals,$3.1$6.6$4.0
District Courts, S&E
^b $9.3 $9.3 $9.3
SEC, S&E
Defense & Military Construction
Defense Emergency Response$0.0$1,394.0$0.0$601.9
Fund-activating reservists
O & M, Army - overseas operations$0.0$119.0$0.0$102.0
in Bosnia and S.W. Asia
^b
O & M, Navy - classified programs$17.3$0.0$12.3
^b
O & M, Air Force - classified$19.5$0.0$24.5
programs
^b
Procurement, Air Force - F-15$36.5$0.0$25.0
radios
^b
Procurement, Defense Wide -$4.9$0.0$4.9
classified
^b
RDT&E, Air Force - unmanned$39.0$0.0$137.6

aerial vehicles and classified
programs

Department/^a Admin. House^c Senate^c Enacted
Agency Program Requestactionaction
Chemical Agents & Munitions$0.0$100.0$0.0$75.0
Destruction, Army
Military Construction, Air Force$0.0$8.5$0.0$7.3
Military Construction, Defense-$0.0$21.5$0.0$21.5
Wide
District of Columbia
Federal Payment to Children’s Natl$0.0$0.0$13.8$10.0
Medical Center
Federal Payment to DC$0.0$0.0$24.7$23.0
Federal Payment to Metro$0.0$0.0$25.0$8.0
Washington Council of Govts.$0.0$0.0$1.8$1.8
Federal Payment to DC Water &$0.0$0.0$3.0$1.3
Sewer
Energy and Water
Corps of Engineers, O&M$0.0$128.4$0.0$108.2
DOE Energy Programs - Science$0.0$29.0$0.0$24.0
Natl Nuclear Security Admin,$0.0$18.0$18.0$18.0
Weapons Activities - secure
transportation
Natl Nuclear Security Admin,$0.0$88.0$104.3$87.2
Weapons Activities-security at
DOE nuc facilities
Natl Nuclear Security Admin,$0.0$0.0$40.0$33.5
Weapons Activities-counter
terrorism
DOE, Office of the Administrator$0.0$0.0$1.8$1.8
Defense Environmental Restoration$0.0$67.0$0.0$56.0
& Waste Management
Defense Facilities Closure Project$0.0$16.6$0.0$14.0
Foreign Operations
Child Survival/Health-HIV/AIDS$0.0$200.0$200.0$200.0
^b
USAID Disaster Aid-Afghanistan$150.0$110.0$144.0
& Palestinians
Economic Support Fund - Israel$0.0$200.0$200.0$200.0
^b
Intl Narcotics & Law Enforcement$6.0$0.0$3.0
Migration & Refugee Asst-$0.0$10.0$50.0$40.0
Afghanistan
^b
Foreign Military Financing-$0.0$25.0$30.0

Philippines

Department/^a Admin. House^c Senate^c Enacted
Agency Program Requestactionaction
^b
Non-Proliferation, Anti-terrorism,$0.0$10.0$5.0
Demining
Interior
BLM, Mgmt of Lands & Resources$0.0$0.7$0.0$0.7
US Fish & Wildlife, Resource$0.0$1.4$0.4$1.0
Mgmt
US Fish & Wildlife, Construction$0.0$0.0$3.1$3.1
Natl Park Service, Ops$0.0$1.2$0.0$1.2
Natl Park Service, Construction$0.0$19.3$17.7$17.7
US Geological Survey$0.0$25.7$26.8$26.0
Bureau of Indian Affairs$0.0$0.1$0.0$0.1
Dept of Interior, Dept Office, S&e$0.0$0.9$7.0$0.9
USDA, Forest Service$0.0$0.0$3.5$53.5
Smithsonian, S&E$0.0$11.0$0.0$10.0
Smithsonian, Construction$0.0$2.0$2.0$2.0
Labor, Health & Human Services, Education, & Labor
NIH, Office of the Director$0.0$0.0$90.0$90.0
HHS, Admin of Children &$0.0$0.5$0.0$0.5
Families
CDC, Disease Control R&T-prison$0.0$1.0$0.0$1.0
diseases
Transportation
^b
Coast Guard O&E$21.0$129.4$11.0
^b
Coast Guard Acquisition,$12.0$281.7$262.0
Construction
^b
Transportation Security Admin$480.0$1,332.5$480.2
FAA, Ops$0.0$0.0$100.0$42.0
FAA, Grants in Aid to Airports$0.0$0.0$100.0$150.0
FAA, Facilities & Equipment$0.0$0.0$15.0$7.5
^b
Federal Highway Admin,$0.0$120.0$98.0
Emergency
Federal Highway Admin,$0.0$5.0$0.0$5.0
Hazardous Material Security
Treasury, Postal Service, Office of the President, General Government
Federal Law Enforcement Training$0.0$15.9$0.0$15.8
Cntr
US Customs Service, S&E$0.0$0.0$57.0$39.0

Department/^a Admin. House^c Senate^c Enacted
Agency Program Requestactionaction
US Secret Service, S&E$0.0$46.8$17.2$28.5
Exec. Office of the President,$0.0$450.0[$450.0]$400.0
Election Administration Reform
Veterans Affairs, HUD, & Independent Agencies
^b
VA Administration, Medical Care$275.0$275.0$275.0
FEMA, Disaster Asst for Unmet$0.0$23.3$0.0$23.2
Needs
^b
FEMA, Emergency Management$0.0$418.3$221.8
Planning & Asst
FEMA, Cerro Grande Fire Claims$0.0$0.0$80.0$61.0
NIH, Natl Institute of$0.0$8.0$0.0$8.0
Environmental Health Sciences
HHS, Agency for Toxic Substances$0.0$11.3$0.0$11.3
EPA, Science & Technology$0.0$0.0$100.00$50.0
^Notes:^a
^{For details on the purposes of each program}^,^{see Table A-2 at the end of this report.}^b
^{The Preside}ⁿ^t^’^s^{request included som}^e^{funding for this program}^{. The am}^{ounts shown on this line}
^{are those that exceeded the President’s}^request^{and were designated as contingent em}^ergency
^spending.^c
^Am^{ounts in these colum}ⁿ^{s represent the am}^ount^over^the^{President’s}^request^includedⁱⁿ^{House- and}
^S^eⁿ^a^t^e^-^p^assed^{bills, r}^e^g^a^r^d^l^e^{ss o}^f^wh^et^h^e^r^t^h^ey^wer^e^d^e^si^gⁿ^a^t^e^d^{as em}^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^o^r^coⁿ^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^t
^em^{ergency funding.}
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 not counted in the $28.9 billion total for the²¹
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 as a contribution to the U.N. Population Fund. 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. The Secretary of State determined on²²

July 21 that the $34 million for family planning will not be provided to the UNFPA.
²¹ According to CBO scoring rules, this change in the formula that sets highway spending
levels is not scored until the authorizers and appropriators include language in the FY2003
bills.
²² “Family Planning Funds Withheld,” Washington Post, July 20, 2002.

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, 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 24^th 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 $393²³
million to $1,254 million).
House Markup. As reported, H.R. 4775 included:
^!$1 billion for Pell student financial assistance ($276 million less
than the request).²⁴
^!$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.

²³ 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.
²⁴ 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.

^!$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
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.
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 was²⁵
“comfortable” with the House markup of the supplemental. Reportedly, however,
some fiscal conservatives were upset that the total in the bill exceeded 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.²⁶ Since the additional funds
for DOD were designated as “contingent emergency” funds, the Administration
would 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
called 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 reached 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 2007²⁷
were not able to bring their proposal to the floor.
The Rules Committee also added the following three specific provisions, which
proved to be controversial during floor debate:

²⁵ National Journal, “FY02 Supplemental Passes in Markup, But Obstacles Remain,”
Congress Daily, May 16, 2002.
²⁶ 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.
²⁷ Erin P. Billings, “Democrats launch Bill to Balance the Budget by 2007,” Roll Call Daily,
May 16, 2002.

^!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
^!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.²⁸
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.²⁹ 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 was 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.³⁰
^!Reimbursing Allies in the Global War on Terrorism. The bill
revised the Administration’s proposal to allow DOD to provide

²⁸ See H.Rept. 107-480, House Rules Committee, Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775,
May 22, 2002.
²⁹ RABA – Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority – is a mechanism in the highway program
authorizing legislation, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st 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.
³⁰ 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.

military aid to foreign nations who support the U.S. in the “global
war on terrorism.” The bill narrowed the scope, required 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
foreign nations for “the costs of goods, services, or use of facilities
provided in direct support of operations by U.S. military forces in³¹
the global war on terrorism.”
^!Military and Logistical Support. The bill did, however, include
the original language requested by the Administration that gave 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.”³²
^!Exempting U.S. Military Forces from International Military
Court. The bill adopted 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 have³³
voiced concerns about the agreement.
Other Changes During Markup. In the final day of markup, the Committee
also softened several controversial amendments.
^!The bill adopted 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 required 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.

³¹ House Appropriations Committee, draft bill (unnumbered), and the amendments that were
adopted during markup are posted on the House Appropriations Committee’s web site,
[h ttp://www.house.gov/appropriations/info/2002_sup_amend.pdf].
³² House Appropriations Committee, draft bill (unnumbered), and amendments adopted
during markup, available online from the House Appropriations Committee’s web site,
[h ttp://www.house.gov/appropriations/info/2002_sup_amend.pdf].
³³ See CRS Issue Brief IB94040, Peacekeeping: Issues of U.S. Military Involvement, by Nina
M. Serafino. On the Senate side, Senator Helms introduced language similar to that added
to the FY2002 supplemental on the House side.

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 the full faith and credit of the Government” was an indirect way of raising
the debt limit without requiring a direct vote by members.³⁴ The language would
permit the issue of raising the debt ceiling to be raised during conference. Majority
Leader Daschle 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 provided 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 set 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.³⁵ Some Members raised concerns that the level in the House
resolution would not provide adequate funding in FY2003. The Senate version of
the supplemental did 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. 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 the³⁶
backlog of claims is reduced.)

³⁴ See House Rules Committee, H.Rept. 107-484, Providing for consideration of H.R. 4775,
and Congressional Record, May 22-May 24, 2002.
³⁵ The Administration request included $9 billion to fund that proposal. Thus far, it does not
appear to be likely to be approved by Congress.
³⁶ 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.

After returning from the Memorial Day recess, the Senate debated the bill June³⁷
3 and 4 and then invoked cloture. After further debate on June 5 and 6, the Senate
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 totaled $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.³⁸
Senate Markup. S. 2551 differed 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 became significant issues
during conference.
Emergency Designation of Spending. Section 2002 of Title 2 in the
Senate version of H.R. 4775 provided that funds in the bill would not be available
to the President unless he designated all funds as “emergency spending” that were
designated that way in the bill. This “all or none”provision, which applied to all
emergency funding except for that provided to the Department of Defense, was
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 was³⁹
proposed in the House and withdrawn after protests from the Administration. (See
Table 4 and discussion above regarding the outcome of this issue.)
Senate Confirmation of Director of Homeland Security. S. 2551
included a provision (Chapter 11, Section 1102) that required 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.⁴⁰ The
House bill did not include this provision. This provision became less controversial

³⁷ Invoking cloture ensured that the bill could not be debated for more than 30 hours and
limited the scope of amendments that could be offered to those ruled germane by the Chair.
³⁸ See Congressional Record, June 5, and June 6, 2002.
³⁹ National Journal, “Senate Appropriators Approve $31 billion Supplemental Spending
Bill,” Markup Reports, May 22, 2002.
⁴⁰ National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Ridge: Bush Should Veto Cabinet-Level Security
Position, May 30, 2002.

in light of the Administration’s announcement of plans to create a new cabinet level
Homeland Security agency.
Overall Spending Level. The Administration stated its concern about the
overall level of the Senate bill that was above the Administration’s request – by
about $2.5 billion – and that the funding priorities differ substantially with that of the
request. Although the Senate bill provided the same funding as requested by the
Administration for defense, S. 2551 provided 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 opposed the
funding level in the Senate bill.
Funding Issues. In addition to these general provisions, and differences in
the overall funding level, there were 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 provided $4.4
billion, as requested by the Administration, compared to $3.9 billion
in the House bill.
^!First Responders: S. 2551 included 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 provided 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 provided
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 provided 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 provided $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 did not become controversial because
the funding was 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

in the bill that would temporarily cap emergency loans provided in the wake of the⁴¹
terrorist attack to give relief to airlines. On June 4, 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 to⁴²
$31.5 billion (see below).
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.⁴³ 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 106^th 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 was set up in July

⁴¹ See Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act.
⁴² 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.
⁴³ National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Feingold, Gregg Set to Unveil Multi-Year Spending
Caps, June 4, 2002.

2002.⁴⁴ The Senate also adopted an amendment by Senator Dodd that allowed 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.⁴⁵
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.
Conference Matters
Funding Issues. Several issues were 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 was $2.6
billion above the House level, the discrepancy in funding levels was actually closer
to $4.4 billion when the House’s $1.8 billion increase for the Department of Defense
was taken into account.⁴⁶ Although the Administration 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 - was not necessary, the House
provided the funds on a “contingent emergency” basis, meaning that the President
could decide whether to spend the monies. The other significant difference in
funding between the House and the Senate was 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 was
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 was scored using CBO’s
numbers, the total would be $30.1 billion, a total that was 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.
Although the conferees reached agreement on a total spending level of $30.4
billion after returning from the July 4^th 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.⁴⁷ Although OMB’s

⁴⁴ CRS Report RL31437, International Criminal Court: Overview and Selected Legal issues,
by Jennifer Elsea.
⁴⁵ See Congressional Record, June 6, 2002, pages S5138ff.
⁴⁶ 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).
⁴⁷ Roll Call Daily, “Supplemental Stalled after OMB Initiates New Demands, “ by Erin P.
(continued...)

proposals for cuts in spending reduced the overall total, several members objected,
and suggested that the Administration look elsewhere for savings, including some
from last year’s Emergency Terrorism Response supplemental.⁴⁸
“All or None” Provision. The White House objected not only to the funding
level in the Senate bill but also threatened to veto the bill if Section 2002 in the
Senate, the “all or none” provision, was included. That provision required 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.⁴⁹ (The
final year that those budgetary controls apply is FY2002.) If Section 2002 was
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.⁵⁰ (See Table 4 and discussion above regarding the
outcome of this issue.)
Budget Controls and Increase in the Debt Ceiling. Some members
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
appeared to be little prospect for passage. The House had passed a “deeming”
resolution in the rule for H.R. 4775 that set levels that matched those in their budget⁵¹
resolution, but the Senate did not include any overall spending levels.
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

⁴⁷ (...continued)
Billings, July 12, 2002; National Journal’s Congress Daily, “Legislators Rip Daniels’
Cancel Supplemental Session . . .” July 12, 2002.
⁴⁸ 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.
⁴⁹ 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.
⁵⁰ See Congressional Record, June 6, 2002, p. S5168.
⁵¹ Attempts by Senators Gregg and Feingold and Senator Daschle to include a “deeming”
resolution on the Senate side were defeated on the floor.

currently underway, however, so a compromise may be reached.⁵² 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 FY2003.⁵³ If that
solution is adopted, an 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^th
to include an increase in the debt ceiling. Before leaving for the July 4 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 were $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, reflected 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 floor⁵⁴
action by a vote of 91 to 4. The remaining $1 billion difference between the houses
reflected 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.
Funding to Secure Nuclear Facilities and Materials. The Senate bill
provided $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 were similar, each bill emphasized different security
measures or locations (see Table A-2).
Policy Issues for Conference. Several significant policy issues needed to
be resolved in conference.
U.N. Family Planning Assistance. The Senate, but not the House,
included language that would require the U.S. to release $34 million to the U.N.

⁵² 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.
⁵³ 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.
⁵⁴ 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).

Population Fund (UNFPA) for family planning activities as long as the President
found that China is not engaging in coercive family planning practices. 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
included 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 placed
control of those funds with the State Department, whereas the House bill made that
DOD’s prerogative. Moreover, only the House provided $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 was narrower
than requested by the Administration. The Senate bill did 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.⁵⁵ 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 Crusader⁵⁶
artillery program is made statutory. The House report directed 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 future⁵⁷
of the program.” The Senate bill included no language on this issue. The House-
passed version of the FY2003 DOD Authorization bill (H.R. 4546) retained funding
for the Crusader system, while the Senate version as amended on the floor, gave the
Secretary of Defense the authority to re-allocate the funds.
Placement of Funding for First Responders. The House and the Senate
differed 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 provided funding for first

⁵⁵ CRS Report RL31305, Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003: Defense, by
Stephen Daggett and Amy Belasco.
⁵⁶ 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.
⁵⁷ See H.Rept. 107-480, p. 19.

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 was 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 provided $450 million for election reform, but the House temporarily lodged the
funds in the Executive Office of the President and the Senate placed the funds in the
Justice Department. Both houses provided that the program would follow the
provisions in their respective versions of H.R. 3295, the Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Equal Protection of Voting Rights. The House objected to the funds being
administered by the Justice Department.
Areas of Agreement. Several policy areas in which the two bills were
similar included the following.
^!Aid to Israel and Palestine: both bills provided $250 million in
foreign assistance, split between Israel ($200 million) and the
Palestinians ($50 million) (see foreign operations section below);
^!Funding for HIV/AIDS: both bills provided $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 included 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 could waive some provisions. The Senate bill also
included a separate exemption that would allow the U.S. to
cooperate with the ICC in the prosecution of Saddam Hussein, or
other terrorist leaders.
Administration’s Request for the Department of Defense
The Administration 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 5 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 those⁵⁸

used in the first emergency supplemental to combat terrorism.
⁵⁸ 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.

Table 5. Comparison of DOD’s FY2002 Supplemental with ETR
and the FY2003 Request
(millions of dollars)
FY2002ETR
CategoryEmergencySupplementalSupplemental ofFY2003Request
Request2001
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$1,051.0NS
Command, control,$1,548.0$6,525.0$3,125.8
communications and Intelligence
Coalition support^b$420.0$216.0NS
Enhanced physical security^cNS$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^f[75.0]NA$341.0
commander
Combat air patrols^d$300.0NS$1,200.0
Air Force personnel costs^g$206.0NANA
Nuclear Posture Review^hNANA$685.0
Otherⁱ $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^.^In^c^l^{udes funding to increase the industrial capacity and purchase additional sm}^{art m}^unitions^t^o
^{enlarge DOD stocks, as well as unm}^{anned aerial vehicles used for surveillance.}
^{b. Funding to be distributed to unspecified allies}^{who provide m}^{ilitary and logistical support to U.S.}
^{forces in the “global war on terrorism}^.”
^{c. Erecting additional b}^a^{rriers and purchasing}^{surveillance and detection equipm}^{ent to im}^prove
^{security at U.S. m}^ilitary^{installations;}^cost^of^{those activated reservists perform}^{ing guard duties}
^{at U.S. installations is not specified within “m}^{obilization of reservists.”}
^{d. DOD’s support to FEMA and New York City; com}^b^{at air patrols, later in m}^{ilitary operations.}
^{e. Cost of stationing National Guar}^{d at airports, now funded by TSA.}
^{f. New}^H^o^m^e^{land Com}^m^a^{nder in Chief (CINC) set up by DOD after the attack; cost of keeping}
^{prisoners at Guantanam}^o^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 m}ⁱ^ssiles.
^{i. Unspecified costs in FY2002 request; funds}^{potential increase in fuel prices in ETR.}
^Sources:^Departm^e^{nt of Defense, FY2002 Supplem}^en^{tal request to cont}ⁱⁿ^u^e^t^h^e^{global war on}
^Terrorism^{, March 2002; [http://www.dtic.m}^il/com^{ptroller/fy2003budget/fy2002_supp.pdf]; CRS}
^{Report RL31187,}^C^o^m^b^a^{ting Terrorism: 2001 Congressional Debate on Emergency Supplemental}
^Allocations^{by Am}^{y 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.}

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 problem⁵⁹
acknowledged by DOD’s comptroller, Dov Zakheim. 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 included 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 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 placed 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 $10⁶⁰
billion to “fund continued operations for the war on terrorism.” 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 did not explicitly
provide an estimate of total cost to continue the war in Afghanistan in FY2002.
DOD did, 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 reflected its belief that costs in the
remainder of the year were likely to be comparable to those experienced in the first
third.⁶¹ This approach assumed that despite the defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

⁵⁹ Briefing to congressional staffers on execution in the Defense Emergency Response Fund
and DOD’s FY2002 emergency supplemental request, April 19, 2002.
⁶⁰ OMB, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix, February
2002, p. 277
⁶¹ Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
(continued...)

forces, military operations by U.S. forces would continue to require about the same⁶²
resources. Based on this conservative approach, DOD estimated that wartime
military operations in 2002 would cost about $865 million per month.⁶³
That cost for military deployments included 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 did 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.⁶⁴
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.⁶⁵
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 $10.2⁶⁶
billion assumed by CBO, a $2.2 billion difference.
Mobilizing Reservists. The second largest piece of DOD’s FY2002
supplemental request was $4.1 billion to pay for the cost of activated reservists for

⁶¹ (...continued)
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 5;
[h ttp://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy 2003budget/fy 2002_supp.pdf]
⁶² 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.
⁶³ CRS calculations based on Ibid, DOD’s FY2002 supplemental request; divides total of
$10,388.9 million requested for “deployment costs,” see p. 7.
⁶⁴ CBO, Letter to Senator Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget,
United States Senate, April 10, 2002; see [http://www.cbo.gov].
⁶⁵ Ibid, p. 2-3.
⁶⁶ 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.

the last eight months of the year. (DOD’s request assumed that $1 billion was⁶⁷
provided in the first emergency supplemental.) 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.⁶⁸
According to DOD, the $4.1 billion in its request assumed a level of 80,000
reservists for the remainder of the year, a number that is close to the 81,235⁶⁹
reservists currently on active duty. DOD assumed that the number of reservists
would 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 did not provide 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.⁷⁰
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 was 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 requested $4 billion for weapons and munitions in the
ETR, the FY2002 supplemental and the FY2003 request, including the funding for
JDAMs (see Table 5). This category funds not only smart munitions but also
replacement and an increase in the number of Global Hawk (unmanned air vehicles

⁶⁷ Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 7.
⁶⁸ James Dao, “Budget Concerns Are Raised on Continued Use of Guard,” New York Times,
April 26, 2002.
⁶⁹ Department of Defense press release, “National Guard and Reserve Mobilized as of May

1, 2002;” see [http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/b05012002_bt223-02.html].

⁷⁰ Department of Defense, FY2002 Supplemental Request to Continue the Global War on
Terrorism, March, 2002, p. 28-29.

– 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.⁷¹
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 included replacing one
Global Hawk UAV and two sensor packages, and accelerating the production of
Predator UAVs to two vehicles per month.⁷² DOD also plans to purchase additional
UAVs with funds provided in the first emergency supplemental, and with funds⁷³
requested in the FY2003 budget.
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.⁷⁴) There is little visibility on most of this request because many of the
programs are classified. For example, of the $1.5 billion requested in the FY2002
supplemental, $1.4 billion is for classified programs. Similarly, there is no
unclassified information on the FY2003 request of $3.1 billion, which includes $2.6
billion for classified programs, and $540 million for continuity of operations, that is,
for plans to protect key government personnel and facilities in case of attack.

⁷¹ 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.
⁷² Ibid, p. 10.
⁷³ 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.
⁷⁴ Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), National Defense Budget
Estimates for 2003, March 2002, p. 80;
[h ttp://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy 2003budget/FY03GBpdf.pdf].

Coalition Support. DOD’s FY2002 request also included 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)
recommended $15.808 billion for the Department of Defense, an addition of $1.786
billion. The additional funds were 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.”⁷⁵
The committee also provided $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 provided 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
included:
^!$790 million added for reserve mobilization costs in the DERF.
This has been a controversial matter. On May 7, Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee that
DOD had not requested and did not need the additional funds. The
Administration specifically objected to the original draft of the
House Appropriations Committee bill, which would have required
the Administration to release the added money for reserve
mobilization in order to gain access to the other defense money.
That provision was reportedly altered in committee markup by an
amendment offered by Committee Chairman Bill Young.
^!$604 million added in the DERF for additional support of service
counter-terrorism operations.

⁷⁵ Secretary of Defense Daniel Rumsfeld testifying before the Senate Appropriations
Committee, May 7, 2002, Political Transcripts by Federal Document Clearing House, Dow
Jones Reuters.

^!$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 revised 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 limited 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 gave 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.
The Senate did, however, include 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 sought $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.⁷⁶
As finalized by Congress, the Administration receives $1.8 billion more in
foreign aid funding, over $500 million above the request, and a level that roughly
doubles the amount 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 included several policy changes
related to foreign aid activities that may raise controversy during congressional
debate.
Nevertheless, with the President’s August 13 decision not to spend
supplemental funds designated as contingent emergency, about one-third, or $622
million, of the $1.8 billion total will not be available. Major activities affected by
the White House decision include:
^!Israel aid – $200 million
^!Palestinian aid – $50 million
^!Afghanistan aid and refugee relief – $174 million
^!Philippine military aid – $30 million
^!International HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis – $200 million
The White House said, however, that the President supports more aid to Israel, the
Palestinians, and for HIV/AIDS, and will seek other means to gain congressional
approval for these activities in the future. This suggests that President Bush may
submit an amendment to his pending FY2003 Foreign Operations budget proposing
these additional amounts. Whether he will also request cuts in the pending
appropriation to off-set these increases is uncertain.
Funding Issues. The content of the $1.28 billion foreign aid supplemental
sharply contrasted with the types of assistance previously provided to front-line
states and appeared 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

⁷⁶ The Administration has not identified those states that DOD would assist for their help in
the war on terrorism.

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.⁷⁷ The budget plan for FY2003 includes large amounts for a few
key front-line states – Jordan, Pakistan, and India. But for many others, aid would
grow only modestly, leading some to characterize the request as a “business-as-
usual” foreign aid budget.
In several respects the $1.28 billion supplemental proposal reflected what many
said should have been incorporated in the FY2003 plan. Although like the FY2003
budget, the request included significant amounts for Pakistan ($145 million) and
Jordan ($125 million), it distributed considerable amounts of aid to Central Asian
states that would not receive substantial increases in FY2003 and to nations globally.
Key highlights included:
^!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.

⁷⁷ See statement of Congressman Kolbe during a February 13, 2002, hearing of the House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee on the FY2003 foreign affairs budget; and a February 26,
2002, press release by Senator Leahy regarding the Senate Foreign Operations Subcommittee
hearing on the FY2003 request for the U.S. Agency for International Development.

^!Colombia – $35 million, with most focused on anti-kidnaping
training.
Table 6 provides details on country and program distributions in the supplemental
request, and compares that request to enacted aid levels for FY2001 and 2002, and
to requested amounts for FY2003.
Table 6. FY2002 Supplemental Compared with Enacted &
Requested
($s – millions)
FY2002 FY2002 FY2003
Country/Program FY2001Enacted FY2002Enacted Supplemental Supp.^a Request
RequestEnacted
South Asia:
Afghanistan– $297.0$250.0– TBD
Nepal$21.3$30.0$20.0– $41.2
Pakistan$3.5$921.0$145.0– $305.0
Middle East
Bahrain$0.2$0.4$28.5– $0.5
Jordan$226.2$227.0$125.0– $450.4
Oman$0.0$0.3$25.0– $20.3
Yemen$4.2$5.5$25.0– $12.7
Economic Initiative– – $50.0– –
Israel $2,813.8 $2,788.0 $0.0 $200.0^b $2,700.0
Palestinians $71.0 $72.0 $0.0 $50.0^b $75.0
East Asia
Indonesia$121.0$124.7$16.0– $71.9
Philippines $50.4 $92.1 $40.0 $55.0^b $93.1
Africa
Cote d’Ivoire$2.8$3.1$2.0– $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

FY2002 FY2002 FY2003
Country/Program FY2001Enacted FY2002Enacted Supplemental Supp.^a Request
RequestEnacted
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– $43.6
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 Financing– – $10.0– –
Terrorist Interdiction$4.0$8.0$10.0– $5.0
USAID– – $7.0$7.0–
admin/security
Defense admin costs– – $2.0– –
HIV/AIDS, TB,$573.0$653.0$0.0$200.0^b$762.0
Malaria, & Global
Fund
Demining $40.0 $40.0 $0.0 $4.0 $45.0
Migration/Refugee $698.0 $705.0 $0.0 $40.0^b $705.6
aid
TOTAL $5,079.3 $6,947.4 $1,279.5 $1,818.0 $6,400.8
^Sources:^Departm^e^{nt of State and House Appropriations Com}^m^ittee.
^a^{The Conference agreem}^{ent earm}^a^{rks funds for only}^{a few countries and program}^{s, as not}^e^dⁱⁿ^t^h^e
^{table. The Adm}ⁱ^{nistration m}^u^{ch report}^{to Congress 30 days after enactm}^e^{nt with specific}
^{allocations of the funds. The table does not in}^{clude rescissions, which for Foreign Operations}
^program^{s total $269 m}^{illion in the conference agreem}^ent.^b
^{Because of the President’s decision not}^to^spe^nd^m^oney^{designated as “}^c^{ontingent em}^{ergency,” all}
^{or part of these am}^{ounts will not be available. See discussion above.}
Policy Issues. The supplemental request included 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 were 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 proposed 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
proposed $420 million in DOD Operation and Maintenance funding for payments to
Pakistan, Jordan, and “other key cooperating states for logistical and military support
provided” to U.S. military operations in the war on terrorism that would also be
under DOD’s policy purview.
DOD officials said that these provisions were 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 charged
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 policy⁷⁸
and foreign aid.”
Colombia Aid Restrictions. An additional supplemental general provision
sought 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 its⁷⁹
national security.” 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 other⁸⁰
circumstances that threatened Colombian national security.

⁷⁸ Testimony by Secretary of State Armitage before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee,
Senate Appropriations Committee, April 18, 2002.
⁷⁹ 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
[h ttp://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy 2003budget/fy 2002_supp.pdf].
⁸⁰ 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.

Although the most immediate effect of the change would be to permit the
United States to expand how it shares intelligence information with Colombian
security forces, the provision would also allow helicopters and other military
equipment provided over the past two years to fight drug production to be used
against any threat to Colombia’s security.
The Administration, however, did not ask 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 said
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 argued 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 asked 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, Senate, and conference action increased foreign aid funding proposed by the
President, but limited to some extent policy provisions and waivers sought by the
White House. The enacted measure also added a new issue into the supplemental
debate – additional funding to fight global HIV/AIDS – but dropped a Senate-added
provision concerning the status of U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund
(UNFPA).
As passed Congress, the supplemental includes $1.8 billion in new Foreign
Operations funds, over $500 million above the request. The House had included
$1.82 billion, while the Senate measure provided $1.78 billion. New items added by

both the House and Senate, and included in the final bill, were $200 million in
assistance to Israel, $50 million for the Palestinians, and $200 million to combat
HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. The HIV/AIDS money can be used to support
the President’s new mother-to-child transmission initiative, but conferees stated that
$100 million of the total should be used as an additional contribution to the Global
Fund to Combat HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. If followed, this
recommendation by Congress would cut in half the amount the President pledged for
his initiative in FY2002. (As noted above, however, aid for Israel, the Palestinians,
and HIV/AIDS was designated as a contingent emergency, money which the
President decided he will not spend.)
Both versions increased 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 conference agreement does not set a
specific amount for Afghanistan. (Since a large amount of aid set for Afghanistan
and for refugees in and around Afghanistan – about $184 million – is designated as
contingent emergency funds, the President’s decision to not spend these amounts will
reduce amounts provided in the enacted bill for Afghanistan.) The Senate bill added
$15 million to create an international exchange program for students from countries
with large Muslim populations, and conferees set the total at $10 million. In most
cases, the conference agreement did not set specific country allocations, leaving that
at the discretion of the President. The legislation directs the executive branch to
report on such allocations within 30 days of enactment. (see Table 6, above).
On policy issues, the final bill removes the requested “notwithstanding any
provision of law” provisos, but waives the “Brooke amendment” regarding debt
payments in arrears. This will permit most of waivers the Administration sought.
On Colombia, the final bill includes language similar but less sweeping than the
Administration’s request. It 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 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.
Congress denied DOD’s request for authority to use $30 million to support
indigenous forces engaged in activities combating terrorism, but approved $390
million for payments to Pakistan, Jordan, and other cooperating states for logistical
and military support provided. Although this provision gives the Administration
some flexibility, the law also requires notification to the appropriate Congressional
committees 15 days in advance of any reimbursements, and report language specifies
that reimbursements are to cover only goods, services, or the use of facilities that are
in direct support of U.S. military operations.⁸¹
H.R. 4775, as passed by the House, had approved DOD’s request for $100
million to support foreign government efforts to fight global terrorism, but with

⁸¹ See H.Rept. 107-593, Chapter 3, Department of Defense, Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide, p. 17, and p. 128.

significant changes. Transfers would be limited, however, 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 and the final bill did 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
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 opposed the Senate language.
Conferees agreed to drop all UNFPA language from the final bill, leaving the
decision entirely up to the President. Subsequently, on July 23, the White House
announced the U.S. would withhold the $34 million transfer.
Aviation Security Issues⁸²
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

⁸² This section was prepared by D. Randy Peterman, Resources, Science, and Industry
Division.

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;
^!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.⁸³ As the costs of carrying
out the enhanced security are becoming clearer, however, it appears that these fees
may not be sufficient.

⁸³ 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.

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 other issues that arose were whether Congress would approve funds
designated as contingent emergency funds, if Congress would not know how the
monies would be spent, whether airports can meet the current deadline for deploying
explosive detection systems, the size of the new federal workforce to be hired, and
the adequacy of the Administration’s request.
Funding Issues.The Administration’s proposal that Congress approve $1.9
billion as a contingent emergency, with no detail about costs, was not well received
by some appropriators, who likened it to signing blank checks. On the other hand,
the DOT’s Inspector General suggested that Congress actually make an even larger
portion of the Administration’s request – $2 to $2.25 billion rather than $1.9 billion
– contingent on TSA submitting periodic detailed budget estimates in light of the
uncertainty surrounding the agency’s needs for the current fiscal year.
The Transportation Security Administration has not definitely decided the
number or the type of explosive detection systems needed to check baggage. Nor
does the agency know the size of the required total workforce. One machine under
consideration is the size of a small minivan and relies on computed tomography
(CT), the same technology used for medical purposes. These large machines cost $1
million apiece but require fewer screeners than a smaller, less sophisticated, and
cheaper machine that relies on swabbing of bags to detect explosive materials, and
would cost $45,000 each but require more screeners and be more intrusive.
When the Act was passed, it was estimated that about 30,000 employees would
be needed for aviation security. The new requirement to screen luggage as well as
passengers could require an additional 25,000 to 30,000 employees. With other
administrative personnel, some have estimated that the number of TSA employees
could reach 70,000.⁸⁴
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.⁸⁵ 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.

⁸⁴ 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.
⁸⁵ Ibid.

House Action on the Administration’s Aviation Request. In markup,
the House Appropriations Committee reduced 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 included:
^!$630 million to purchase explosive detection systems to screen
baggage;
^!$850 million to remodel airports so they can accommodate the new
devices; and⁸⁶
^!$75 million to improve port security.
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 provided an 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 provided 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.”⁸⁷

⁸⁶ House Appropriations Committee, “Full Committee Reports FY2002 Emergency
Supplemental,” Press Release, May 15, 2002; for web access, see
[h ttp://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/107_2/03supfull.htm].
⁸⁷ P.L. 107-38.

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.⁸⁸
The FY2002 emergency supplemental included $5.5 billion in funding for aid to
New York provided by FEMA disaster assistance, Community Development block
grants and transportation grants to rebuild mass transit, and roads.⁸⁹
FEMA Request.⁹⁰ Of the Administration’s $3.1 billion request for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), $2.75 billion, or 88%, was for the⁹¹
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) administered by FEMA. That fund is used to help
communities recover from and rebuild after major disasters as designated by the⁹²
President under the Stafford Act. 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 within⁹³
two months of the attack.
Some, however, contended that considerably more recovery assistance was
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.”⁹⁴ 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

⁸⁸ 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.
⁸⁹ 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].
⁹⁰ This section was prepared by Keith Bea, Government and Finance Division.
⁹¹ The remaining $326.5 million is for grants to state and local governments for first
responder teams, see Appendix A.
⁹² 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., popularly known as the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.
⁹³ U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs, personal communication with CRS, Nov. 13, 2001.
⁹⁴ New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce, Working Together to Accelerate
New York’s Recovery (New York, 2002); see
[http://www.ny cp.org/impactstudy /EconImp actStudy .pdf].

want to retain the current criteria, and rely on other federal programs to aid private
corporations.
HUD Community Development Block Grants.⁹⁵ 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 included $750
million for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program
administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
According to press reports, these funds were intended primarily to help Con Edison⁹⁶
and Verizon rebuild their facilities.
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 1998.⁹⁷
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 included $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

⁹⁵ This section was prepared by Eugene Boyd, Government and Finance Division.
⁹⁶ Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.
⁹⁷ 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.

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 Manhattan⁹⁸
transportation system that would cost $7.3 billion. 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 faced 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 provided
the full $5.5 billion in aid to New York City, as requested. The panel, however,
allocated $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 proposed $750 million in assistance for
dislocated workers. In markup, the Committee reduced 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 provided
$300 million in aid for dislocated workers, $450 million below the request. The
funds were 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 provided
$400 million in aid, with some funding targeted to demonstration projects and long-
term assistance (see Appendix A-2) though the total provided was $350 million
below the request. The Senate bill called for targeting assistance to those states
whose funds were reduced as a result of changes in award formulas, and to those

⁹⁸ Edward Wyatt and Randy Kennedy, “$7 Billion Estimate to Rebuild Transit Near Ground
Zero,” New York Times, April 20, 2002.

states who have spent most of their funds.⁹⁹ No changes were made on the Senate
floor.

⁹⁹ Senate Appropriations Committee, S.Rept. 107-156, Making Supplemental Appropriations
for Further Recovery, “ May 29, 2002, p. 70.

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)
Appropriations BillRequestHouseaction SenateactionEnacted
Agriculture & Related66.0(345.0)352.5 (112.0)
Agencies
Commerce, Justice, State430.7754.51,266.7902.4
Defense & Military14,022.015,799.514,022.114,381.6
Construction
District of Columbia0.00.068.244.1
Energy & Water26.4378.4335.4 477.9
Development
Foreign Operations1,122.51,597.51,545.51,549.0
Interior (10.0) 57.3 50.5 106.1
Labor, Health/Human$1,976.001,271.11,802.01,016.5
Services, Education/a/
Legislative Branch15.425.211.125.2
Transportation/a/ $5614.8 5 ,075.3 $7,428.4 6 ,551.8
Treasury, Postal Serv,146.3651.5198.5 586.6
Executive Office of
President, & Gen Govt
Veterans, Housing & Urban5,005.13,511.34,433.83,732.8
Dev, & Independent
Agencies/b/
Across the board rescission000(350)
TOTAL/a/ /b/ /c/28,415.228,776.631,514.7 28,912.0
^Notes:^a
^{The Adm}ⁱ^{nistration included a request for $1.3 billion in supplem}^{ental funding for FY2002 Pell}
^{grants in its FY2003 budget, with equal offset}^s^from^{reductions in funds added by}^Congress^to
^{Labor, HHS, and the Departm}^e^{nt of Education. The House and the Senat}^e^{Appropriations}
^Com^m^{ittees both provided $1 billion for Pell grants and scored the offset as zero.}^b
^D^o^e^sⁿ^o^t^{include $1.1 billion in m}^a^{ndatory spendi}^{ng for veterans eligible for disability paym}^ents^,
^{requested by the Adm}ⁱ^{nistration on May 15, 2002, and included in the Se}ⁿ^a^t^e^{and enacted}
^version.^c
^{Totals include em}^{ergency, contingent em}^ergeⁿ^c^y^s^p^e^{nding, rescissions and offsets, and non-}
^em^{ergency spending.}

Table A-2 below lists the funding in the FY2002 Supplemental that was
requested by the Administration and enacted by Congress.
Availability and Type of Funds
As enacted, H.R. 4775 provided that funding would be available for FY2002
unless designated otherwise.¹⁰⁰ The table below shows those accounts where
Congress extended the availability of funds beyond FY2002.
As shown in Table A-2, which follows, Congress also appropriated funds in
several categories:
^!emergency funds as designated by both the president and Congress
(designated by “E”);
^!contingent emergency funds to be designated as emergency funds if
the president submits a budget request including that designation
(designated by “C”);
^!non-emergency funds (designated by “N”); and
^!rescissions and offsets (designated as “R”).
Emergency funding is not counted against the statutory ceilings that are in effect
for FY2002 as part of the 1997 Budget Enforcement In a general provision referred
to as the “all or none” provision, H.R. 4775 stipulates that in order to spend any of
the funding designated as “contingent emergency,” the president must designate all¹⁰¹
funding in that category as an emergency. About $5 billion in H.R. 4775 is
designated as contingent emergency funding. The bill provides that the President
had thirty days from passage of the bill to decide whether to submit a budget
amendment that designates this $5 billion as emergency funding. The $2.9 billion
in non-emergency funding provided in H.R. 4775 is offset by rescissions or offsets
so that no additional funding is scored in FY2002. Table A-2 below notes the type
of funding applying to individual appropriation accounts.
Rescissions and offsets cancel out $2.9 billion of non-emergency spending.
Purposes and Spending Category
The description of the purposes for the funding shown in Table A-2 below is
based on conference action (see H.Rept. 107-593). The table also includes funding
for comparable purposes that was provided by the Emergency Terrorism Response
supplemental (P.L. 107-38), the emergency supplemental passed on September 14,

2001, in the wake of the terrorist attacks.

Table A-2 codes spending in individual appropriation accounts by eleven broad
policy priorities developed by CRS. Those categories are described in the box on
page 6. See Figures 1 and 2, and Table 3 for the funding and share of the total for
each category.

¹⁰⁰ See Section 1401, H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, p. 80, and p. 185.
¹⁰¹ See Section 1404, H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, p. 80, and p. 186.

CRS-58
Table A-2. FY2002 Supplemental: Administration Request and Congressional Action by Appropriation Account
(millions of dollars)
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Review foreign country equivalence agreem}^{ents &}^0.0^B^IO^0.0²^.0^15.0^13.0^C
^{foreign plants.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Finance rising participation in Supplem}^{ental Nutrition}^Program^{for W}^o^m^e^{n, Infants, & children}^75.0^V^IC^39.0^75.0^75.0^75.0^N
^g/w^I^{C Program}
^s^.or
^le^ak^{al & Plant}^{Aid State efforts to prevent & control transm}^issible^0.0^N^A^105.0^10.0^60.0^33.0^C
^://wiki^spongiform^{encephalopathy in anim}^{als, em}^ergency^{preparedness ($10M), and security ($8M).}
^h^ttp
^{Cancel funds to rehabilitate aging dam}^s^.⁽^9.0)^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^R
^a^ter-
^Lim^{its expenditures of Export Enhancem}^{ent Program}^0.0^N^A^N^A^-^450.0⁰^.0^-445.0^R
^ent^{by $450 m}^illion

^{for transfer to Anim}^{al and Plant Health Inspection}^0.0^B^IO^0.0⁰^.0^18.0^18.0^C
^{Serv., Agric. Marketing Serv. and/or Food Safety and}
^{Inspection Service to im}^{prove lab security and set up}
^{a consolidated database on biological agents at field}
^labs.
^A^{ssess agriculture’s vulnerability to plant and anim}^al^0.0^B^IO^0.0⁰^.0^16.0⁸^.0^C

CRS-59
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^pathogens.
^{Renovate National Anim}^{al Disease Laboratory in}^0.0^B^IO^0.0⁰^.0^50.0^25.0^C
^Am^{es, Iowa, an infectious disease center.}
^{For first responders in agriculture ex}^{tension services.}⁰^.0^PRE⁰^.0^0.0^16.0⁶^.0^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak^{For recovery activities related to flooding in Illinois,}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^73.0^{94.0 N}
^{Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia and W}^e^{st Virginia, and}
^://wiki^a^tershed^storm^s^{, floods, fires, and other natural disasters in}
^h^ttp^2002.
^{For recovery activities related to flooding in Illinois,}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^27.0^{50.0 C}
^{Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia and W}^e^{st Virginia, and}
^a^tershed^storm^s^{, floods, fires, and other natural disasters in}
^2002.
^m^unity^{Upgrading security and conducting vulnerability}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^25.0^20.0^C
^ent^assessm^{ents of rural water system}^s.
^{(no year)}
^{Rescinds guaranteed loans for local tv stations}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^-^20.0^-^20.0^R

CRS-60
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Local tv loan Guarantee program}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^20.0⁸^.0^N
^p^{Rescinds $33M for Em}^ploym^{ent and Training Prg.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^-^33.0^-^24.0^R
^{(no year)}
^{Assistance to agricultural producers in Texas along}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^10.0^10.0^N
^{Rio Grande river (Non-em}^{ergency funds).}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}ⁱ^{n-S&E (no}^{Medical devices & radiological health safety activities}⁰^.0^BIO⁰^.0^18.0⁰^.0^17.0^C
^g/w
^s^.or^66.0^-^345.0^352.0^-^112.0

^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

CRS-61
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^e^ntal^{Increased guard and protection services.}⁰^.4^SEC⁴^.8^0.4⁰^.0^0.4^E
^nagem^e^nt–S&E
^{Increased guard and protection services.}⁰^.0^SEC⁴^.8^0.0⁰^.4^0.0^C
^{Initiate inform}^{ation sharing program}^{for hom}^eland^8.7^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^E
ⁱ^nistration,^security.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Initiate inform}^{ation sharing program}^{for hom}^eland^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^8.7⁰^.0^NA
^g/w^security.
^s^.or
^le^ak^{New hom}^{eland security activities including $20M for}^{info security initiatives, $10.1M to develop standards}^4.0^P^RE^0.0⁴^.0^0.0⁴^.0^E
^://wiki^{for chem}^{/bio/nuclear/radiological explosive threat}^{detecting equipm}^{ent, and $4M for building security.}
^h^ttp
^{New hom}^{eland security activities including $20M for}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^84.6^33.1^C
^{info security initiatives, $10.1M to develop standards}
^{for chem}^{/bio/nuclear/radiological explosive threat}
^{detecting equipm}^{ent, and $4M for building security.}
^{Increased security costs}⁰^.0^SEC⁰^.0^1.1⁰^.0^1.1^C
^E^{uropean Com}^m^{unities Musi}^{c Licensing Dispute}³^.3^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
^{New hom}^{eland security activities}⁰^.0^SEC¹^.0^0.0¹^.7^0.0^N^A
ⁱ^nistration,
^in.
^{Rescinds funding for Suitland Federa}^{l Center}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^20.9)^(11.3)^R

CRS-62
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Funds for m}^a^{pping and charting backlogs, and to}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^26.4²^.0^N
^{enhance Environm}^{ental Satellite Date Inform}^ation
^System
^{Backup to critical satellite products and services.}⁰^.0^SEC⁰^.0^0.0²^.8^2.8^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Rescinds unobligated balances.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁽^8.1)^R
^g/w
^s^.or^Supercom^{puter backup}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^7.2⁷^.2^C
^le^ak^ent,
^://wiki
^h^ttp^{Rescinds funds for National Polar-Orbiting}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(8.1)⁰^.0^R
^{Operational Environm}^{ental Satellite System}
^Lim^{its credits for Fisheries Fi}^{nancing, rescission}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^3.0)^(3.0)⁽^3.0)^R
^{Assistance to New England fisheries.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^11.0^11.0^N

CRS-63
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Assistance to Northeast fisheries.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁵^.0^5.0^N
^{Links FBI fingerprint identification system}^{with INS}^5.8^I^NV/LE^0.0⁵^.8^0.0⁵^.8^E
ⁱ^n/S&E^{inspectors to conduct background checks of suspect}
^{aliens (Chim}^e^{ra system}⁾
^{Planning of Entry-Exit system}^{to alert law enforcers}^0.0^I^NV/LE^0.0^[^1.0]^0.0¹^.0^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{to potential terrorist.}^{Funds Principal Deputy Attorney General for}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0²^.0^0.0^N^A
^g/wⁱ^n/S&E^Com^b^{ating Terrorism}
^s^.or
^le^ak^{For grants for pre-positioned equipm}^{ent for first}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^{184.6 1.0}^C
ⁱ^n/S&E,^{responders ($85M), regional training ($48M), and}
^://wiki^e^stic^{exercises with state and local gov’ts ($34M), and}
^h^ttp^assessm^{ents ($6M).}
^{Increased security requirem}^e^{nts of high-threat terrorist}^0.0^S^EC^0.0¹^.0^0.0^37.9^C
^trials.
^{For courtroom}^technology.^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^5.2⁰^.0^NA
^{Rescinds $7M}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^7.0)^(7.0)^R
^{Rescinds unobligated balances.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁽^30.0)^R

CRS-64
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Rescinds surplus.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^(5.0)^R
^{Rescinds $2.1M from}^{Training Academ}^{y for US}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^2.1)^0.0^R
^Marshalls.
^Equipm^{ent, R&D, and cyber security m}^easures^10.0^I^NV/LE^821.6^10.0⁰^.0^10.0^E
^($56M).
^Equipm^{ent, R&D, and cyber security m}^easures^0.0^I^NV/LE^821.6^102.0^75.0^165.0^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^($56M).
^g/w^{Grants to First Responders for equipm}^{ent ($95M),}^See^PRE^400.0^175.0⁰^.0^151.3^C
^s^.or^{s, Justice}^{training ($41M), exercises ($14M), and security}^FEMA
^le^ak^{clearances ($1M).}
^://wiki^{Establishes Election Reform}^{Grant Program}^.⁰^.0^NA^NA^See^450.0⁰^.0^NA
^h^ttp^s^OMB
^{Rescinds $2M for Office of Assistant Attorney}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(4.0)⁽^0.6)^R

^{s, Justice}^General.

CRS-65
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Provides grants to states and localities to im}^prove^0.0^P^RE^400.0⁰^.0^85.0^50.0^C
^s,^com^m^{unication am}^{ong law enforcem}^{ent agencies}
^m^unity
^ent^{Air and sea port security initiatives, including for}^35.0^S^{EC 89.7}^35.0⁰^.0^35.0^E
^{Absconder initiative ($25M), fleet m}^g^{t ($25m}^{), m}^a^ke
^{up shortfall in im}^mⁱ^{gration user fee revenue, and to}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^im^{prove retention of agents ($6.2M).}
^g/w^{Air and sea port security initiatives, including for}^0.0^S^EC^89.7^40.0^35.0^46.3^C
^s^.or^{Absconder initiative ($25M), fleet m}^g^{t ($25m}^{), m}^a^ke^{up shortfall in im}^mⁱ^{gration user fee revenue, and to}
^le^ak^im^{prove retention of agents ($6.2M).}
^://wiki^{For em}^{ergency construction expenses at border patrol}^0.0^R^EC^99.6⁰^.0^84.0^32.1^C
^h^ttp^stations.
^{Rescinds $30M for buildings and facilities}⁰^.0^NA^NA^0.0⁽^30.0)^(5.0)^R
^{atic &}^{Support operations in Kabul and Tajikistan ($20.3M);}^41.1^S^EC^106.7^33.6^38.3^37.5^E
^s^{supports security ($4M), and restores m}^a^{il operations}
^contam^{inated by anthrax ($11.3M)}
^{Expand public diplom}^acy.^10.0^P^{UB DIP}^62.9^17.5⁰^.0^10.0^E
^e^nt^{Develop a classified, anti-terrorism}^{global database.}²^.5^PRE⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A

CRS-66
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{For Educational and Cultural Exchange program}^s.^10.0^P^{UB DIP}^62.9^10.0⁰^.0^10.0^E
^{For Educational and Cultural Exchange program}^s.^0.0^P^{UB DIP}^62.9^10.0⁹^.0^5.0^C
^{bassy Security,}^{New construction in Tajikistan ($80M) and}^200.5^S^EC^0.0^200.5⁰^.0^200.5^E
^{rehabilitation of Kabul com}^{pound ($130M).}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{New construction in Tajikistan ($80M) and}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^210.5^10.0^C
^g/w^{rehabilitation of Kabul com}^{pound ($130M).}
^s^.or^{ergencies in the}^Paym^{ents to injured individuals & fam}^{ilies in connec-}^8.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^NA
^le^ak^{atic &}^{tion with 4/20/01 incident with civilian plane in Peru.}
^://wiki^{U.S. share of U.N. Special Representative’s operation}^7.0^HUM^0.0⁷^.0^7.0⁷^.0^E
^h^ttp^{in Afghanistan.}^AID
^{U.S. share of U.N. peacekeeping operations.}^43.0^S^EC^0.0^43.0⁰^.0^23.0^E
^ASST
^{Rescinds $35M from}^{prior year appropriations}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(48.0)^0.0^R
^{Surrogate broadcasting by RFE/RL to}^Afghanistan^7.4^P^{UB DIP}^21.5⁷^.4^7.4⁷^.4^E
^{Installation of a m}^e^dium^{wave transm}^{ission facility in}^0.0^P^{UB DIP}⁰^.0^7.7⁰^.0^7.7^N

^prove.^{Tunisia to support Arabic broadcasting initiative.}

CRS-67
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{e Court/}^Perim^e^{ter security enhancem}^{ents at}^Suprem^{e Court.}^10.0^S^EC^31.3^10.0^10.0^10.0^E
^{Security upgrades.}⁰^.9^SEC⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w^{Protective window film}^{& other security m}^easures,^3.1^S^EC^82.2³^.1^0.0³^.1^E
^s^.or^{including closed circuit transm}^{ission of Moussaoui}
^le^ak^trial.
^://wiki^{Protective window film}^{& other security m}^easures,^{including closed circuit transm}^{ission of Moussaoui}^0.0^S^EC^82.2³^.1^9.7⁴^.0^C
^h^ttp^trial.
^{Additional staff for Com}^mⁱ^{ssion’s growing oversight}^20.0^N^A^N^A^20.0^20.0^30.9^N
^{and enforcem}^{ent workload}
^mⁱ^{ssion –}
^e^{Rescinds unobligated balances.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁽^5.0)^R
^S^{EC New York Regional Office recovery costs.}^0.0^R^EC^20.7⁹^.3^9.3⁹^.3^E
^430.7^754.5¹^,266.7^902.4

CRS-68
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Funds full end strength of 358,800 including those AF}^206.0^D^efense^NA^206.0^206.0^206.0^E
^{required to stay because of global war on terrorism}^.
^{Funds increm}^{ental operational, special pay costs, and}^11,300.0^D^efense^15,883.3^11,300.0^11,300.0^11,300.0^E
^ergency^{other costs associated with conflict in Afghanistan}
^{and hom}^{eland security including replacem}^{ent of}
^equipm^{ent, intelligence activities, cost of activating}
^{reservists for enhanced security at U.S. and overseas}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{bases and other activities, and cost of com}^b^{at air}
^g/w^{patrol in U.S./b/}
^s^.or^{Provides additional funds not requested by the}^0.0^D^efense^15,883.3¹^,394.0⁰^.0^601.9^C
^le^ak^{President for activating reservists for enhanced}
^{security at US and overseas bases and other m}ⁱ^ssions,
^://wiki^{and realigns special operations funds to individual}
^h^ttp^{services providing that support.}
^{Rescinds DERF funds from}^Em^{ergency terrorism}^0.0^D^efense^15,883.3⁰^.0^0.0⁽^224.0)^R
^{response supp that have not been obligated.}
^{Funds com}^m^{unication program}^{($5.2M), and}^107.0^D^efense^NA^107.0^107.0^107.0^E
^{classified program}^{s ($101.8M).}
^y^(9/30/03)
^{Adds funds for overseas contingency operations in}^0.0^D^efense^NA^119.0⁰^.0^102.0^C
^{Bosnia and S.W}^.^Asia
^{Classified program}^s.^36.5^D^efense^NA^36.5^36.5^36.5^E
^{Classified program}^s.^0.0^D^efense^NA^17.3⁰^.0^12.3^C

CRS-69
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Replace intelligence and surveillance equipm}^ent,^41.0^D^efense^NA^41.0^41.0^41.0^E
^{including Predator unm}^{anned aerial vehicles (UAV)}
^{($9M) and classified program}^{s ($32.1M).}
^{Adds funds for classified program}^s.^0.0^D^efense^NA^19.5⁰^.0^24.5^C
^{Funds paym}^{ents to Pakistan, Jordan and other “key}^420.0^D^efense^[288.0]^420.0^420.0^390.0^E
^{cooperating nations” for logistical and m}^ilitary^transfer
^{support to U.S. m}^{ilitary operations in the global war}^{to State,}
^{on terrorism}^.^ESF)
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Classified program}^{s plus replaces various intelligence}^319.0^D^efense^NA^319.0^319.0^332.0^E
^g/w^{and surveillance and reconnaissance equipm}^ent.
^s^.or^{Adds funds for classified program}^s.^0.0^D^efense^NA^13.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
^le^ak^{Replaces various intelligence and surveillance and}^79.2^D^efense^NA^79.2^79.2^79.2^E
^://wiki^ent,^y^(9/30/04)^{reconnaissance equipm}^{ent ($68.8M), and classified}^program^{s ($10.4M)).}
^h^ttp^{Upgrades W}^h^{ite House Com}^m^{unications ($14.8M)}^22.8^D^efense^NA^22.8^22.8^22.8^E
^{ent, Navy}^{and classified program}^{s ($8M).}
^{ent of}^{Nearly doubles production rate of Joint Direct Attack}^262.0^D^efense^[443.5]^262.0^262.0^262.0^E
^m^{unition, Navy}^{Munitions (JDAMs) from}^{1,500. m}^{onth to 2,800 a}
^m^{onth and buys additional m}^unitions.
^{Funds various intelligence, surveillance and}^2.5^D^efense^NA^2.5²^.5^2.5^E
^{ent, Navy}^{reconnaissance classified program}^s.
^ent,^{Funds classified com}^m^a^{nd, control, and}^3.5^D^efense^NA^3.5³^.5^3.5^E

^com^m^{unication program}^s.

CRS-70
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Accelerates production of Predator unm}^{anned aerial}^93.0^D^efense^NA^93.0^93.0^93.0^E
^{ent, Air}^{vehicles to two per m}^{onth ($37M), retrofits ground}
^{station ($8M), and buys one replacem}^{ent Global}
^{Hawk UAV ($35M), and two sensor packages}
^($13M).
^{Adds funds for F-15 VHF radios.}⁰^.0^Defense^N^A^36.5⁰^.0^25.0^C
^{Rescinds FY2002 funds.}⁰^.0^Defense^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^11.6)^R
^{ent, AF}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{ent of}^{Nearly doubles production rate of Joint Direct Attack}^115.0^D^efense^[443.5]^115.0^115.0^115.0^E
^g/w^m^{unition, Air}^{Munitions (JDAMs) from}^{1,500 m}^{onth to 2,800 a}
^s^.or^m^{onth and buys additional m}^unitions.
^le^ak^{Funds classified com}^m^a^{nd, control, and}^752.3^D^efense^NA^735.3^752.3^747.8^E
^com^m^{unication program}^{s, including buying UAVs.}
^://wiki^{Rescinds FY2001 funds}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^29.0)^0.0⁽^12.5)^R
^h^ttp^{ent, Air}
^{Rescinds FY2002 funds}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^52.5)^R
^ent,^{Replaces and upgrades intelligence, surveillance, and}^99.5^D^efense^NA^99.5^99.5^99.5^E
^{reconnaissance equipm}^{ent ($37.8M), funds classified}
^program^{s ($46.9M), and W}^h^{ite House}
^com^m^{unications upgrades ($14.8M).}
^{Adds funds for classified program}^s.^0.0^D^efense^NA^4.9⁰^.0^4.9^C
^{Rescinds $30 m}^{illion in FY2002 funds}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^30.0)^0.0⁽^30.0)^R
^Arm^y^{Funds fielding of new m}^e^{dical treatm}^e^{nt for wounds.}⁸^.2^Defense⁰^.0^8.2⁸^.2^8.2^E
^Navy^{Funds upgrades to W}^h^{ite House com}^m^unications^19.0^D^efense^9.0^19.0⁹^.0^E
^system^s.
^A^{ccelerates upgrades to unm}^a^{nned aerial vehicles}^60.8^D^efense^NA^60.8^60.8^60.8^E

CRS-71
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{($23M) and classified program}^{s ($175.4M).}
^{Accelerates upgrades to unm}^{anned aerial vehicles}^0.0^D^efense^NA^39.0⁰^.0^137.6^C
^{($23M) and classified program}^{s ($175.4M).}
^{Rescinds FY2002 funds.}⁰^.0^Defense^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^56.6)^R
^Defense^{Classified program}^{s, and chem}^{bio detection.}^74.7^D^efense^NA^52.0^74.8^67.0^E
^Chem^{-Bio detection.}^0.0^D^efense^28.0^20.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Purchase 3 MH-47 helicopters.}^0.0^D^efense^0.0^93.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
^g/w^{ical Agents}^{Accelerate chem}^{ical weapons dem}^{ilitarization.}^0.0^D^efense^NA^100.0⁰^.0^75.0^C
^s^.or
^le^ak
^y^{, Sec. 306}
^://wiki
^h^ttp^{Rescinds $226M in FY2002 funds for lower than}^0.0^D^efense^NA^0.0⁰^.0^(226.0)^R
^{expected econom}^{ic assum}^p^tions.
^{For upgrade at Diego Garcia to Support Operation}^0.0^D^efense^0.0⁸^.5^0.0⁷^.3^C
^{Enduring Freedom}^.
^{Construction of a Joint Ops Com}^p^{lex at Ft. Bragg}^0.0^D^efense^0.0^21.5⁰^.0^21.5^C
^{($19.6M) & planning & design ($1.9M).}
ⁱ^de
^uction^14,022.0^15,799.⁵^14,022.1^14,381.6

CRS-72
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Rescind surplus that resulted from}^{lower than}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^37.0)^(37.0)^(37.0)^R
^{projected student enrollm}^ent.
^e^Support^{Increased adoption case rates, higher case loads for}^0.0^N^A^N^A^11.0^11.0^11.0^N
^{adoption, and em}^{ergency group hom}^{e utilization.}
^{ily Services*}
^e^Support^{Address Medicaid revenue shortfall.}^0.0^N^A^N^A^26.0^26.0^26.0^N
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w^{ent of}^{Rescind repaym}^{ent of loans and interest due to lower}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^8.0)^(8.0)^-^8.0^R
^s^.or^{interest rates and borrowing.}
^le^ak
^{Finances lease for One Judiciary Square}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁸^.0^8.0⁸^.0^N
^://wiki
^h^ttp^{ent to}^Im^plem^{enting District em}^{ergency ops plan, including}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^13.8^10.0^C
^{quarantine facilities and decontam}^{ination facility for}
^{children and fam}^ilies.
^{ent to}^{For District Em}^{ergency ops plan, including overtim}^e^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^24.7^23.0^C
^{for special events($12M), unified ops center ($5M),}
^b^ia^{and construction of Hospital Containm}^{ent facilities to}
^{support regional Bio terrorism}^{Hospital Preparedness}
^Program^($6M).
^{ent to}^{To partially finance a regional transportation back-up}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^25.0⁸^.0^C

^{operations control center.}

CRS-73
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^ent^{Rescinds $0.7M.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^-^0.7^R
^{ily Court}
^{Funds reporting and availability requirem}^e^{nt of}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^0.7^N
^{FY2002 DC appropriations.}
^a^shington^{For support of Regional Incident Com}^m^{unication and}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^1.8¹^.8^C
^{Coordination System}
^e^nts
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{ent to}^{To m}^{onitor water quality rem}^o^{tely including detecting}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^3.0¹^.3^C
^g/w^a^{ter and Sewer}^chem^{ical or biological agents.}
^s^.or
^le^ak
^b^ia
^://wiki^{Rescinds $100K from}^{Dept. of Corrections for}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁽^0.1)^-0.1^R
^h^ttp^{Corrections Inform}^{ation Council}
^{For Corrections Inform}^{ation Council}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.1.1^0.1^N
^ation

0.0 0.0 68.2 44.1

CRS-74
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Security im}^provem^e^{nts at Corps facilities}⁰^.0^SEC^139.0^128.4⁰^.0^108.0^C
^{Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries, using}^0.0^S^EC^139.0⁰^.0^[6.5]^0.0^N
^{funds from}^ETR^transfers
^funds
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Assist recovery from}^{flooding in May 2002 in W}^e^st^{Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia ($10M), W}^e^stern^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^32.0^32.0^N
^g/w^{Illinois, Southern Indiana, Eastern Missouri and}
^s^.or^{Upper Peninsula, Michigan ($22M)}
^le^ak^{Drilling of em}^{ergency wells and leasing water in}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0³^.0^7.0^N
^://wiki^ation*^{Santa Fe, New Mexico (Sec. 504)}^{Enhance safeguards and security at DOE Science labs.}⁰^.0^SEC⁰^.0^29.0⁰^.0^24.0^C
^h^ttp^{s - Science}
^Im^{prove em}^{ergency response of radiological search}^19.4^P^RE^0.0^19.4^19.4^19.4^E
^team^{s in urban areas ($8.8M), support law}
ⁱ^nistration/W^e^enforcem^{ent officials, consequence m}^a^nagem^e^nt
^team^{s and other local em}^{ergency responders.}
^{Secure transportation of nuclear}^weapons^0.0^S^EC^25.0^18.0^18.0^18.0^C
^{Increased safeguards and security at DOE nuclear}^0.0^S^EC^111.0^88.0^104.3^87.2^C
^{weapons facilities, including cyber-security}
^{For counter-terrorism}^{, including National Center to}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^40.0^33.5^C
^Com^b^{at Terrorism}
^{Rescinds prior year funds.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁽^14.5)^R

CRS-75
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Enhance international safeguards activities; protect}^0.0^S^EC^226.0⁵^.0^65.0^65.0^N
^{and safeguard nuclear m}^a^{terials in Form}^{er Soviet}
^{Union and other countries.}
^{Develop sensors to prevent nuclear and other deadly}^0.0^S^EC^226.0⁰^.0^35.0^35.0^C
^m^a^{terials from}^{entering the U.S.}
^{For additional em}^{ergency expenses}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^1.8¹^.8^C
ⁱ^nistrator
^{ental and}^{Enhance safeguards at various DOE environm}^ental^0.0^S^EC^0.0^67.0⁰^.0^56.0^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^m^a^nagem^e^{nt cleanup sites.}
^g/w
^s^.or^ental
^le^ak
^s^t^e
^://wiki^e^nt
^h^ttp^{Rescinds prior year funds.}⁰^.0^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁽^15.5)^R
^{ental and}^{Enhance safeguards at several DOE}^sites.^0.0^S^EC^8.2^16.6^40.0^14.0^C
^{ental and}^{Vulnerability assessm}^{ents of critical infrastructure and}^7.0^P^RE^0.0⁷^.0^7.0⁷^.0^E

^{training, conferences, and logistical support for}
^{energy assurance activities.}

CRS-76
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Rescinds $30 m}^{illion from}^{these accounts as provided}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(30.0)^0.0^R
^{in P.L. 107-66, with specifics to be subm}^{itted within}
^{30 days to the Appropriations Com}^m^ittees
^ental
^e^nt/Scien
^a^ste
^e^ntal
ⁱ^nistration
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406} 26.4 378.4 335.4 477.9

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

CRS-77
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{For com}^b^{ating AIDS, tuberculosis,}^{and m}^a^laria.^0.0^N^A^N^A^200.0^200.0^200.0^C
^{USAID’s presence in Afghanistan.}⁷^.0^HUM^0.0⁷^.0^5.0⁷^.0^E
^AID
^Hum^a^{nitarian and reconstruction activities including}^40.0^HUM^50.0⁰^.0^0.0^40.0^E
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{repair of hom}^{es in Afghanistan ($134M), and aid to}^W^e^{st Bank and Gaza ($50M)}^AID
^g/w^Hum^a^{nitarian and reconstruction activities including}^0.0^HUM^50.0^190.0^150.0^144.0^C
^s^.or^{repair of hom}^{es in Afghanistan ($134M), and aid to}^AID
^le^ak^W^e^{st Bank and Gaza ($50M)}
^://wiki^{ic Support}^Econom^{ic assistance to “front-line” states for}^em^{ergency activities related to com}^b^{ating terrorism}^,^525.0^S^EC^ASST^600.0^460.0⁰^.0^465.0^E
^h^ttp^{$25M for Middle East Econom}^{ic Initiative, $10M for}
^Muslim^{h.s. student exchange program}^{s for students}
^from^Form^{er Soviet Union, and $1M to support}
^{independent m}^e^{dia in Pakistan.}
^{Includes $200 m}^{illion in aid to Israel that m}^a^{y be}^0.0^S^EC^0.0^250.0^700.0^200.0^C
^{transferred to Non-proliferation, Anti-terrorism}^{, De-}^ASST
^{Mining and related program}^{s for defensive, non-}
^{lethal, anti-terrorism}^assistance.
^{Counter narcotics & law enforcem}^{ent em}^ergency^114.0^S^EC^73.0^120.0⁰^.0^114.0^E

^{activities to com}^b^{at international terrorism}^including^ASST
^{funds to train and equip Colom}^b^{ian arm}^e^{d forces to}
^{apprehend leaders of param}^{ilitary organizations, $6M}
^{to help Colom}^b^{ian arm}^e^{d forces protect the Cano}
^Lim^{on pipeline, and $4M for law enforcem}^ent
^{training for Indonesian police.}

CRS-78
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Counter narcotics & law enforcem}^{ent em}^ergency^0.0^S^EC^73.0⁰^.0^104.0³^.0^C
^{activities to com}^b^{at international terrorism}^including^ASST
^{funds to train and equip Colom}^b^{ian arm}^e^{d forces to}
^{apprehend leaders of param}^{ilitary organizations, $6M}
^{to help Colom}^b^{ian arm}^e^{d forces protect the Cano}
^Lim^{on pipeline, and $4M for law enforcem}^ent
^{training for Indonesian police}
^{For activities to com}^b^{at international terrorism}^.^110.0^S^EC^46.5^110.0^110.0^110.0^E
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{er Soviet}^ASST
^g/w
^s^.or^Em^{ergency activities in & around Afghanistan.}⁰^.0^HUM^100.0^10.0^50.0^40.0^C
^le^ak^AID
^://wiki
^h^ttp^{Military aid in the war on terrorism}^{including $55M}^{for the Philippines ($30M as contingent em}^ergency^372.5^S^EC^ASST^45.0^366.5⁰^.0^357.0^E
^{funds), and up to $2M for adm}ⁱ^{nistrative expenses .}
^0.0^S^EC^45.0⁰^.0^347.5^30.0^C
^ASST
^{For em}^{ergency expenses related to com}^b^ating^83.0^S^EC^97.9^83.0⁰^.0^83.0^E
^{, De-}^terrorism^{, with no m}^o^{re than $12M for assistance to}^ASST
^{ning, and related}^{Indonesia, and up to $1M for sm}^{all arm}^s^destruction
^s^{in Afghanistan and $1M for Nonproliferation and}
^Disarm^am^{ent Fund.}
^0.0^S^EC^97.3⁰^.0^93.0⁵^.0^C
^ASST
^Em^{ergency expenses related to com}^b^{ating terrorism}ⁱⁿ^28.0^S^EC^0.0^20.0^20.0^20.0^E

^{Afghanistan only.}^ASST

CRS-79
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^ents^{Rescission of unobligated balances of funds}^(157.0)^NA^NA^(159.0)^(159.0)^(159.0)^R
^{appropriated in the 92d and 93d Congress’ for}
^m^a^{intenance of value paym}^{ents to international}
^{financial institutions.}
^{Rescission of FY2000 and prior year appropriations of}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^60.0)^0.0⁽^60.0)^R
^{foreign ops and ESF.}
^{Rescission of FY2001 foreign ops and export}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(75.0)^(50.0)^R
^{financing aid.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406} 1,122.5 1,597.5 1545.5 1,549.0

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

CRS-80
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^e^nt^{Repay unreim}^{bursed law enforcem}^{ent costs for}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.7^0.0⁰^.7^C
^{security at Dept of Interior building in W}^a^shington
^{Repay unreim}^{bursed airport s}^{ecurity, security costs at}^0.0^S^EC^0.0¹^.4^0.4¹^.0^C
^{ildlife-Resource}^{Dept of Interior building in W}^a^{shington, & other}
^e^{nt (No}^item^s
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w^ildlife^{Facility and safety im}^provem^e^{nts related to security}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^3.1³^.1^C
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki^{Repay unreim}^{bursed law enforcem}^{ent costs for}^{security at Dept of Interior building in W}^a^shington^0.0^S^EC^6.1¹^.2^0.0¹^.2^C
^h^ttp^{Security screening at the W}^a^{shington Monum}^ent⁰^.0^SEC⁵^.1^19.3^17.7^17.6^C
^{Infrastructure m}^a^{pping in 120 U.S. urban areas}^0.0^S^EC^0.0^25.7^26.8^26.0^C
^{($20M), and $6M for Earth Resource Observatory and}
^System^{Data Center.}
^{Repay unreim}^{bursed law enforcem}^{ent costs for}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.1^0.0⁰^.1^C
^{security at Dept of Interior building in W}^a^shington.
^s
^{Cancel funds for electric power operations at San}^(10.0)^NA^NA^(5.0)⁽^10.0)^(10.0)^R

^{Carlos Irrigation Project}

CRS-81
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Interior Dept Office of Hom}^e^{land Security & to repay}^0.0^S^EC^2.2⁰^.9^7.0⁰^.9^C
^unreim^{bursed law enforcem}^{ent costs for security at}
^{Dept of Interior building in W}^a^shington.
^{Facility enhancem}^{ents to protect property from}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^3.5³^.5^C
^terrorism^{, vandalism}^,^{and theft}
^provem^e^{nt and}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Facility enhancem}^{ents to protect property from}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^50.0^C
^g/w^terrorism^{, vandalism}^,^{and theft}
^s^.or^{ithsonian-S&E}^{Security im}^provem^e^{nts & ongoing operations.}⁰^.0^SEC^21.7^11.0⁰^.0^10.0^C
^le^ak
^ithsonian-^{Planning, design and construction of an alcohol}^0.0^S^EC^0.0²^.0^2.0²^.0^C
^://wiki^{collections storage facility.}
^h^ttp
^(10.0)^57.3^50.5^106.1

CRS-82
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{National Em}^{ergency Grants to states to aid dislocated}^550.0^V^IC^32.5^190.0^200.0⁰^.0^NA
^ploym^ent^workers.^RELIEF
^Dem^{onstration training projects.}^50.0^V^IC^0.0⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^NA
^ploym^ent^RELIEF
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w^ergency)
^s^.or^{State form}^{ula grants for dislocated workers}^0.0^V^IC^0.0⁰^.0^80.0⁰^.0^NA
^le^ak^ploym^ent^RELIEF
^://wiki^{Transfer to Com}^m^e^{rce Departm}^e^{nt for long-term}^40.0^V^IC^0.0⁰^.0^10.0⁰^.0^NA
^h^ttp^ploym^ent^econom^{ic assistance program}^s.^RELIEF
^ergency)
^{Grants under W}^o^{rkforce Investm}^e^{nt Act to restore}^110.0^V^IC^0.0^110.0^110.0⁰^.0^NA
^ploym^ent^{FY2001 rescission.}^RELIEF
^ergency)
^{Cancel funds for the Com}^m^{unity Access Program}^.⁽^20.0)^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^R

CRS-83
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Rescind funds for safety & com}^p^{liance, repairs &}^(30.0)^NA^NA^(30.0)^(30.0)^(30.0)^R
^im^provem^e^{nts, and Building 10 renovation.}
^{Security enhancem}^{ents at NIH facility.}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^72.0⁰^.0^NA
^{For screening and long-term}^{health m}^{onitoring of}^0.0^V^IC^12.0⁰^.0^90.0^90.0^C
^em^{ergency services personnel who responded to W}^T^C^RELIEF
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{attack, including $25M for firefighters.}
^g/w
^s^.orⁱ^{nistration for}^{To carry out Fam}^{ily Violence Prevention and Services}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.5⁰^.0^0.5^C
^le^ak^Act.
^ilies
^://wiki^{Construct new facility and renovate existing CDC}^0.0^B^IO^0.0⁰^.0^278.0⁰^.0^NA
^h^ttp^bioterrorism^{facilities in Atlanta.}
^Im^{prove security, including inform}^{ation security}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^37.0⁰^.0^NA
^{Accelerate work on prion diseases.}^0.0^B^IO^0.0¹^.0^0.0¹^.0^C
^{Pell Grants Program}^1,276.0^N^A^N^A¹^,000.0¹^,000.0¹^,000.0^N
^{Rescinds all Cong. adds in FY02 in}^{Labor, HHS bill.}^[1,276.0]^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
^{Requires pro rata reductions in previous adm}ⁱ^{n. and}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(45.0)^(45.0)^R
^m^g^{t expenses of DOL, HHS, and Dept. of Ed}

1,976.0 1,271.5 1,802.0 1,016.5

CRS-84
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Additional funds for the Perm}^{anent Select Com}^m^ittee^0.0^I^NV/LE^0.0¹^.6^0.0¹^.6^N
^m^ittees,^{on Intelligence}
^{To fund shortfall in copyright Office from}^lower^7.5^V^IC^0.0⁷^.5^7.5⁷^.5^N
^{receipts in FY2002.}^RELIEF
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Replenish shortfall from}^{prior year}^5.9^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^NA
^g/w
^s^.or^{Asbestos abatem}^{ent in buildings}^2.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^NA
^le^ak
^://wiki^Com^{puter equipm}^{ent, training, & com}^m^unications,^{and reim}^bursem^e^{nt to EPA for anthrax cleanup.}^0.0^S^EC^80.8^16.1³^.6^16.1^N
^h^ttp

15.4 25.2 11.1 25.2

CRS-85
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Funds six m}^{onths of additional expenses for personnel}^189.0^S^EC^227.2^189.0⁰^.0^189.0^E
^{($82M), operating costs ($60M), m}^a^ritim^{e security}
^{initiatives ($46M), reserves}^{($8M), port vulnerability}
^assessm^{ents ($12M), and PACAREA ship refueling}
^{capability ($1M).}
^0.0^S^EC^227.2^21.0^318.4^11.0^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Acquire and replace patrol boats ($26M), m}^onitoring^66.0^S^EC^0.0^66.0⁰^.0^66.0^E
^g/w^system^{s ($28M), im}^{prove com}^m^{unications and}
^s^.or^{infrastructure ($12M).}
^le^ak^provem^e^nts
^://wiki^{Additional aircraft ($200M), vessels ($12M),}^0.0^S^{EC 0.0}^12.0^347.7^262.0^C
^h^ttp^com^m^{unication equipm}^{ent ($27.7M), and shore}
^{facility upgrades ($50M).}
^{Funds initial and then Federal screener personnel,}^3,370.0^S^{EC AV}^325.0²^,305.0⁰^.0^3,370.0^E

^{airport m}^a^{nagers, law enforcem}^{ent, National Guard}
ⁱ^{nistration (No}^{provided by DOD, and other support personnel.}

CRS-86
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{For additional equipm}^{ent, screeners, law enforcem}^ent^[1,945]^{SEC AV}^325.0¹^,545.0⁴^,702.5^480.0^C
^{personnel, staff, and consu}^{ltants for aviation security}
ⁱ^nistration^{to be further defined in a later request.}
^ergency)
^{Explosive detection equipm}^ent.^NS^{SEC AV}^325.0^[^3,850.0]^[738.0]^[225.0]^C
^{Grants for security enhancem}^{ents at high volum}^e^NS^{SEC AV}^93.0⁰^.0^[220.0]^[125.0]^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{ports, and training port personnel in incident}
^g/w^m^a^nagem^e^nt.
^s^.or^{More law enforcem}^{ent personnel to enhance airport}^NS^{SEC AV}^0.0⁰^.0^[35.0]^[17.0]^C
^le^ak^term^{inal security.}
^{Air ground com}^m^{unication system}^{s for air m}^a^rshals.^N^S^S^{EC AV}^0.0⁰^.0^[20.0]^[15.0]^C
^://wiki^{Test and deploy new safety m}^{easures for Container}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^[27.9]^[28.0]^C
^h^ttp^{cargo (Safe Com}^m^e^{rce program}^).
^{Develop new technology and initiate pilot projects in}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^[15.0]^[14.0]^C
^{security ($10M), and radiation detection ($4M).}
^{Replace m}^a^gentom^{eters at airport passenger screening}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^[0.0]^[^23.0]^C
^locations.
^{Provides m}^o^{re guards and barriers at air traffic control}^0.0^S^{EC AV}^599.0⁰^.0^100.0^42.0^C
ⁱ^nistration^{facilities, plus $33M transferred from}^{other FY2002}
^m^onies.
^Com^p^{ensate airports for portions of the costs of new}^0.0^S^{EC AV}^599.0^200.0⁰^.0^0.0^N^A
^{security requirem}^e^{nts using trust fund revenues.}
^Com^p^{ensate airports for portions of the costs of new}^0.0^S^{EC AV}^175.0⁰^.0^100.0^150.0^C

^{security requirem}^e^{nts using trust fund revenues.}

CRS-87
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Fix FAA’s long-range radars that track aircraft with}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^15.0⁷^.5^C
^ent^{broken transponders.}
^{Funds repair and restoration of highways and roads in}^167.0^R^EC^75.0^167.0⁰^.0^167.0^E
ⁱ^{n., Federal-}^{NYC dam}^a^{ged by attacks that are eligible for federal}
^funding.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{ergency Relief}
^g/w
^s^.or^{Includes funds from}^{Trust fund for em}^{ergency relief}^{fund nationwide.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^167.0^98.0^C
^le^ak
^Non-em^{ergency trust fund expenditures.}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0^120.0⁰^.0^NA
^://wiki^{Rescinds unspent highway contract authority}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(320.0)^(320.0)^R
^h^ttp
^{Funds personnel, and efforts to detect license frauds}^19.3^I^NV/LE^0.0^19.3^19.3^19.3^E
^{($10M), $4M to im}^plem^{ent the USA PATRIOT Act,}
ⁱ^nistration-^{and $5M for border security.}
^{ent (No}
^Im^plem^{ent perm}^{it program}^{for m}^o^{tor carriers}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁵^.0^0.0⁵^.0^C
^{transporting the m}^o^{st dangerous m}^a^terials.
^{Grants for dam}^a^{ged equipm}^{ent, security, and overhaul}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^55.0^205.0^N

ⁱ^nistration,^{of rail passenger cars.}

CRS-88
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{To fully fund rebuilding of public m}^a^{ss transportation}^1,800.0^R^EC^0.0¹^,800.0¹^,800.0¹^,800.0^E
ⁱ^nistration,^{in Manhattan that are not eligible for FEMA funds.}
^e^nt
^{Upgrades new center to m}^{onitor crises.}³^.5^PRE²^.5^0.0³^.5^0.0^N^A
^s
^{Prohibits further federal loans to air carriers}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^1,254.0)^0.0⁰^.0^R
^{authorized in P.L. 107-42 for the rest of FY2002.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406} 5,614.8 5,075.3 7,428.4 6,551.8

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

CRS-89
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
ce of the President, and General Govt.
^{Additional instructors , facilities, & equipm}^{ent to train}^0.0^I^NV/LE^23.0^15.9⁰^.0^15.8^C
^ent^{new law enforcem}^{ent staff.}
^{Rescission of funds & transfer to m}^o^{re im}^{portant IRS}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^14.0)^(14.0)^(14.0)^R
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^e^nt^needs.
^g/w
^s^.or^{Business System}^{s Modernization}⁰^.0^NA^NA^14.0⁰^.0^14.0^N
^le^ak^ation^{Rescission of prior year funds}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(10.0)^(10.0)^R
^s
^://wiki^s^{Provide staff and technology to screen cargo at high}^0.0^S^EC^0.0⁰^.0^57.0^39.0^C
^h^ttp^volum^{e ports.}
^{Monitor im}^{ports of goods m}^a^{de with forced labor}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0²^.0^0.0^N^A
^{New protective details, and cost of Electronic Crim}^e^0.0^S^EC^104.8^46.8^17.2^28.5^C
^{Task Force ($17M), and retention ($4M).}
^{To provide additional protection to postal em}^ployees^87.0^B^IO^675.0^87.0^87.0^87.0^E

^{and custom}^{ers from}^{biohazardous m}^a^terial.

CRS-90
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Funds outfit of off-site facility for Office of}^5.0^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^5.0/e/^3.8^E
^Hom^e^{land Security.}
ⁱ^nistration,
^{Rescission of OMB’s costs for the Office of}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^0.8)^0.0⁽^0.1)^R
^Hom^e^{land Security}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^{Election adm}ⁱ^{nistration reform}^/d/⁰^.0^NA^NA^450.0^S^ee^Justice^400.0^C
^g/wⁱⁿ^Dept.
^s^.or^{(No year)}
^le^ak
^://wiki^Im^plem^{entation of the Bipartisan Cam}^p^{aign Reform}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.8^0.0⁰^.8^N
^h^ttp^mmi^s^sⁱ^oⁿ^Act.
^{Increases security services at fede}^{ral buildings.}^51.8^S^EC^135.1^51.8^51.8^21.8^E
^{Funds new office to assess potential disruptions in}^2.5^P^RE^0.0⁰^.0^2.5⁰^.0^NA
^inform^{ation technology.}

146.3 651.5 198.5 586.6

CRS-91
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
ⁱ^n,^{Medical care services to priority 1-6 veterans.}^142.0^N^A^N^A^417.0^142.0^142.0^N
^{Medical care services to priority 1-6 veterans.}⁰^.0^NA^NA^0.0^275.0^275.0^C
^p^ensation^{Additional benefit paym}^{ents to eligible, disabled}^[1,100.0]^NA^NA^0.0^[^1,100.0]^[1,100]^NA
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^ndatory/f/^{veterans requested by Adm}ⁱ^{nistration, May 21, 2002}^m^a^ndator^y^m^a^ndator^y^m^a^ndator^y
^g/w
^s^.orⁱ^n,^{Rescission of funds for Medical and Prosthetic}^Research.^(5.0)^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^R
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp
^{Covers rem}^a^{ining response and recovery efforts in}^3,780.0^R^EC^6,356.9²^,^750.0²^,660.0²^,650.7^E
^{NYC that are eligible for federal reim}^bursem^e^nt.
^{To address unm}^{et needs arising from}^{Presidentially-}^0.0^N^A^N^A^23.3⁰^.0^23.0^C
^e^t^{declared disasters in FY2002.}
^ergency^{Provides equipm}^{ent and training grants to states and}^326.7^P^RE^220.0^151.7⁰^.0^225.4^E
^e^nt^{localities for first response team}^s.
^{Provides equipm}^{ent and training grants to states and}^0.0^P^RE^220.0⁰^.0^745.0^221.8^C
^{localities for first response team}^s.
^{Funds operational disaster planning for state and local}^NS^PRE^220.0^N^S^[^175.0]^[100.0]^NS
^governm^e^nts.
^{Fire Grants}^NS^PRE^220.0^N^S^[^300.0]^[150.0]^NS

CRS-92
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{For urban search and rescue team}^s^N^S^P^RE^220.0^N^S^[^92.0]^[54.2]^NS
^{Grants for interoperable com}^m^unicati^{ons equipm}^ent^N^S^P^RE^220.0^N^S^[^115.0]^[50.0]^NS
^{Grants to state and local governm}^e^{nts for em}^ergency^NS^PRE^220.0^N^S^[^63.0]^[56.0]^NS
^{ops centers.}
^{For m}^u^{tual aid agreem}^ents.⁰^.0^PRE^220.0^N^A^[^0.0]^[5.0]^N^S
^{For Citizen Corps}^N^A^P^RE^220.0^N^A^[^0.0]^[25.0]^NS
^{To cover rem}^a^{ining liability claim}^s^from^fire^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^80.0^61.8^C
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^s
^g/w
^s^.or^{Rescission of unobligated balances available in the}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^300.0)^(300.0)^(388.5)^R
^le^ak^{Housing Certificate Fund or other program}^s.
^://wiki
^h^ttp^m^unity^{Provides grants to Lower Manhattan Developm}^ent^750.0^R^EC^2,000.0^750.0^750.0^783.0^E
^{Corporation to rebuild and restore utility}
^ent,^{infrastructure and equipm}^{ent destroyed in lower}
^m^unity^Manhattan.
^ent
^m^unity^{Rescission of Rural Housing and Econom}^ic^(20.0)^NA^NA^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^R

^Developm^ent.

CRS-93
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^e^{Rescinds funds for down paym}^{ent assistance}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁰^.0^(50.0)^(50.0)^R
^e^nt^initiative.
^{Rescinds contract authority in excess of required}^0.0^N^A^N^A⁽^300.0)^0.0⁽^300.0)^R
^{s, Rental}^paym^ents.
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}
^g/w^{Undertake and continue research($4M) and worker}^0.0^P^RE^0.0⁸^.0^0.0⁸^.0^C
^s^.or^{training program}^{s ($4M) related to 9/11.}
^le^ak^ental
^://wiki
^h^ttp^Reim^{burse for costs associated with 9/11($2M) and to}^0.0^P^RE^0.0^11.3⁰^.0^11.3^C
^{enhance State capacity to respond to chem}^ical
^terrorism^{events ($9M).}
^{For additional expenses for anthrax investigation and}^12.5^R^EC^41.3⁰^.0^12.5⁰^{.0 (See}^NA
^{cleanup of U.S. Capitol and congressional offices.}^[S^ee^L^e^{g. Br.)}
^{Leg Br.]}
^{Assist sm}^{all and m}^e^dium^com^m^{unities to assess}^0.0^S^EC^34.0⁰^.0^100.0^50.0^C

^{vulnerability of drinking water.}

CRS-94
^{Agency or}^Admin^{Type of Funds}
^Spending^Emergency^House^Senate^Conf.^E=emergency
^{Appropriation}^Purpose^{(reflects H. Rept.}^{107-593, conference action)}^FY2002^Supp^Category^Terrorism^passed^passed^Bill^C=contingent
^account^Request^/a/^Response^N=non-emerg
^{(availability of}^R=resc.
^funds)
^{Funds additional Cybercorps/Scholarships for Service}^19.3^I^NV/LE^0.0⁰^.0^19.3^19.3^E
^program^{s for undergraduates and graduates studying}
^aⁿ^com^{puter security.}
5,005.5 3,511.3 4,433.8 3,732.8
^{Sec. 1403 m}^a^{kes a pro rata rescission of federal}^0.0^N^A⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^(350.0)^R
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31406}^admⁱ^{nistrative and travel accounts.}
^g/w^0.0⁰^0.0⁰^.0^0.0^[^-154.0]
^s^.or⁰^.0⁰⁰^.0^0.0⁰^.0^[-196]
^le^ak
^://wiki^{ergency spending.}
^h^ttp
^Em^ergency^Response^Fund^{is a transfer account, where DOD can}^m^{ove m}^{onies into other appropriations without being subje}^ct^to^norm^a^{l reprogram}^mⁱ^{ng requirem}^e^{nts, which}
^{require that DOD notify Congress in advance of transfer}^{s between appropriations accounts or other changes.}
ⁱ^{nistration requested}^a^{$1.276 billion increase in Pell}^{grants in FY2002 in its original FY2003 budget, and proposed th}^{at the funds be offset by elim}^{inating all congressional}
^{increases in the Departm}^e^{nt of Education that were passed by}^C^{ongress. These funds were not requested in the em}^ergency^supplem^{ental request subm}^{itted by the Adm}ⁱ^nistration
^{on March 21, 2002. Congressional scoring scores}^{the Adm}ⁱ^{nistration’s proposed offset as zero.}
^m^{ittee is proposing that funding for el}^{ection reform}^{be appropriated to OMB}^to^be^transferred^to^o^ther^agencies^{once authorizing legislation that sets}
^{up program}^{s to im}^{prove the adm}ⁱ^{nistration of elections is enacted.}
^{Letter of President George Bush to Speaker of the House,}^{the Honorable J. Dennis Hastert, transm}^{itting the FY2002 Em}^{ergency Su}^pplem^ental^{request, March 21, 2002. See}
^ndsup.htm^l^{], House A}^{ppropriations C}^o^m^m^{ittee tables, H.R. 4775, House Appropria}^{tions Com}^m^ittee,^{Making Supplemental}
^{Attacks on the United States for the Fiscal Year 2002, and}^f^{or other purposes}^{, H.Rept. 107-480, and calculations}