Appropriations for FY2002: Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2002:
Commerce, Justice, and State,
the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Updated February 13, 2002
Susan B. Epstein, Coordinator
Specialist in Foreign Policy and Trade
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement information provided by the House and Senate
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations Subcommittees. It summarizes the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative
activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
Appropriations for FY2002: Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
This report tracks action by the 107th Congress on FY2002 appropriations for
the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and other related
agencies (often referred to as CJS appropriations). President Bush’s FY2002 budget
request totals $40.81 billion, about one billion dollars (2.6%) above the FY2001
total. The House agreed to $41.46 billion, the committee total, and passed the bill
(H.R. 2500) on July 18th. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a
total of $41.53 billion (S. 1215). The Senate passed its version of H.R. 2500, asth
amended, on September 13, 2001. Conferees met on November 8 and agreed to a
total funding level of $39.3 billion. Conferees also agreed to file the conference
report on the following day. Continuing resolutions have kept the government
running into the new fiscal year: H.J.Res. 65 (P.L. 107-44) expired October 16th,rd
H.J.Res. 68 (P.L. 107-48) expired October 23, H.J.Res. 69 (P.L. 107-53) expired
October 31st, H.J.Res. 70 (P.L. 107-58) expired November 16th, and H.J.Res. 74
expired December 7, 2001. The bill was signed into law (P.L. 107-77) on November
Department of Justice. The FY2002 request was $21.11 billion, less than 1%
above the FY2001 enacted level. Key issues included: addressing terrorism, reducing
gun crimes through enforcement of existing laws; combating drug abuse; funding for
community policing programs under the Office of Justice Programs; restructuring the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, reducing pending immigration and
naturalization caseloads, and increasing border enforcement. Congress passed $21.7
billion for this agency.
Department of Commerce. The FY2002 request was $5.1 billion, 2% below the
FY2001 funding level. Congress debated such issues as funding for: NOAA’s next-
generation weather satellites, local economic development activities, and the
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) grants. The enacted FY2002 budget for
Commerce totals $5.4 billion.
Department of State. The FY2002 request was $7.5 billion, nearly 14% above
the FY2001 enacted level. The Department had three top priorities in its FY2002
budget: hiring about 600 new staff in Foreign and Civil Service, as well as security
professionals; continuing increases in embassy security; and more than doubling its
current funds for information technology improvements worldwide. Congress passed
The Judiciary. The FY2002 request was $4.9 billion, 14.5% above the FY2001
funding level. The Judiciary request included funds for cost-of-living salary increases
for federal judges and justices, as well as $117 million for the first major renovation
of the Supreme Court building since its opening in 1935. Congress approved $4.61
billion, an 8.4% increase over FY2001, including $37.5 million for the Supreme Court
building and $8.6 million for a cost-of-living pay adjustment for judges and justices.
Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRS DivisionTel.
Department of State and Int’lSusan EpsteinFDT7-6678
Department of CommerceBen CanadaG&F7-0632
Judiciary, FCC, and StateSteve RutkusG&F7-7162
Department of JusticeDavid TeasleyDSP7-2382
Department of JusticeGarrine LaneyDSP7-2518
NIST-Technology ProgramsWendy H. SchachtRSI7-7066
Equal Employment OpportunityLinda LevineDSP7-7756
Legal Services CorporationCarmen Solomon-DSP7-7306
EDA, SBA, FTC, & SECBruce MulockG&F7-7775
Maritime IndustryJohn FrittelliRSI7-7033
Trade agenciesIan FergussonFDT7-4997
Bureau of the CensusJennifer D. WilliamsG&F7-8640
Patent & Trademark OfficeWendy H. SchachtRSI7-7066
Commerce Dept, Science andLennard G. KrugerRSI7-7070
ImmigrationWilliam J. KrouseDSP7-2225
Technical CoordinatorMarietta SharpersonRSI7-7726
Division abbreviations: ALD = American Law Division; G&F = Government and Finance
Division; RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division, DSP = Domestic Social Policy
Division; FDT = Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.
Key Policy Staff.................................................4
Most Recent Developments........................................1
Overview ...................................................... 1
Recent Funding Trends.......................................2
Brief Survey of Major Issues...................................4
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Requirements..........6
Department of Justice............................................7
Background ................................................ 7
Department of Commerce........................................19
Background ............................................... 19
Background ............................................... 31
Department of State and International Broadcasting....................41
Background ............................................... 41
Other Related Agencies..........................................46
Background and Current Issues................................46
Maritime Administration (MARAD).........................47
The Small Business Administration (SBA)....................47
Legal Services Corporation...............................49
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)...........50
Commission on Civil Rights...............................51
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)..................51
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC).......................52
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC).......................53
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)..................53
The State Justice Institute (SJI)............................54
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)...................55
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom...........55
Appendix. Appropriations Funding for Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, FY2001
List of Tables
Table 1. Funding Trends for Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State,
and the Judiciary............................................3
Table 2. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the
Table 3. Status of CJS Appropriations, FY2002........................6
Appropriations for FY2002:
Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and
Most Recent Developments
The CJS conferees met on November 8, 2001 and agreed to a total budget
authority (after scorekeeping adjustments) of $39.3 billion. The conference report
was filed on November 9th. In the absence of signed appropriations, the following
continuing resolutions have kept the government running into the new fiscal year:
H.J.Res. 65 (P.L. 107-44) which expired October 16th, H.J.Res. 68 (P.L. 107-48)
which expired October 23rd, H.J.Res. 69 (P.L. 107-53) which expired October 31st,
H.J.Res. 70 (P.L. 107-58) which expired November 16th, and H.J.Res. 74 (P.L. 107-
70) which expired December 7, 2001. The House adopted the conference report on
November 14th and the Senate adopted it the following day. The President signed the
CJS appropriation into law (P.L. 107-77) on November 28th, 2001 with a total budget
authority of $41.6 billion.
This report tracks legislative action by the first session of the 107th Congress on
FY2002 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the
Judiciary, and other related agencies (often referred to as CJS appropriations). P.L.
appropriated $40 billion ($38.1 billion after adjustments) for these agencies for
FY2001. The Administration’s request for FY2002 totaled $40.8 billion. The House
CJS Subcommittee and full House Appropriations Committee approved a total of
$41.46 billion in funding for these agencies in FY2002. The Senate Appropriations
Committee and full Senate approved $41.5 billion, $700 million higher than the
administration’s request and slightly higher than the House version. After the
September 11th terrorist attacks, Congress reconsidered funding allocations in
conference to bolster counter-terrorism activities within each agency’s title in the bill.
Congress enacted its CJS appropriation totaling $41.6 billion for FY2002. Total
funding after adjustments was $39.3 billion–$38.7 billion in discretionary funding and
$627.5 million in mandatory funding.
Recent Funding Trends
On October 27, 2000, Congress approved total FY2001 CJS funding of $40.0
billion which was about $400 million above both President Clinton’s request and the
total enacted for FY2000. H.R. 4690 was included in the Conference Report
approved by Congress in H.R. 4942 (H.Rept. 106-1005: Making Appropriations for
the Government of the District of Columbia and Other Activities Changeable in
Whole or in Part Against Revenues of Said District for the Fiscal Year Ending
September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes). Subsequently, the District of
Columbia appropriations portion of the measure was separated from the bill and
approved by Congress (H.R. 5663) on November 15. The President signed this
measure into law on November 22. On December 21, President Clinton signed the
remaining portion of H.R. 4942 contained in H.R. 5548, the FY2001 CJS
appropriations bill, into law on December 21, 2000 (P.L. 106-553). On December
15, 2000, Congress approved additional funding of about $103 million for CJS
appropriations in the miscellaneous funding section of H.R. 4577 (H.Rept. 106-1033).
This bill was signed into law by the President on December 21, 2000 (P.L. 106-554).
Agency totals affected by this additional funding have been adjusted in this report to
reflect this action.
The table below shows funding trends for the major agencies included in CJS
appropriations over the period FY1997-FY2001. As seen in the table below, funding
increased, in current dollars, for the Department of Justice by $650 million (28.3%);
for the Department of Commerce by $1,360 million (35.8%); for the Judiciary by
$1,003 million (30.7%); and for the Department of State by $2,636 million (66%).1
Every agency except the Department of Commerce has seen a continual increase in
funds between FY1997 and FY2001. The Department of Commerce budget generally
increased over these years, with a greater than $3.5 billion increase in FY2000, largely
due to funding the cost of the 2000 decennial census. The FY2001 level is
comparable to its pre-census level. Of the CJS and related agencies, the Department
of Justice received the greatest nominal increase of $4.65 billion from FY1997 to
FY2001. The Department of State funding trend since FY1997 shows the greatest
percent increase of 66%. Much of the State Department increase was attributable to
increases in embassy security funding and the consolidation of the U.S. Information
Agency (USIA) and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) into the
Department of State.
1 The substantial increase in funding for the State Department from FY1999 to FY2000
reflects the absorption of the functions of USIA and ACDA into the Department, as the result
of reorganization in FY2000.
Table 1. Funding Trends for Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, and the Judiciary
(in millions of current dollars)
Department or AgencyFY1997FY1998FY1999FY2000FY2001
Justice 16,425 17,764 18,207 18,647 21,049
Commerce 3,804 4,251 5,098 8,649 5,153
Judiciary 3,260 3,464 3,652 3,959 4,255
Sources: Funding totals provided by Budget Offices of CJS and Judiciary agencies, and U.S. House
of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations.
President Bush’s FY2002 budget request totaled $37.9 billion for discretionary
spending for Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies. It is $373
million above the FY2001 appropriation which totaled $37.6 billion (after
adjustments).2 Government-wide rescissions of discretionary budget authority (except
for certain defense activities) were passed by the 106th Congress in H.R. 4577 (P.L.
106-554). The FY2002 total CJS budget authority requested was $40.8 billion; the
House total budget authority was $41.5 billion; the Senate budget authority was $41.5
billion; and the enacted total CJS budget authority for FY2002 is set at $41.6 billion.
Table 2. Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, and the
(in millions of dollars)
Department orFY2001FY2002House SenateFY2002
AgencyRequestH.R. 2500H.R. 2500Enacted
Justice 21,049 21,107 21,723 21,545 21,662
Commerce 5,153 5,089 5,109 5,597 5,430
Judiciary 4,255 4,872 4,681 4,492 4,612
State 6,601 7,506 7,388 7,175 7,362
Sources: U.S. House Committee on Appropriations. This table does not include funds for
related agencies in the CJS legislation.
2 For more details on FY2001 appropriations see CRS Report RL30509, Appropriations for
FY2001: Commerce, Justice, and State, Judiciary, and Related Agencies, by Edward Knight,
Brief Survey of Major Issues
In addition to heightened interest in counter-terrorism and security activities
since the September 11th attacks, some other contentious issues and proposals that
surfaced in the House and Senate debate over CJS appropriations for FY2002
!Restructuring the Immigration and Naturalization Service; reducing
pending immigration and naturalization caseloads; and increasing
!Funding for community policing initiatives and crime programs under
the Office of Justice Programs.
!Combating the drug war.
!Reducing gun crimes through enforcement of existing laws and other
Other issues or concerns receiving attention included the following:
Department of Justice:
!Reducing violence against women.
!Providing legal assistance for victims of crime.
!Protecting against worker exploitation.
!Addressing civil rights violations, including racial profiling and voting
!Combating drug abuse.
Department of Commerce:
!Funding needs of the Bureau of the Census for processing,
tabulating, and disseminating detailed Census 2000 results;
evaluating the quality and coverage of the census; completing the
orderly closeout of census activities; and beginning to plan for the
!The extent to which federal funds should be used to support
industrial technology development programs at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), particularly the Advanced
Technology Program (ATP).
!The extent to which foreign countries comply with trade agreements
and U.S. trade laws.
!The extent to which federal funds should support local economic
development activities, specifically in the areas of public works and
economic adjustment assistance.
!Funding needs of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) to procure the next generation of weather
satellites, mainly for the National Polar-orbiting Operational
Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS); and to ensure the
continuity of environmental satellite observations.
!The extent to which funding is needed for Technology Opportunities
Program (TOP) Grants in FY2002. Congressional policymakers
agreed with President Bush’s request to reduce the NTIA’s
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) grants, from $45.5 million
in FY2001 to $15.5 million for the current fiscal year.
Department of State:
!Overseas embassy security.
!Creation of a deputy secretary for management at State.
!More than double the funding for technology upgrades worldwide.
!A major push toward increased hiring of foreign, civil service and
!Whether to substantially increase the hourly rate of pay to court-
appointed “panel attorneys” representing defendants in federal
!Whether, as the Judiciary contended, federal judges and justices
should receive a cost-of-living salary increase (as they had the
previous two fiscal years);
!Whether, or to what extent, to provide funding for the first major
renovation of the Supreme Court building since its opening in 1935.
!Adequacy of funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
!Adequacy of funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity
!Adequacy of funding for programs of the Small Business
Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Requirements
As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 (P.L.103-62; 107 Stat 285) requires that
agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance
measures for all major programs. The GPRA requirements apply to nearly all
executive branch agencies, including independent regulatory commissions, but not the
judicial branch. Brief descriptions of the latest versions of the strategic plans of the
major agencies covered by CJS appropriations are contained in the discussions of the
FY2002 budget requests of individual agencies included in this report.
On April 9, 2001, President Bush submitted the FY2002 budget request for
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary
and related agencies. The House and Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittees held
hearings throughout April, May, and June. The House Subcommittee marked up and
passed its CJS appropriation on June 27, 2001. The House Appropriations
Committee reported out the CJS appropriations on July 10, 2001. The House passed
the bill (H.R. 2500) on July 18th, 2001. The Senate Appropriations Committee passedthth
the CJS appropriations (S. 1215) on July 19. On September 13, 2001, the Senate
substituted S. 1215 for House language in H.R. 2500 and passed its version of H.R.
2500, as amended. After numerous continuing resolutions, the CJS appropriations
was signed into law (P.L. 107-770) on November 28, 2001.
The table below shows the key legislative steps that occurred for the enactment
of FY2002 CJS appropriations legislation.
Table 3. Status of CJS Appropriations, FY2002
HouseHouse PassageSenateSenateConferenceConference Report ApprovalPublic
Report Report Passage Report LawHouse Senate House Senate
–H.Rept.107-1397-18-01S.Rept.107-429-13-01H.Rept. 107-27811-14-0111-15-0111-28-01P.L. 107-77
Department of Justice
Title I of the CJS legislation typically covers the appropriations for the
Department of Justice and related agencies. Established by an Act of 1870 (28 U.S.C.
501) with the Attorney General at its head, the Department of Justice (DOJ) provides
counsel for citizens and protects them through its efforts for effective law
enforcement. It conducts all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States
is concerned and represents the government in legal matters generally, providing legal
advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and the executive branch’s
The Department contains several divisions: Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights,
Criminal, Environmental and Natural Resources, and Tax. Major agencies within the
Department of Justice include:
!Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigates violations of
federal criminal law, protects the United States from hostile
intelligence efforts, provides assistance to other federal, state and
local law enforcement agencies, and has concurrent jurisdiction with
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) over federal drug
!Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is the lead drug law
enforcement agency at the federal level, coordinating its efforts with
state, local, and other federal officials in drug enforcement activities,
developing and maintaining drug intelligence systems, regulating
legitimate controlled substances activities, and undertaking
coordination and intelligence-gathering activities with foreign
!Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is responsible for
administering laws relating to the admission, exclusion, deportation,
and naturalization of aliens, including the oversight of the process
involving the admission of aliens into the country and applications to
become citizens, the prevention of illegal entry into the United
States, and the investigation, apprehension, and removal of aliens
who are in this country in violation of the law.
!Federal Prison System provides for the custody and care of the
federal prison population, the maintenance of prison-related facilities,
and the boarding of sentenced federal prisoners incarcerated in state
and local institutions.
!Office of Justice Programs (OJP) carries out policy coordination and
general management responsibilities for the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS), and the Office of Victims of
Crime, including administering programs, awarding grants, and
!United States Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the
United States, represent the government in civil actions in which the
United States is concerned, and initiate proceedings for the collection
of fines, penalties, and forfeitures owed to the United States.
!United States Marshals Service is primarily responsible for the
protection of the federal judiciary, protection of witnesses, execution
of warrants and court orders, management of seized assets, and
custody and transportation of unsentenced prisoners.
!Interagency Law Enforcement consists of 13 regional task forces
composed of federal agents working in cooperation with state and
local investigators and prosecutors to target and destroy major
narcotic trafficking and money laundering organizations.
The total appropriation for the Department of Justice in FY2000 was $18.6
billion and $21.1 billion in FY2001. (For more details on the funding of individual
programs, see the Appendix.)
Traditionally, state and local governments have primary responsibility for crime
control. Especially within the last decade, a greater federal role has developed.
Congress has enacted five major omnibus crime control bills since 1984, establishing
new penalties for crimes and providing increased federal assistance for law
enforcement efforts by state and local governments. Federal justice-related
expenditure is one of the few areas of discretionary spending that has increased its
share of total federal spending over the last two decades.
FY2002 Budget Request. For DOJ for FY2002, President Bush’s budget
request was $21.11 billion compared to FY2001 enacted funding of $21.03 billion.
FY2002 funding was to address major concerns such as gun violence, violence against
women, drug crimes, worker exploitation, civil rights violations, the Voting Rights
Act, redistricting provisions, racial profiling, cybercrime, terrorism, and
restructuring the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Administration’s
budget included a shift in spending from state and local law enforcement to what it
described as DOJ’s core federal law enforcement mission particularly in the areas of
detention and incarceration, anti-terrorism, cybercrime and counter-intelligence.
In keeping with this funding approach, the FY2002 budget request for the Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) was $3.67 billion, about a billion dollars less than the
funding level of $4.7 billion for FY2001. DOJ sought funding of $855 million for
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) compared to FY2001 funding of
$1.03 billion. The Administration stated that the budget proposal would not affect
any pending COPS grants. Reportedly, nearly 74,000 officers were hired under
COPS; President Clinton had pledged that 100,000 new officers would be hired. This
request retargeted resources for hiring 1,500 additional officers for security in public
schools, for law enforcement technology and for reducing DNA backlogs.
Specifically, for public safety and community policing grants the President requested
$272 million in direct appropriations compared to FY2001 funding of $535 million.
For crime identification technology, the President requested $255 million compared
to FY2001 funding of $130 million.
President Bush’s budget proposed a decrease in funding for some programs: the
FY2002 budget request for the state criminal alien assistance program was $265
million compared to enacted funding of $400 million in FY2001; local law
enforcement block grants request was $400 million for FY2002 compared to $523
million in FY2001; and for state prison grants the FY2002 request was $35 million
while funding in FY2001 was $687 million. The President’s request for Byrne
formula grants (block grants for which individual states apply) for FY2002 was $500
million; in FY2001, total Byrne grant funding was $569 million ($500 million for
formula grants and $69 million for discretionary grants). There was no request for
funding for discretionary grants in FY2002, because the President believed that the
original purpose of discretionary grants, which was to fund anti-drug activities, has
not been possible in recent years due to the level of earmarking within the program.
Drug Courts’ budget request for FY2002 was $50 million, the same funding level as
Areas receiving increased focus by the Bush Administration was violence against
women and victims of crime. President Bush proposed a slight increase in FY2002
funding for Violence Against Women Act grants (VAWA), $310 million compared
to FY2001 funding of $289 million. The FY2002 request for new programs was:
$10 million for Violent Crimes Against Women on Campus, $15 million for Safe
Havens for Children pilot program, $5 million for Protection for older and disabled
women, $7.5 million for education and training to end violence against and abuse of
women with disabilities, and $40 million for the legal assistance for victims program.
Weed and Seed is an established program in which communities in partnership
with federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies “weed” criminals out of their
neighborhoods with speedy prosecutions, and then reclaim houses, schools, and
recreational centers that make the communities safe places to live. Viewing the Weed
and Seed program as a success, the Administration’s budget request for FY2002 for
Weed and Seed was $60 million, a $26 million dollar increase over FY2001 funding
of $34 million.
A major programmatic emphasis of the Bush Administration was reduction of
gun crime. For FY2002, President Bush requested $3.46 billion for Legal Activities,
compared to FY2001 funding of $3.15 billion. The request included $9 million for
Project Sentry, a new federal-state law enforcement partnership to identify and
prosecute both juveniles who violate firearms laws and adults who supply them with
guns. This funding request was for 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices to hire a prosecutor
whose major attention would have been devoted to gun crimes involving juveniles.
Funding requests for gun programs within OJP were: $49.78 million for Project Exile
and Project Ceasefire, programs that seek to increase arrests and prosecutions of gun
criminals and increase public awareness to deter gun crime; and $75 million for Child
Safe, a new program to provide child safety locks for every handgun in the nation.
Under this program, state and local governments on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis
were to receive $65 million each year. Organizations that seek through private
contributions to provide locks for every handgun in the United States were also
eligible for federal matching funds. The remaining $10 million were for administrative
and advertising costs. The Counterterrorism Fund received $4.99 million for
reimbursing a DOJ organization for the cost of reestablishing the operational
capability of an office or facility that has been damaged or destroyed as a result of a
terrorist act and to support efforts to counter, investigate or prosecute domestic or
international terrorism, including paying rewards.
In the area of civil rights, the President proposed several initiatives. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 would have expanded protection and
services for trafficking victims and would have created new crimes for which the Civil
Rights Division would have been responsible. DOJ requested $2 million in FY2002
for the Civil Rights Division to hire additional prosecutors and to conduct a
community outreach program in enforcing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
research police initiated stops of motorists for routine traffic violations; address
deaths of persons while in law enforcement custody as required by the Deaths in
Custody Act, and measure victimization of persons with disabilities in the United
For FY2002, Congress provided funding to combat terrorism in both the
Department of Justice and the Department of Defense (DOD). Funding to combat
terrorism was provided in a number of DOJ accounts in FY2002. See discussion
below on FY2002 appropriations for DOJ.3 In the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117), Congress provided $5 million for
transfer from DOD to DOJ’s General Administration account for responses to
terrorist attacks on the United States under “Patriot Act Activities” (P.L. 107-38).
Also to be transferred to DOJ’s Administrative Review and Appeals account was $3.5
million for response to terrorist attacks on the United States. Following are funds to
be transferred from DOD to DOJ accounts for response to terrorist attacks: $12.5
million for the Salaries and Expenses, General Legal Activities; $56.4 million for the
Salaries and Expenses, the United States Attorneys; $745 million for Salaries and
Expenses, the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and $10.2 million for Salaries and
Expenses, United States Marshals Service and $9.1 million for Construction, U. S.
Congress, in FY2002, transferred $400 million from DOD to the Office of
Justice Programs’ Justice Assistance account for grants, cooperative agreements, and
other assistance authorized by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 and the USA Patriot Act (P.L. 107-56). Of this funding, $9.8 million was for
aircraft for counterterrorism and activities for the City of New York identified in the
3 Also see the following: CRS Report RL31173, Terrorism Funding: Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations–Distribution of Funds to Departments and Agencies by James
Riehl and CRS Report RL31187, Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency
Supplemental Allocations by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 107-38). Another
OJP account, State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance, received $251.1 million
for discretionary grants, including equipment, under the Edward Byrne Memorial
State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program. The Crime Victims Fund had
$68.1 million transferred to it for responses to terrorist attacks on the United States.
Congress provided $21.7 billion for the Department of Justice for FY2002, an
increase of $612 million above FY2001 funding. The Office of Justice Programs
received $4.3 billion for FY2002. Under OJP’s state and local law enforcement
assistance account $2.4 billion was distributed as follows: $565 million for the state
criminal alien assistance program, $594 million for the Byrne grant programs ($500
million for formula grants and $94 million for discretionary grants), $400 million for
the local law enforcement block grant program, $70 million for state prison drug
treatment, and $50 million for drug courts. Of $249.5 million for the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grants program, $38 million was for the Project Child
Safe Initiative. Also, the Violence Against Women grant program received $391
In FY2002, Congress provided funding for the following OJP accounts: $59
million for Weed and Seed; $306 million for Juvenile Justice Programs; and $28
million for Public Safety Officers Benefits. Under the Justice Assistance account,
Congress provided $251 million for the counterterrroism program which includes
funding for equipment grants ($122.7 million); and training and technical assistance
DOJ requested $20.7 million for Crime Identification Technology (CITA); $35
million to reduce the backlog of state convicted offender DNA and crime scene DNA
samples in the nation (CITA); $35 million to improve the forensic science capabilities
of laboratories; and $35 million to upgrade the Criminal Records Upgrade Program
to make criminal history, criminal justice, and identification record systems in the
nation more compatible; and $100 million for technology grants under the COPS
Congress appropriated $1.05 billion for the OJP’s COPS account for FY2002,
of which $496 million was for Public Safety and Community Policing Grants, $352
million for crime technology, $100 million for prosecution assistance ($50 million for
a national program to reduce gun violence and $50 million for the Southwest Border
Prosecutor Initiative), and $70 million for grants, technical assistance and other
expenses, including $15 million for Project Sentry and $23 million for the Safe
Schools Initiative. Under the COPS account for FY2002 the $352 million
appropriated for crime technology was for the following distribution: $154.3 for a law
enforcement technology program; $35 million for grants to upgrade criminal records;
$40 million for DNA analysis and backlog reduction; $87.33 million for grants,
contracts and other assistance to states under provisions of CITA; $99.8 million for
prosecution assistance and $70.2 million for grants, training, technical assistance, and
other expenses to support community crime prevention efforts.
For FY2002, Congress provided $3.47 billion for Legal Activities compared to
FY2001 funding of $3.14 billion. Of this funding, $649 million was for the U.S.
Marshals Service, of which $619 million was for salaries and expenses of the U.S.
Marshals Service and $15 million the construction account. This was $8 million more
than the President’s request and a $46 million increase over FY2001 enacted funding.
Congress provided $1.35 billion for U.S. Attorneys, $86 million below the President’s
request. Congress provided $706.2 million for the Federal Prisoner Detention
account, which allows U.S. Marshals to contract with state and local jails, and private
facilities to house unsentenced federal prisoners before and during trial and after
conviction until transference to federal institutions.
To improve coordination between federal, state, tribal, and local law
enforcement agencies in combating crime, law enforcement agencies must have
accurate and timely information. In its focus on systems integration, upgrades,
network reliability, efficient processes, and the latest technologies, DOJ request for
FY2002 for Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was $3.51 billion, a $255 million
increase over FY2001 funding of $3.25 billion. In addition, DOJ requested $31.6
million both to improve FBI’s assessment and to defeat foreign intelligence threats
to national security and to continue the Criminal Division’s assistance in
counterintelligence, especially involving espionage and violations of laws on export
of high technology. The budget request included $67.7 million for the second year
of FBI’s 3-year information technology upgrade plan called Trilogy, and $6.5 million
for communication circuits for quicker transmission of data and improved network
reliability. To continue integration of the INS’s Automated Biometrics Identification
System (IDENT) and FBI’s Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), the
President requested $28 million — $1 million in direct appropriations and $27 million
from the Working Capital Fund.
In FY2002, Congress provided total funding of $3.5 billion for the FBI, an
increase of $280 million over FY2001 funding. Congress appropriated $142.4 million
for Trilogy in FY2002; $24 million for the counterterrorism initiative of which $12
million was for the FBI’s participation in the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics;
and $31.3 million for the counterintelligence initiative to allow the agency to be more
effective in addressing foreign intelligence threats. Funding of $318.1 million was
also provided for forensic, training, and investigative assistance and $247.1 million for
investigative and information technology. Under the FBI Construction account
Congress provided $33.8 million for an annex at the Engineering Research Facility to
support consolidation of various high technology programs at the FBI Academy in
President Bush proposed more funding for the war on drugs for FY2002. For
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), he requested $1.48 billion compared
to $1.36 billion that was enacted in FY2001. Methamphetamine (meth) laboratories
have been seized in all but 3 states. Drug dealers and organizations have targeted
rural communities where the knowledge and resources of law enforcement agencies
to combat the problem are lacking. The manufacturing process for meth produces
material that is hazardous to the environment and to persons trying to remove it.
President Bush proposed a continuation of the funding level, $48 million for FY2002,
to OJP to help state and local officials with meth enforcement and cleanup efforts.
Congress for FY2002 provided $1.5 billion for the DEA, nearly $122 million
above FY2001 funding. Funding included $33 million to combat methamphetamine
and the abuse of other drugs such as heroin, Oxycontin, and Ecstasy.
President Bush’s budget request for the Federal Prison System was $4.67
billion; FY2001 funding was $4.32 billion. Although nearly $5 billion has been spent
on prison construction in the past decade, the federal prison system is presently
operating at 35% over its rated capacity. In light of this, the Administration requested
$809.27 million for the Bureau of Prisons to address the current problem and
accommodate future growth: $669.97 million for construction of 3 federal
corrections institutions and 4 penitentiaries; partial site and planning funds for 4
facilities (2 female and 2 male); $139.3 million to activate the Federal Corrections
Institute in Petersburg, Virginia and the U.S. Penitentiary and work camp in Lee
County, Virginia; and contract confinement costs associated with the anticipated
increase in the prison population.
Congress appropriated $4.63 billion for FY2002 for the Federal Prison System,
of which $814 million was for building construction, modernization, and maintenance
and repair of housing for prisoners under the Buildings and Facilities account.
Specifically, $72.8 million in funding was for new prisons and $47 million was for an
additional 1,500 contract beds for the growing criminal alien prison population as well
as for 1,499 general contract inmate beds, of which 85 are for juveniles.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is the principal federal
agency charged with administering the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). From
FY1993 to FY2001, Congress had more than tripled the INS budget, from $1.5 to
nearly $5.0 billion. During the same years, the number of funded permanent positions
supported by the agency’s budget has grown from 18,133 to 33,537, an increase of
85%. Regarding counter-terrorism, the INS plays an integral role in the Nation’s
efforts to ensure an adequate level of border security by excluding “undesirable”
persons from the United States, including suspected international terrorists and their
For FY2002, the Administration requested $5.5 billion and 34,901 full time-
funded positions for INS. This amount included $3.5 billion in direct funding and an
anticipated $2 billion in offsetting receipts. It included budget enhancements of nearly
$380 million and 1,364 permanent positions over the agency’s base budget.5 The
requested budget enhancements included 1) $172 million for border management, 2)
$89 million for detention and removal, 3) $45 million for backlog reduction, and 4)
nearly $75 million for construction. The Administration’s request also included
legislative proposals to increase the airport inspection fee to $7 (an increase of $1),
and to levy a cruise ship fee of $3 for journeys that originate in Mexico, Canada, or
the United States, which were exempt from such fees.
For FY2002, Congress has provided funding for INS in two measures. Total
funding for the agency is likely to exceed $6 billion. The CJS Appropriations Act for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-77) includes $5.6 million in funding for INS. This amount includes
4 For more information, see CRS Report RL31019, Terrorism: Automated Lookout Systems
and Border Security Options and Issues, by William J. Krouse.
5 The agency’s base budget was the Administration’s estimate of the level of funding that
would be necessary to achieve the same level of activities and services in FY2002 that the
agency anticipated that it would achieve in the FY2001.
$3.5 million in direct funding and $2.1 million in anticipated offsetting receipts. This
amount is $132 million more than the Administration’s request. Conference report
language includes earmarked budget enhancements of 1) $80 million in base
adjustments that were not requested by the Administration, 2) $178 million for border
management, 3) $81 million for detention and removal, 4) $51 million for pending
caseload reduction, and 5) $128 million for new construction projects.
In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) Appropriations Act for FY2002
(P.L. 107-117) includes another $549 million in emergency counter-terrorism
supplemental appropriations funding for INS. Among other things, this amount
includes $56 million for additional inspectors and support staff for the northern
border, $34 million to redeploy and hire additional Border Patrol agents, and $37
million to continue the development of a system to monitor nonimmigrant students
and exchange visitors.
The FY2002 CJS Appropriations Act also includes several substantive
immigration provisions that: 1) raise existing and establish new inspection fees as
requested by the Administration, 2) provide posthumous citizenship to victims of the
September 11th attacks, 3) authorize 90 additional accelerated inspection programs
at land border ports, 4) authorize the INS Commissioner to waive the $30 thousand
overtime cap for inspectors during immigration emergencies, and 5) require all air and
sea carriers to provide electronic manifests. The conference agreement does not
include a provision to extend or make permanent §245(i) of the INA.6
By comparison, the House-passed CJS appropriations bill would have provided
$5.6 billion in funding for INS. This amount includes $3.5 billion in direct funding
and $2.1 billion in anticipated offsetting receipts, and it was $130 million more than
the Administration’s request. House report language included earmarked budget
enhancements totaling 1) $136 million for border management, 2) $89 million for
detention and removal, 3) $65 million for backlog reduction, and 4) $75 million for
new construction projects. The Senate-passed CJS appropriations bill would have
provided $5.5 billion. This amount included $3.4 billion in direct funding and $2.1
billion in offsetting fee receipts, and was $4 million less than the Administration’s
request. Senate report language included earmarked budget enhancements totaling
1) $168 million for border management, 2) $10 million for legal services for INS
detainees, 3) $67 million to reduce pending caseloads, and 4) $139 million for new
construction projects. Both the House and Senate measures included provisions to
raise the airport inspection fee and establish a cruise ship inspection fee. In addition,
the Senate measure included provisions to authorize 90 additional accelerated
inspection lanes at land border ports of entry and to make permanent §245(i).
6 This provision allows certain unauthorized aliens who are otherwise eligible for an
immigrant visa to adjust status here in the United States provided they pay a $1,000 penalty
fee. Prior to FY1994, such aliens were required to leave the United States to undergo
background checks and obtain a visa abroad. Current law limits eligibility under this
provision to aliens whose sponsors had filed an immigrant petition or labor certification on
or prior to April 30, 2001.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires the
Department of Justice, along with other federal agencies, to prepare a 5-year strategic
plan which contains a mission statement, a statement of long-range goals in each of
the Department’s core functions and a description of information to be used to assess
program performance. The DOJ submitted its Strategic Plan for 2000-2005 to
Congress in September 2000.
The DOJ FY2000 Performance Report and FY2002 Performance Plan combines
the agency’s report on past accomplishments with its plans for the upcoming year to
provide a complete and integrated picture of the Department’s performance. The
report describes what the Department of Justice plans to accomplish in FY2002,
consistent with the long-term strategic goals, and complements the Department’s
budget request. It provides a summary statement of themes and priorities of DOJ for
seven core functional areas (investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses,
assistance to tribal, state, and local governments, legal representation, enforcement
of federal laws, and defense of U.S. interests; immigration; detention and
incarceration; protection of the federal judiciary and improvement of the justice
system; and management). While it summarizes and synthesizes detailed performance
plans of specific Justice component organizations such as the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the United States Attorneys, the
United States Marshals Service, and others, it does not reflect every program or
activity of the Department. That comprehensive and detailed information would be
in the budget submissions of the individual component organizations.
H.R. 45 (Biggert)
Federal Telephone Abuse reduction Act of 2001. Would have amended title 18,
United States Code concerning prison commissaries, among other purposes.
Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 196 (Sweeney)
Anti-Drug Legalization Act. Would have prohibited any federal department or
agency from conducting or financing any study or research on the legalization of any
controlled substance. Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to the House Committee
on Government Reform.
H.R. 213 (Sweeney)
Drug Importer Death Penalty Act of 2001. Would have amended the Controlled
Substances Import and Export Act to direct the court to sentence a person to life
imprisonment without possibility of release or under certain conditions to death if the
person is convicted of bringing into the United States a proscribed quantity of a
mixture or substance containing a controlled substance in a specified amount.
Introduced January 3, 2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 417 (Andrews)
Open Air Drug Market Penalty Act of 2001. Would have amended the
Controlled Substances Act to impose an additional 5 year’s imprisonment for
knowingly committing a federal offense which includes the distribution of a controlled
substance for which the maximum prison term equals or exceeds 5 years, within 500
feet of the place where such an offense occurred within the preceding 48 hours.
Introduced February 6, 2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 503 (Graham, L.)
Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001. Would have made it a federal crime
to harm or kill an “unborn child” in utero during the commission of a violent crime,
and would have exempted those who perform an abortion with the consent of the
pregnant woman and women whose own actions harmed their fetuses. Would have
permitted federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, but they could also have filed
separate charges for the woman and the fetus. Introduced Feb. 7, 2001; referred to
Committees on the Judiciary and on Armed Services. Ordered to be reported by
Judiciary Committee, March 28 (H.Rept. 207-42, Part 1 filed on April 20).
Discharged by Armed Services Committee, April 24. Passed the House, April 26.
Referred to Senate, April 24. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar Under General
Orders on June 8, 2001. Calendar No. 72.
H.R. 696 (Rangel)
Second Chance for Ex-offenders Act of 2001. Would have permitted the
expungement of records of certain nonviolent criminal offenders. Introduced
February 14, 2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 863 (Smith, L.)
Consequences for Juvenile Offenders Act of 2001. Would have authorized the
Juvenile Accountability Block Grants program, would have provided an authorization
of $1.5 billion, $500 million each fiscal year, FY2002-FY2004. Introduced March 6,
2001; referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. Reported, amended, by the
House Judiciary Committee, April 20 (H.Rept. 107-46). Passed House by voice vote,
October 16. Received in Senate and referred to Committee on the Judiciary, October
H.R. 1885 (Gekas)
Section 245(i) Extension Act of 2001. Would have extended the date of
enactment the filing deadline for an immigration provision (Section 245(i) of the
Immigration and nationality Act) that allows aliens who are unauthorized to be in the
United States to adjust status, provide they meet all other qualifications. Passed
House on May 21, 2001. Passed the Senate amended on September 6, 2001.
S. 16 (Daschle)st
Omnibus crime bill including provisions that: would have expanded the community
policing grant program by hiring more police and prosecutors; would have provided
a $6.9 billion authorization, $1.15 billion for each fiscal year, FY2002 through
FY2007; would have strengthened the Violence Against Women Act, would have
increased funding for shelters, and would have increased fairness and respect with
which crime victims are treated. Introduced January 22, 2001; referred to the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 146 (Lugar)
Would have amended part S of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 to allow certain funds to assist jail-based substance treatment
programs, among other purposes. Introduced January 23, 2001; referred to the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 184 (Dorgan)
100 Percent Truth-in-Sentencing Act. Would have amended title 18, United
States Code, to eliminate good time credits for prisoners serving a sentence for a
crime of violence, among other purposes. Introduced January 25, 2001; referred to
the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 185 (Dorgan)
Stop Allowing Felons Early Release (SAFER) Act. Would have provided
incentives to encourage stronger truth-in-sentencing of violent offenders, among other
purposes. Introduced January 25, 2001; referred to the Senate Committee on
S. 194 (Biden)
Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001. Would have required the
Attorney General to establish the Federal Reentry Center Demonstration project to
assist federal prisoners in preparing for and adjusting to reentry into the community
after their release; would have amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to direct the Attorney General to make grants to states, territories, and
Indian tribes to establish adult reentry demonstration projects; state and local courts
to establish reentry courts, and states to establish juvenile offender reentry programs;
and to conduct state reentry program research, development, and evaluation.
Introduced January 29, 2001; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 317 (Schumer)
Prosecution Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison Act of 2001. Would have
established grants for state or local prosecutors to develop, implement, or expand
drug treatment alternatives to prison programs that meet specified requirements.
Introduced February 13, 2001; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 715 (Baucus)
Would have designated 7 counties in Montana as High Intensity Drug
Trafficking areas and would authorize funding for drug control activities in those
areas. Introduced March 5, 2001; referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
CRS Report 97-196. Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: An
Overview, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report 97-265. Crime Control Assistance through the Byrne Programs, by
Garrine P. Laney.
CRS Report RS20539. Federal Crime Control Assistance to State and Local
Governments: Department of Justice, by Edith Fairman Cooper and David
CRS Issue Brief IB10071. Gun Control Legislation in the 107th Congress, by
William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RS20908. Immigration and Naturalization Service’s FY2002 Budget,
by William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RS20279. Immigration and Naturalization Service Reorganization and
Related Legislative Proposals, William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RL30852. Immigration of Agricultural Guest Workers: Policy, Trends,
and Legislative Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
CRS Report RS20627. Immigration: Integrated Entry and Exit Data System, by
William J. Krouse.
CRS Report RL30780. Immigration Legalization and Status Adjustment Legislation,
by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
CRS Report 96-871. Inmate Privileges in State and Federal Prisons, by JoAnne
CRS Report RL30741. Juvenile Justice Legislation: Overview and the Legislative
Debate, by Edith Fairman Cooper and David Teasley.
CRS Report RS20576. Juvenile Justice: Legislative Activity and Funding Trends for
Selected Programs, by Edith Fairman Cooper and David Teasley.
CRS Report 97-460. Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report 97-248. Prison Grant Programs, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report RL30257. Proposals to Restructure the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, by William Krouse.
CRS Report RL30890. Sex Offender Registration: Issues and Legislation, by Alison
Siskin and David L. Teasley.
CRS Report RL31173. Terrorism Funding: Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations–Distribution of Funds to Departments and Agencies, by James
CRS Report RL31187. Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on Emergency
Supplemental Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels.
CRS Report RL30871. Violence Against Women Act: History, Federal Funding,
and Reauthorizing Legislation, by Alison Siskin.
CRS Report 97-621. Women in Prison, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
Department of Commerce
Title II typically includes the appropriations for the Department of Commerce
and related agencies. The Department was established on March 4, 1913 (37 Stat.
7365; 15 U.S.C. 1501). The origins of the Department of Commerce date back to
825). In 1913, Congress designated a separate Department of Commerce. The
Department’s responsibilities are numerous and quite varied, but its activities center
around five basic missions: 1) promoting the development of American business and
increasing foreign trade; 2) improving the nation’s technological competitiveness; 3)
encouraging economic development; 4) fostering environmental stewardship and
assessment; and 5) compiling, analyzing and disseminating statistical information on
the U.S. economy and population.
The following agencies within the Commerce Department carry out these
!Economic Development Administration (EDA) provides grants for
economic development projects in economically distressed
communities and regions.
!Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) seeks to promote
private and public sector investment in minority businesses.
!Bureau of the Census collects, compiles, and publishes a broad range
of economic, demographic, and social data.
!Economic and Statistical Analysis Programs provide 1) timely
information on the state of the economy through preparation,
development, and interpretation of economic data; and 2) analytical
support to department officials in meeting their policy
responsibilities. Much of the analysis is conducted by the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA).
!International Trade Administration (ITA) seeks to develop the
export potential of U.S. firms and to improve the trade performance
of U.S. industry.
!Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) enforces U.S. export
control laws consistent with national security, foreign policy, and
!National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides
scientific, technical, and management expertise to 1) promote safe
and efficient marine and air navigation; 2) assess the health of coastal
and marine resources; 3) monitor and predict the coastal, ocean, and
global environments (including weather forecasting); and 4) protect
and manage the nation’s coastal resources.
!Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines and approves
applications for patents for claimed inventions and registration of
!Technology Administration, through the Office of Technology
Policy, advocates integrated policies that seek to maximize the
impact of technology on economic growth, conducts technology
development and deployment programs, and disseminates
!National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) assists
industry in developing technology to improve product quality,
modernize manufacturing processes, ensure product reliability, and
facilitate rapid commercialization of products based on new scientific
!National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) advises the President on domestic and international
communications policy, manages the federal government’s use of the
radio frequency spectrum, and performs research in
The total appropriation for the Department of Commerce in FY2001 was $5.2
billion, which was about $220 million below the President’s request. The enacted
amount was also about $950 million above the House-passed bill and about $400
million above the Senate-passed bill. (For more information on funding of individual
agencies, see the appendix.)
In his FY2002 budget request to Congress, the President requested $5.17 billion
in total funding for Title II, which included the Department of Commerce and related
agencies. This amount was approximately $60 million (1.5%) less than the $5.23
billion Congress appropriated in FY2001. The House approved approximately $5.19
billion for Title II, which is about $19 million more than the President’s request. The
Senate agreed to $5.68 billion for Title II, over $500 million above the President’s
request and approximately $490 million above the House version. The Conference
agreed upon a total of $5.11 billion, which is higher than the Administration’s request
and the House figure, but lower than the Senate figure.
For the Department of Commerce alone, the President requested $5.09 billion,
which was about $63 million (1.2%) below the FY2001 appropriation of $5.15 billion.
Most of the agencies within the Department would have received a modest increase
in funding. The overall request for the Department of Commerce was below the
FY2001 appropriation, however, because three agencies – the Economic
Development Agency (EDA), National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
– would have received less funding. For the Commerce Department alone, the House
approved approximately $5.11 billion, which is about $19 million above the
President’s request. The Senate agreed to $5.6 billion, which is approximately $500
million above the President’s request and the House version. The Conference agreed
upon $5.43 billion for the Department of Commerce, which is higher than the request
and the House figure, but lower than the Senate figure.
The President’s budget request called for $58.8 million for Departmental
Management. This figure was almost $3 million (5.2%) more than the $55.8 million
appropriated for FY2001. The majority of Departmental Management funds go
toward salaries and expenses. This component included a request of $21.2 million for
the Inspector General’s office, which is about $1.2 million above the $20 million
appropriated for FY2001. The House approved $57 million for management funds for
FY2002. The House’s amount was decreased by $2 million in an amendment
(H.Amdt. 176, Rep. Velazquez) aimed at providing more funding to the Small
Business Administration. The Senate agreed to $63.2 million for this account, which
is $6.2 million above the amount approved by the House. Both the full House and the
Senate Appropriations Committees approved the Administration’s request for $21.2
for the Inspector General’s office. The Conference agreed upon $57.8 million for
Departmental Management. In its accompanying report, the Senate Appropriations
Committee had expressed concern over the Commerce Department’s use of the
“Working Capital Fund” for new department initiatives and the lack of congressional
oversight of this practice. The Committee requested the Department to seek
congressional approval before reprogramming funds.
The Department’s Economic and Statistical Analysis programs are conducted
by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Bureau of the Census. The
President requested $62.5 million for these programs, which was about $8.8 million
(16.4%) above the $53.6 million appropriated in FY2001. The Administration
believed that with the growth in electronic commerce and expanding use of stock
options, Commerce’s timely and accurate statistical reports are essential for providing
reliable data to policymakers. Both the House and the Senate agreed with the
President’s request. The Conference also agreed with the amount of $62.5 million.
For the Bureau of the Census, the President requested a total of $543.4 million
for FY2002, an amount $109.8 million higher than the $433.6 million appropriated
for FY2001. The total FY2002 request included $141 million for continuing
decennial census (2000) activities; $65 million for Census 2010 planning; and $27
million for continuous measurement operations, including further development of the
American Community Survey, which is intended to replace the census long form in
The House Committee reported, and the full House approved, $519.8 million in
new FY2002 appropriations for the Bureau of the Census. In considering H.R. 2500,
the House agreed to an amendment offered by Representative Carolyn Maloney to
designate $2.5 million of the $519.8 million for a plan to count private American
citizens living overseas in the 2010 census. The $519.8 million was $23.6 million
below the President’s budget request, but an approximately $25 million carryover of
balances from previous years was to give the Bureau total FY2002 funding of $544.8
million. All of the $25 million was designated for activities related to the 2000
The Senate Committee recommended $517.1 million in new FY2002
appropriations for the Census Bureau, an amount $2.7 million lower than the House
approved and $26.3 million lower than the President requested. The Committee also
estimated, however, a $27 million carryover of funds from prior years, for a total of
$544.1 million available to the Bureau in FY2002. The full Senate approved the
Committee’s recommendation of $517.1 for the Bureau.
House and Senate conferees agreed to a total spending level of $544.8 million
for the Bureau in FY2002. Of this amount, $54 million was from prior year
unobligated balances. The conferees designated $139.2 million of the total amount
for expenses related to the 2000 census and $65 million for 2010 census planning, but
without explicit reference to the Maloney amendment to H.R. 2500.
The President’s FY2002 request for the International Trade Administration
was $329.6 million. (The FY2001 enacted level was $336.7 million–$333.7 million
in appropriations plus $3 million in fee collections.) The House approved $344.7
million in appropriations, a $15.1 million increase over the FY2002 request. The
Senate passed $344.1 million in appropriations, $14.5 million more than the
President’s request. Both the House and the Senate Committees’ bills restored
funding in the Trade Development Unit to export promotion programs for textiles and
apparel, an export database, and an international competitiveness program. The
conference report approved $67.7 million for the Unit, $15.3 million over the
President’s request. The House also increased funding for the U.S. and Foreign
Commercial Service (USFCS) by $3.0 million to restore funding for the Rural Export
Initiative and the Global Diversity Initiative. The Senate Committee’s bill maintained
the President’s request for USFCS and expressed concern with the pace of the
Service’s consolidation of Export Assistance Centers in certain metropolitan areas.
The conference report allotted $195.8 million, $1 million less than the House version,
but retained the initiatives added by the House. The conference report also provided
$27.7 million for the Market Access and Compliance Unit and $43.3 million for the
Import Administration Unit.
The FY2002 request for the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) was
$68.9 million. (Congress had enacted $64.7 million in FY2001.) The House and
Senate approved the full amount of the President’s request for FY2002, an amount
reflected in the conference report. This figure includes $7.3 million for inspections
under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) conducted in conjunction with the
Department of State. The Administration requested increases, in part, to complete
the redesign of the Export Control Automated Support System (ECASS) in order to
provide license applicants with more timely information on their applications.
The Economic Development Administration (EDA) has experienced a7
tumultuous appropriations history over the past few years. Its funding level was
7 For background, see CRS Issue Brief IB95100, Economic Development Administration:
sharply reduced by the 104th Congress, then partially restored by the 105th. In the first
session of the 106th Congress, appropriators placed EDA programs in jeopardy until
the last possible moment. Last year, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended a total appropriation of $249.5 million for FY2001, or $187.5 million
less than the agency requested, and $138.9 million less than the total approved by the
House. In the end, however, the conference agreement provided a total adjusted
appropriation of $439.8 million, about 3 million more than the agency requested.
The FY2001 CJS appropriations bill included nearly $411.9 million for EDA’s
Economic Development Assistance Programs (EDAP) and slightly less than $28
million for Salaries and Administration (S&E), giving the agency a total appropriation
of $439.8 million. The funding for EDAP increased by more than $51 million over
the previous year’s (FY2000) level.
For FY2002, the Administration requested a substantial reduction in EDA’s
overall funding. While the request included a small increase for S&E, it called for
significant reductions in EDAP. Specifically, EDA’s request of $335 million for
EDAP represented a $76 million decrease from the FY2001 EDAP adjusted
appropriation of $411 million. The agency did not request any funding for the
Defense Economic Adjustment program which received $31.4 million in FY2001.
The proposed elimination of funding for this program was consistent with the
continued phase down of defense adjustment activity, particularly base closures,
according to EDA’s budget submission. The requested funding level for the Public
Works Program was $250 million, which represented a program reduction of $36
million from the FY2001 appropriation. The amount requested for the Economic
Adjustment Program was $40.9 million, or $8.6 million less than it received in
The agency’s FY2002 request for funding its other programs reflected only
minor changes. EDA requested $24 million for Planning, $9.1 million for Technical
Assistance, $500,000 for Research and Evaluation, and $10.5 million for Trade
The House set funding for FY2002 at the Administration’s requested level, i.e.,
$30.6 million for S&E and $335 million for EDAP, for a total EDA appropriation of
$365.6 million. The Senate-passed bill recommends slightly more — $371.6 million.
The conference agreement provides $30.6 million for S&E and $335 million for
EDAP, for a total FY2002 appropriation of $365.6 million.
For the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA), the Bush
Administration requested $28.4 million for FY2002. The request was about $1.1
million (4.0%) above the $27.3 million appropriated in FY2001. Both the House and
the Senate agreed with the President’s request. Congress concurred and passed $28.4
Overview and Issues, by Bruce K. Mulock.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by user fees
collected from customers. For FY2001, P.L. 106-533 provided the Office with the
budget authority to spend $1,038.7 million. According to the legislative language,
included in this figure was $783.8 million from fees collected by the USPTO in
FY2001 and $254.9 million in fees collected during prior fiscal years. The
appropriation represented a 19% increase over the FY2000 funding level.
The Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget requested $1139 million for the
USPTO, an increase of almost 10% over FY2001. This included $856.7 million
derived from offsetting collections generated by fees in FY2002 and $282.3 million
from fees collected in prior fiscal years. H.R. 2500, as originally passed by the House,
would have provided the USPTO with a total funding level of $1129 million in
FY2002; $846.7 million from FY2001 fees and $282.3 million derived from fees
generated in earlier fiscal years. The Committee report to accompany the bill also
noted that an additional $10 million in unobligated balances from FY2001 was
expected to be available for use by the USPTO for a total spending level of $1139
million. The version of H.R. 2500 first passed by the Senate provided budget
authority for the USPTO to spend $1139 million including $856.7 million from fees
collected during FY2002 and $282.3 million from fees paid in prior fiscal years. P.L.
107-77 provided a total funding level of $1,126 million, consisting of $843.7 million
from FY2002 fee collections, and $282.3 million from carryover of prior year fees.
According to the conference report, the FY2002 level falls below the Administration’s
requested level due to the decrease in the filing of trademark applications.
Since 1990, appropriation measures have limited the Patent and Trademark
Office’s use of the full amount of fees collected in each fiscal year. This is an area of
controversy. Opponents argue that since agency operations are supported by
payments for services, the total amount of these collections should be available to
provide for those services in the year the expenses are incurred. Proponents of the
current approach maintain that the fees are necessary to balance the budget and that
the level of fees appropriated back to the USPTO are sufficient to cover operating
For FY2002, President Bush requested a total of $3.063 billion for the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).9 This amount was about $22
million or 0.7% greater than FY2001 appropriations of $3.041 billion. Of that total,
$2.180 billion was requested for Operations, Research and Facilities (ORF). Budget
authority of $68 million would be derived from the Promote and Develop Fishery
Products and Research Pertaining to American Fisheries (PDAF) account, and $3
8 For a more information see: Congressional Research Service, U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office Appropriations Process: A Brief Explanation, by Wendy H. Schacht, CRS Report
9 House Appropriations Committee-provided numbers are used in this analysis. It should be
noted that NOAA reported the President’s request for FY2002 to be $3.152 billion, a
difference of about $98 million from OMB figures. This discrepancy may be accounted as
different accounting methods and changes from adjustments to base funding, e.g., emergency
appropriations, rescissions, authorized carry-over funding from previous fiscal years, and
authorized offsets and collection of fees.
million in collected fees would be transferred to ORF from the Coastal Zone
Management Fund (CZMF). A total of $764.8 million was requested for the
Procurement, Acquisitions and Construction (PAC) account. In addition, $118.4
million was requested for Other Accounts to be allotted as follows: $90 million for
the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery (PCSR) program; $20 million for PCSR treaty
obligations; and $1.4 million for U.S. fisheries financing and liability obligations.
Another $10.4 million pass-through was requested for the Environmental
Improvement and Restoration Fund (EIRF) for NOS and NMFS ($5.2 million each),
which was included in the ORF request. The President did not request funding for
“Coastal Impact Assistance” appropriated by Congress in FY2001.10
President Bush requested funding for NOAA’s ORF budget lines as follows:
National Ocean Service (NOS) - $364.5 million; National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) - $598.0 million; Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) - $330.2
million; National Weather Service (NWS) - $658.5 million; National Environmental
Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) - $142.4 million; and Program
Support - $182.5 million. The President’s request for Research and Development
(R&D) at NOAA for FY2002, was reported by NOAA’s Office of Financial
Administration (OFA) to be $762 million. This amount represented an increase of
8.4% above FY2001 funding for R&D of $703 million, and was 25% of the FY2002
funding request for NOAA.
Highlights of President Bush’s FY2002 budget request for NOAA included: 1)
funding for Stellar Sea Lion research ($29 million) - NMFS; 2) full funding for the
National Undersea Research Program (NURP) for FY2002 ($13.9 million) as the
centerpiece for a 2002 Ocean Exploration initiative ($14 million requested) - OAR;
OAR; 4) restoration of base funding for Forecast & Warning Services ($16.7 million)
- NWS; 5) funding for the Cooperative Weather Observer Program ($2.3 million) -
NWS; 6) transfer of research data acquisition funding lines from NOS, OAR, and
NMFS to Marine Services under Program Support ($62.0 million) - PS/OMAO; 7)
funding for a Telecommunications Gateway Backup and other data communications
improvements, under a Critical Infrastructure Protection initiative to provide backup
for critical weather data and information managed by the agency ($73.3 million) -
NWS; 8) funding for a Comprehensive Large-Array [data] Stewardship System
(CLASS) to expand, coordinate and centralize climate services data ($3.6 million) -
OAR; and 9) funding increases for Satellite Programs (NPOESS and GOES),
including backup hardware and new sensors ($712.3 million) - NESDIS. The
10 Congress added $150 million to NOAA’s regular annual (CJS) appropriations for FY2001
to fund “Coastal Impact Assessment.” (See P.L. 106-553 §1(a)(2)) Total additional funding
for NOAA for FY2001 included $420 million appropriated under §903 of P.L. 106-553
(Coastal and Ocean Activities, pp. 117-118, H. Rept. 106-1033, December 21, 2000.), and
$17.5 million appropriated for NOAA (NMFS) by Title II, of the Omnibus Appropriations
Act for FY2001 ( P.L. 106-534). For FY2002, the President requested $284 million in
“Conservation Spending,” as authorized in Title VIII of P.L. 106-552, Department of Interior
Appropriations for FY2001. The House approved $440 million and the Senate approved
$251 million; however Conferees approved $223.3 million for this activity (H.Rept. 107-
President proposed a 47% decrease for the National Estuarine Research Reserve
System (NERRS), whose funding had doubled in FY2001.
The House-passed version of H.R. 2500 appropriated a total of $3.093 billion
for NOAA. This amount was 1.7% greater than FY2001 appropriations of $3.041
billion, and 0.95% greater than President Bush’s FY2002 request of $3.064 billion.
Of this total, $2.2 billion was appropriated for Operations, Research and Facilities
(ORF), about $20 million more than the request. In addition, $749 million was
appropriated for Procurement, Acquisitions, and Construction (PAC), 2% less than
that requested by President Bush and 10% more than the FY2001 appropriations.
Another $143 million was appropriated for NOAA’s Other Accounts, including
PCSR, CZMF, and fishery-related obligations.
The House approved $12 million more for NWS and $25 million more for PCSR
than the President’s request. The House also approved $20 million for Oceans,
Coastal, and Great Lakes programs in OAR, less than that requested by the President.
The House supported transfer of data acquisitions funding (for ship time) to Marine
Services under Program Support; it also transferred $10.8 million requested by the
President’s for NESDIS PAC to NESDIS ORF. House appropriations for NOAA
budget lines were as follows: NOS - $375.6 million; NMFS - $542.4 million; OAR -
$317.5 million; NWS - $659.3 million; NESDIS - $149.6 million; and PS - $176.1
million. The PAC account was funded a total of $749.0 million; and Other Accounts
would total $143.4 million including $135 million for PCSR, a transfer of $3 million
to ORF, and $1.43 million for fishery funding, financing, and liability accounts.
The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2500 appropriated a total of $3.363 billion
for NOAA. Amendments resulted in an increase of $13 million above Senate
Appropriation Committee recommendations for S. 1215. Senate totals included
$2.276 billion appropriated for ORF, $940.6 million for PAC, and $146.4 million for
Other Accounts (fishery funding and financing), including $137.9 million for the
PCSR fund and $10 million for EIRF. Highlights of Senate amendments included
$33.7 million appropriated instead of $30 million for conservation activities defined
in §250(c)(4)(E) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The SAC managers’ amendment approved $23.9 million, rather than $54.3 million for
NOAA Executive Direction and Administration, the same as the President’s request.
The Senate authorized $22.0 million in budget authority from FY2001 deobligations,
from which $5.0 million was intended for establishment of a NOAA “Business
Management Fund” for operating expenses. The Senate also directed that no NOAA
funding be provided for DOC’s Commerce Administrative Management System
(CAMS). Directions were also given to obligate $0.5 million dollars of NWS PAC
funding to the International Trade Administration processing center in OK. Of PCSR
funding, $3 million was earmarked for disaster assistance, “for ground fish fishermen
suffering economic hardship.” Another $1.5 million in budget authority was targeted
to NOAA to occupy a coastal and fishery research facility in Lafayette, LA (at the
discretion of the Secretary of Commerce). In addition, $29 million was appropriated
for Alaskan Stellar seal lion research, same as the President’s request.
Conferees approved a total of $3.26 billion for NOAA. The conference report
(H.Rept. 107-278) was adopted by the House on November 14, and by the Senate on
November 15, 2001, and H.R. 2500 was signed into law by President Bush as P.L.
107-77, on November 28, 2001. Total appropriations for NOAA were 6.5% greater
than the President’s request of $3.06 billion, 5.5% greater than the House-passed total
of $3.09 billion, and 10% less than the Senate approved levels of $3.36 billion. Of
total appropriations, $2.25 billion was provided for ORF; $836.6 million for the PAC
account; $157.4 million for Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery (PCSR); and $8.3
million for NOAA’s Other Accounts, including a pass through of $10 million to NOS
for EIRF, and a $3.0 million transfer to NOS from the Coastal Zone Management
Fund. The balance of $1.43 million was appropriated for administrative fishery-
related funds. Of the NOAA total, $439.2 million was provided for conservation
activities, including $223.3 million under ORF for Coastal Assistance programs; $58.5
million under PAC for a new Coastal and Estuarine Lands Conservation Program
(CELCP); and $157.4 million under Other Accounts for PCSR obligations.
NOAA line offices were funded as follows: NOS - $413.9 million; NMFS -
$579.2 million; OAR - $366.1 million; NWS - $672.4 million; NESDIS - $139.6
million; and Program Support - $180.5 million, including $71.8 million for Corporate
Services, $89.6 million for OMAO, and $19.1 million for Facilities. Within NOAA’s
PAC account, $87.8 million was appropriated for NOS, $37.2 million for NMFS,
$19.7 million for OAR, $70.7 million for NWS, $561.9 million for NESDIS, and
$62.4 million for Program Support. Mandatory funding of $7 million is also included
in the ORF total for agency overhead and operating expenses.
Highlights of the committee’s agreement included $58.5 million provided to
establish CELCP, “[F]or the purpose of protecting important coastal and estuarine
areas that have significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic
values, or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreational state to
other uses,” and to fund the promulgation of regulations for this program in
accordance with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The conference agreement
adopted Senate report language about NOAA’s FY2003 budget structure, and House
report language requiring the agency to report quarterly on the status of obligations
vis a vis the new budget structure. In addition, House report language was adopted
that required NOAA’s budget lines totals be reported under the section on ORF
The conference committee did not approve the “Business Management Fund”
approved by the Senate, but did direct NOAA to report what management services
might be improved at the agency if they were to be centralized. The conference
agreement also funded NOAA’s portion of expenses for CAMS at $17.1 million. The
committee directed NOAA to design and implement performance measures for the
Coastal Zone Management program; and directed the Office of Marine and Aviation
Operations to provide detailed quarterly reports on its operations. Funding was not
included for the proposed for GOES-R satellite which, the committee reported, had
experienced scheduling delays. In addition, Conferees approved $15 million for
Minority Serving Institutions. For more detailed information on NOAA
Appropriations for FY2002, see CRS Report RL31117: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration: Review of FY2002 Budget Request and Appropriations.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) received an
appropriation of $598.3 million in FY2001. The total included $312.6 million for the
Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account (with $5.9 million for
the Baldrige Quality Program); $250.9 million for Industrial Technology Services
(ITS), consisting of $145.7 million for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and
$105.1 million for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP); and $34.9 million
for construction. While this was a 6% decrease in overall funding for NIST, primarily
due to a smaller construction budget, support for the laboratory’s internal research
and development activities increased by 11% over the previous fiscal year.
In his FY2002 budget proposal, President Bush requested $487.5 million in
funding for NIST, 19% less than the FY2001 appropriation. Support for the STRS
account would have been $347.3 million, including $5.4 million for the Quality
Program. This represented an 11% increase over FY2001. The Manufacturing
Extension Program would have been financed at $106.3 million, while the Advanced
Technology Program was to be suspended pending an evaluation, although $13
million would have been available to support on-going project commitments.
Construction efforts would have been funded at $20.9 million.
The FY2002 appropriations bill, H.R. 2500, as originally passed by the House,
would have provided $490 million for NIST, an 18% decrease in support due
primarily to an absence of funding for the Advanced Technology Program. The STRS
account would have received $348.6 million while funding for ITS would total $119.5
million, with the major portion going to the Manufacturing Extension Program. The
construction budget would have been $20.9 million. H.R. 2500, as initially passed by
the Senate, would have funded NIST at $696.5 million, 42% above the figure
contained in the House bill and 16% more than FY2001. Internal R&D under the
STRS account would have received $343.3 million while ITS would have been
financed at $309.3 million, including $105.1 million for MEP and $204.2 million for
ATP. The Committee report to accompany the bill stated that the ATP activity
should be continued contrary to the President’s budget proposal. Funding for
construction at NIST would total $43.9 million, more than double that contained in
the House bill and the Administration request.
The final legislation, P.L. 107-77, funds NIST at $674.5 million, an increase of
above the previous fiscal year) and $291million for ITS. Of this latter amount, MEP
is financed at $106.5 million and ATP receives $184.5 million, a 27% increase.
Construction is funded at $62.4 million, triple the figure in the budget request and the
House bill and almost twice that of FY2001.11
Continued financing of the Advanced Technology Program has been a major
funding issue. ATP provides seed financing, matched by private sector investment,
to businesses or consortia (including universities and government laboratories) for
development of generic technologies that have broad applications across industries.
Opponents of the program cite it as a prime example of “corporate welfare,” whereby
the federal government invests in applied research activities that, they maintain, should
be conducted by the private sector. The Clinton Administration defended ATP,
arguing it assisted businesses (and small manufacturers) develop technologies that,
11 For more information see: Congressional Research Service, The National Institute of
Standards and Technology: An Overview, by Wendy H. Schacht, CRS Report 95-30.
while crucial to industrial competitiveness, would not or could not be developed by
the private sector alone. For the previous two fiscal years (FY2000 and FY2001), the
initial appropriation bills passed by the House, contained no funding for ATP,
although the program did receive support in the final legislation. Similarly, the
FY2002 appropriation bill originally passed by the House also suspended financing
for the program. However, ATP was ultimately funded at a figure that represented
a 27% increase over the previous fiscal year.
The Office of the Undersecretary for Technology and the Office of
Technology Policy (OTP) was funded at $8.1 million for FY2001, an increase of less
than 3% over the previous fiscal year. The Bush Administration requested $8.2
million for FY2002. H.R. 2500, as initially passed by the House, would have funded
the Office at $8.1 million. The first version of H.R. 2500 as passed by the Senate
included $8.2 million for OTP. The conference agreement settled on the
Administration-requested and Senate-passed level of $8.2 million.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
provides guidelines and recommendations for domestic and global communications
policy, manages the use of the electromagnetic spectrum for public broadcast, and
awards grants to industry-public sector partnerships for research on new
telecommunications applications and development of information infrastructure. The
TOP grants provides matching merit-based grants to areas either underserved or not
served at all by the Internet. The NTIA budget also includes the continued
development and construction of public broadcast facilities, including funding for
transition of broadcasting facilities to digital transmissions. Some policymakers
support a stronger role for NTIA to close the divide between the nation’s digital
“haves” and “have-nots.” They contend that NTIA’s TOP grants and public facilities
programs would be appropriate avenues for helping bridge this divide.
For FY2001, the Congress provided $100.4 million for the entire NTIA budget.
Of this amount, $11.4 million is for salaries and expenses; $45.5 million for the
Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) grants; and $43.5 million for public
telecommunications facilities, planning and construction. Both the TOP and public
telecommunications facilities, planning, and construction programs received
substantial increases over their FY2000 appropriations of $15.5 million and $26
For FY2002, the Bush Administration proposed: $73 million for the overall
NTIA budget; $15.5 million for TOP; $43.5 million for public telecommunications
facilities, planning and construction; and $14 million for salaries. The Bush
Administration contends that the TOP program should be funded closer to levels it
was at before FY2001, and that the public facilities planning and construction budget
should continue to support conversion of broadcast transmissions to digital
technologies. The House-passed appropriations bill approved the following: $72
million for the NTIA budget; $13 million for salaries and expenses; $15.5 million for
TOP grants; and $43.5 million for public telecommunications facilities, planning, and
construction. The Senate-passed appropriation approves an NTIA budget of $73
million, with $15.5 million for TOP, $43.5 million for public telecommunications
facilities, and $14 million for salaries. Conference Report 107-278 included the
Senate-approved marks for the overall budget, TOP, public telecommunications
facilities, and salaries. The conference agreement provided $73 million – the
Administration request – for the overall NTIA FY2002 budget.
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted by Congress
in 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat 285) requires that agencies develop strategic plans that
contain goals, objectives, and performance measures for all major programs. The
latest Strategic Plan issued by the Department of Commerce for years FY2000-
FY2005 enunciates three strategic goals:
!Strategic Goal l. Provide the information and the framework to
enable the economy to operate efficiently and equitably.
!Strategic Goal 2. Provide infrastructure for innovation to enhance
!Strategic Goal 3. Observe and manage the Earth’s environment to
promote sustainable growth.
As mandated by GPRA, DOC’s FY2000 Annual Program Performance Report
and FY2002 Annual Performance Plan were released with the FY2002 budget
proposal. Both the program plan and report are available at:
S. 149 (Enzi et al.); H.R. 2557 (Menendez et al.); H.R. 2568 (Dreier, et al.)
Export Administration Act of 2001. A bill to provide authority for national
security and foreign policy export controls. S. 149 introduced January 23, 2001;
reported from the Senate Banking Committee with amendments, March 22, 2001;
pass the Senate on Sept. 6, 2001; H.R. 2557 introduced July 18, 2001, and H.R. 2568
introduced July 19, 2001; referred to House International Relations Committee,
House Armed Services Committee.
CRS Report 95-36. The Advanced Technology Program, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report 97-104. Manufacturing Extension Partnership: An Overview, by
Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report 95-30. The National Institute of Standards and Technology: An
Overview, by Wendy H. Schacht.
CRS Report RL31117. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
Review of FY2002 Budget Request and Appropriations, by Wayne A. Morrissey.
CRS Report RL30169. Reauthorization of the Export Administration Act,
coordinated by Ian F. Fergusson.
CRS Report RS20906. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Appropriations Process:
A Brief Explanation, by Wendy H. Schacht.
Typically, Title III of the CJS appropriation covers funding for the Judiciary.
By statute (31 U.S.C. 1105 (b)) the judicial branch’s budget is accorded protection
from presidential alteration. Thus, when the President transmits a proposed federal
budget to Congress, he must forward the judicial branch’s proposed budget to
Congress unchanged. That process has been in operation since 1939. The total
appropriation for the Judiciary in FY2001 was $4.25 billion.
The Judiciary budget consists of more than 10 separate accounts. Two of these
accounts fund the Supreme Court of the United States – one covering the Court’s
salary and operational expenses and the other covering expenditures for the care of
its building and grounds. Traditionally, in a practice dating back to the 1920s, one or
more of the Court’s Justices appear before either a House or Senate appropriations
subcommittee to address the budget requirements of the Supreme Court for the
upcoming fiscal year, focusing primarily on the Court’s salary and operational
expenses. Subsequent to their testimony, the Architect of the Capitol submits a
request for the Court’s building and grounds account.12 Although it is at the apex of
the federal judicial system, the Supreme Court represents only a very small share of
the Judiciary’s overall funding. The CJS appropriations act for FY2001 (P.L.106-
553), for instance, provided a total of $45.1 million for the Supreme Court’s two
accounts, which was less than 1.1% of the Judiciary’s overall appropriation of $4.26
The rest of the Judiciary’s budget provides funding for the “lower” federal courts
and for related judicial services. Among the lower court accounts, one dwarfs all
others — the Salaries and Expenses account for the U.S. Courts of Appeals and
District Courts. The account, however, covers not only the salaries of circuit and
district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United States), but also
those of retired justices and judges, U.S. Court of Federal Claims, bankruptcy and
magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the federal Judiciary not
specifically provided for by other accounts.
Other accounts for the lower courts include Defender Services (for
compensation and reimbursement of expenses of attorneys appointed to represent
criminal defendants), Fees of Jurors, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the Federal Judicial Center (charged with
furthering the development of improved judicial administration), and the U.S.
12 By authority of the Act of May 7, 1934 (P.L. 73-211), the Architect of the Capitol is
responsible for the structural and mechanical care of the Supreme Court building, including
care of its grounds. The Architect, however is not charged with responsibility for custodial
care, which is under the jurisdiction of the Marshal of the Supreme Court.
Sentencing Commission (an independent commission in the judicial branch, which
establishes sentencing policies and practices for the courts).
The annual Judiciary budget request for the courts is presented to the House and
Senate appropriations subcommittees after being reviewed and cleared by the Judicial
Conference, the federal court system’s governing body. These presentations, typically
made by the chairman of the Conference’s budget committee, are separate from
subcommittee appearances a Justice makes on behalf of the Supreme Court’s budget
The Judiciary budget does not appropriate funds for three “special courts” in the
U.S. court system: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (funded in the
Department of Defense appropriations bill), the U.S. Tax Court (funded in the
Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (funded in the Department of Veteran Affairs and Housing and
Urban Development appropriations bill). Construction of federal courthouses also is
not funded within the Judiciary’s budget. The usual legislative vehicle for funding
federal courthouse construction is the Treasury, Postal Service appropriations bill.
(For more details on individual appropriations for Judiciary functions, see the
The Judiciary’s Response to the Terrorist Attacks. Apart from its
FY2002 budget request, the Judiciary wrote letters to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) on September 13, 2001, identifying the immediate security needs of
the federal courts in light of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United
States.13 The letters were sent to OMB at the same time that emergency supplemental
appropriations legislation, H.R. 2888, was being considered by Congress. That bill,
creating an Emergency Response Fund totaling $40 billion, was subsequently passed
by both the House and Senate on September 14, 2001, and signed into law as P.L.
In a letter on behalf of the Supreme Court, the Court’s director of budget and
personnel listed “four security items that address preparedness and mitigation of risk
of terrorist incidents,” totaling $47 million. These items specifically included:
perimeter security improvements, $10 million; visitor screening, $3 million;
construction of police facilities, $20 million; and window protection, $14 million. A
separate letter on behalf of the rest of the lower federal courts requested $20.7 million
annually for an additional 414 courts security officers to enhance perimeter security
13 Also, a week after the September 11 terrorist bombings in New York City and Washington,
the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Leonidas Ralph Mecham,
presented the security needs of the federal judiciary to House members at a briefing convened
by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the House CJS-Judiciary appropriations
subcommittee. See U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, “Judiciary Looks
to Security Following Attacks,” The Third Branch, vol. 33, October 2001, at
at federal courthouses; $10.6 million annually for an additional 106 deputy U.S.
Marshals, who would have full-time supervisory responsibility for court security; and
$62.1 million in one-time costs for purchase of “state-of-the-art” X-Ray machines for
use in courthouse mail rooms and loading docks.
Subsequently, pursuant to P.L. 107-38, the President took three actions in
response to the Judiciary requests for emergency funding:
!On September 21, 2001, he authorized the transfer from the
Emergency Response Fund of $1.25 million to the Supreme Court’s
Building and Grounds budget account, to be used to install
protective window film for the Supreme Court building.
!On September 28, 2001, he authorized the transfer of $19.7 million
in emergency funds to the Judiciary’s Court Security budget
account). These funds would be used for heightened security in
courthouses, including converting part-time court security officers to
full-time as well as covering the costs required to maintain enhanced
perimeter patrols and visual inspection of vehicles that enter
!On October 17, 2001, he submitted to Congress legislation to
allocate $20 billion for various disaster recovery and security needs,
$31.5 million of which would go to the federal government’s
judicial branch. Of the $31.5 million, $17.5 would cover the costs
of additional court security officer hours, $10.0 million would be
used to enhance the security posture of the Supreme Court building,
and $4.0 million would support a supervisory deputy marshal
responsible for coordinating security in each judicial district and
The President’s September 21 and 28 funding transfers to the Judiciary were
made pursuant to his authority, under P.L. 107-38, to spend the first $20 billion of the
$40 billion Emergency Response Fund total without additional congressional action.
By contrast, the President’s allocation of the second $20 billion, including the $31.5
million designated for the Judiciary, was in the form of a supplemental appropriation
measure requiring congressional passage. That measure was attached, as Division
B, to the FY2002 Department of Defense appropriations bill (H.R. 3338), which was
signed into law as P.L. 107-117 on January 10, 2002.
The funding transfers approved by Congress in Division B of P.L. 107-117
included significantly more funding for the Judiciary than proposed by the President.
Specifically, the anti-terrorism funding approved by Congress in this law included:
!$30.0 million for the Supreme Court’s Building and Grounds budget
account, for security enhancements (instead of $10.0 million
proposed by the President and provided for in the House-passed
version of H.R. 3338);
!$57.5 million for the Judiciary’s Court Security account, to address
security requirements of the lower courts, including not less than
$4.0 million to reimburse the U.S. Marshals Service for a supervisory
deputy marshal responsible for coordinating security in each judicial
district. (The President had proposed, and the House-passed version
of H.R. 3338 had provided, that a total of $21.5 million of the anti-
terrorism funding be transferred to the lower courts.)
!$5.0 million for emergency communications equipment in the Salaries
and Expenses account of the courts of appeals and district courts,
plus $2.9 million for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to
enhance security at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
in Washington, D.C. (Neither of these funding amounts was
included in the President’s proposal or in the House-passed version
of H.R. 3338.)
The Judiciary’s Budget Request for FY2002. Congress approved $4.61
billion in total FY2002 budget appropriations for the Judiciary, an 8.4% increase over
FY2001 funding of $4.25 billion. The enacted FY2002 level is $69.4 million less than
what the House approved earlier and $111.5 million more than the Senate-passed
amount. At the start of the appropriations process, the Judiciary had requested $4.87
billion, a 14.5% increase over FY2001 funding.
For the Judiciary’s largest account, Salaries and Expenses for the Courts of
Appeals, District Courts and Other Judicial Services,14 Congress approved $3.59
billion, a 7.1% increase over $3.35 billion enacted for FY2001. The enacted FY2002
level is $40.8 million less than what the House approved earlier and $32.1 million
more than the Senate-passed amount. The Judiciary had requested $3.74 billion, an
11.4% increase over FY2001 funding. For this account, House-Senate conferees
adopted by reference House report language regarding non-appropriated funds and
workload.15 The conference agreement also adopted by reference Senate report
14 This account, as explained above, funds the salaries and benefits of judges and supporting
personnel and all operating expenses of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, District Courts,
Bankruptcy Courts and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
15 In its report on H.R. 2500, the House Appropriations Committee noted that the Judiciary’s
budget request for FY2002 estimated that $226 million would be available in fee collections
and carryover balances. The committee stated that if additional non-appropriated funds
became available in FY2002, either through savings in fiscal year 2001 or increased fee
collections, the committee expected the Judiciary to apply these funds to its FY2002 financial
plan to meet the highest priority needs of the courts.
Also, the House committee said it understood that the workload of the courts was
continuing to escalate, due largely to the expanding jurisdiction of the federal courts through
legislation passed by the Congress, as well as to significant increases in funding provided to
the Department of Justice in recent years for investigating and prosecuting crimes. In
FY2001, the committee noted, it was able to fully fund the staffing needs of the courts for the
first time in three years. The committee cited approvingly the Judiciary’s allocation of
staffing resources based on formulas recently updated by the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts which, according to the committee, “equitably allocated staff based on the actual
language requesting that the Judiciary conduct a study for the Appropriations
Committees on whether changes in the jury system may be necessary.16
For the Judiciary’s Defender Services account, Congress approved the House-
passed amount of $500.7 million, a 15.3% increase over FY2001 funding of $434.0
million. Earlier the Senate had approved $463.8 million, a 6.8% increase, while the
Judiciary had requested $521.5 million, a 20.1% increase. The Defender Services
account funds the operations of the federal public defender and community defender
organizations, and the compensation, reimbursement and expenses of “panel
attorneys.” The latter are private practice attorneys appointed by the courts under
the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) to serve as defense counsel to indigent individuals
accused of federal crimes.
While most of the Defender Services increase requested by the Judiciary17
consisted of mandatory adjustments to base, $35.1 million was sought to fund an
increase in the rate of pay for panel attorneys to $113 an hour. For FY2001 Congress
had funded hourly pay rates for panel attorneys of $75 in-court and $55 out-of-court
in most locations, which the Judiciary said were well below the amounts the attorneys
need just to cover their overhead costs. In response, House-Senate conferees,
following the recommendation of both Appropriations Committees, agreed on an
FY2002 increase in panel attorney pay to $90 per hour both in and out of court,
effective no later than May 1, 2002.
The budget request of the Supreme Court for FY2002, as customary, was in
two parts. For its first account, Salaries and Expenses, Congress, as provided in the
Senate bill, approved $40.0 million, a 6.6% increase over budget authority of $37.5
million for FY2001. Earlier, the Court had requested, and the House approved, $42.1
workload of each [judicial] district,” and it said it expected the Judiciary to allocate its
FY2002 staffing resources using the formulas approved by the Judicial Conference.
16 In its report on the Senate CJS bill, S. 1215, the Senate Appropriations Committee said it
was concerned about increased plea bargaining, limits on jury awards, new powers of judges
to screen evidence presented to jurors, and the increasing number of jury verdicts being
overturned by federal appeals courts. These developments, the committee said, were
diminishing the traditional role of the jury and were part of a trend which “promises to
undermine individual confidence in the jury system and in the courts themselves.” The
committee directed that the Judiciary’s study, to be prepared by the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts no later than February 1, 2002, include recommendations for judicial reform
“to ensure that juror and citizen confidence are not eroded.”
17 These mandatory adjustments included pay and benefit adjustments for federal defender
organization personnel and funding for increased case representation workload of federal
defender organizations and panel attorneys.
18 More precisely, the Court requested $42.114 million, a 12.3% increase over FY2001
funding, while the House Administration Committee has approved $42.066 million, a 12.1%
increase. Most of the requested FY2002 increase represented base adjustments — i.e.,
required increases in salary and benefit costs and inflationary increases in fixed costs. In
In their report, House-Senate conferees directed that the Court continue to
provide the Appropriations Committees with information regarding the Court’s hiring
practices in selecting law clerks and to “make efforts to expand its pool of applicants
in a manner to ensure fairness in hiring.” The conference report, however, said it did
not adopt language in the Senate report “regarding the containment of mandatory
costs and additional personnel.”19
For the Court’s second account, Care of the Building and Grounds, Congress
approved $37.5 million, instead of $70.0 million as provided in the House bill and
$7.5 million in the Senate bill.20 At the beginning of the appropriations process, the
Court had requested $117.7 million for this account, $110.2 million over FY2001
funding of $7.5 million. The purpose of this extraordinary increase, as requested,
was to modernize the Court’s building by upgrading its basic life safety, security and
utility systems. This would be the first major renovation of the Court building since
its opening in 1935.21
The conference agreement, while reducing the earlier-approved House amount
by almost 50%, adopted by reference language in the House report related to the
security and renovation needs of the Court building.22 The conferees noted that their
addition, $2.2 million over base adjustments has been requested to fund eleven positions and
three program increases, with most of these increases related to technological improvements
in automation and security.
19 In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee had noted disapprovingly that
“[v]arious offices, a theatre, a gift shop, and mail handling have all been built out into the
hallways of the Court in direct violation of fire codes.” The Court’s “expected renovation,”
the Committee continued, would “only exacerbate space problems for the foreseeable future.”
Therefore, the Committee said, its recommendation “defers” staffing increases for the Court
“until it is clear that there is room for additional personnel.”
20 Separate from this $37.5 million appropriation, it should be noted, the Supreme Court’s
Building and Grounds account received $31.25 million from the Emergency Response Fund
established by Congress in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United
States. See preceding discussion in this report under the heading, “The Judiciary’s Response
to the Terrorist Attacks.”
21 In prepared testimony before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice and State on March 21, 2001, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that
modernization of the building would include the “installation of protective life safety systems
such as fire detection and sprinklers and the ability to purge smoke from the building in the
event of a fire. The mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems are so out of date that a
disruptive and possibly dangerous system failure is more likely every year that the proposed
modernization is postponed.”
22 In its report on H.R. 2500, the House Appropriations Committee stated that the Court
building “has serious deficiencies in its life safety, security, mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems. These obsolete systems create the risk of an emergency to the health and
a safety of the Justices, the court staff, the Supreme Court policy and the nearly one million
visitors to the building each year. To correct these deficiencies, the Architect has proposed
the building’s first significant upgrade in its 65-year history. The Committee believes that
agreement did not include language in the Senate report regarding building
renovations.23 The conference report also noted that the entire amount of $37.5
million shall remain available until expended.24
Congress also approved $220.7 million in funding for the Judiciary’s Court
Security account, a 10.8% increase over FY2001 budget authority of $199.1
million.25 The House and Senate bills respectively had provided $224.4 million and
$209.8 million, while the Judiciary had requested $228.4 million.26 The House-
Senate conference report said that it adopted language in the House bill and report
clarifying the responsibilities of the Court Security Program.27
Congress also authorized, as requested by the Judiciary, a cost-of-living increase
in judges’ and justices’s salaries and appropriated $8.6 million for that purpose.
each day this project is delayed dramatically increases the potential for the building’s outdated
systems to fail, placing human life and safety at risk as well as increasing the costs required
to perform the necessary modernization.”
23 In its report, the Senate Appropriations Committee had completely rejected the Court’s
requested increase for this account, instead approving the FY2001 level of $7.5 million. The
committee said it favored retaining the FY2001 amount for FY2002 in order to fund “the
routine maintenance of existing building systems in anticipation of a construction start in
2003,” under a revised building upgrade plan acceptable to the committee. The committee
explained that it was “entirely supportive” of the proposal to replace building systems which
“have been maintained long past the end of their useful service lives,” but that it was “very
concerned by the linchpin of the Court’s construction approach: the digging out of an
underground annex as swing space for displaced staff.”
24 The Court had requested its $110 million increase for this account on a one-time “no year”
basis, rather than make the first of several annual funding requests to defray costs incurred
as the renovation proceeded. While not agreeing to the full amount of the Judiciary’s request,
the House Appropriations Committee in its report said that budget authority was being made
available until the appropriated amount was expended to give the Architect of the Capitol
maximum flexibility in structuring the building renovation contract.
25 Separate from this $220.7 million appropriation, it should be noted, the Court Security
account received $77.2 million from the Emergency Response Fund established by Congress
in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. See preceding
discussion in this report under the heading, “The Judiciary’s Response to the Terrorist
26 The amount requested for FY2002, the Judiciary said in its budget submission, would
make possible the replacing of inadequate and out-dated court security equipment, and fund
court security officers for new buildings.
27 In its report on H.R. 2500, the House Appropriations Committee noted that language in
the bill clarified the “current responsibilities of the Court Security Program to provide
protective guard service for United States courthouses, the installation and maintenance of
security equipment in all buildings housing judiciary operations and the inspection of mail and
While the House bill declined to authorize a judicial pay adjustment,28 such a
provision in the Senate-passed bill29 was approved in conference, paving the way for
a judicial pay increase, based on the Employment Cost Index (ECI), of 3.4%, effective30
January 2002. The Judiciary had called for a pay adjustment for judges in its
FY2002 budget submission to Congress. Judiciary compensation, it was argued,
lagged far behind both inflation and the increasing salaries of private attorneys, with
judges’ purchasing power having declined by over 13% over the past eight years.31
The CJS conference agreement on a pay adjustment for federal judges and
justices was reached against the backdrop of an imminent 2002 calendar year cost-of-
living pay increase for Members of Congress and executive branch officials. Annual
cost-of-living adjustments for the latter are automatic, effective January of each year
(as provided by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989), unless Congress adopts language
barring a particular annual adjustment from taking effect. By January 1, 2002, no
legislation had been enacted to withhold the pay adjustment.32 In contrast to
automatic cost-of-living pay adjustments for Members of Congress and executive
branch officials, an annual pay increase for judges must be specifically authorized by
Congress, and the legislative vehicle for that authorization in recent years has been
the CJS-Judiciary appropriations bill At no time since judicial pay adjustments have
required statutory authorization have judges received lower pay adjustments than
Members of Congress and executive branch officials. Hence, in keeping with that
28 In its report on H.R. 2500, the House Appropriations Committee said the bill deferred
“without prejudice” the proposed salary adjustment for federal justices and judges.
29 Although the Senate Judiciary Committee’s CJS bill, as reported, was silent on the issue,
the Senate, on September 10, 2001, adopted an amendment to its version of HR 2500 which,
among other things, provided for a cost-of-living pay adjustment for judges. The provision
was part of an amendment introduced by Senators Ernest F. Hollings and Judd Gregg, which,
the Senate approved by voice vote, making various technical and clarifying corrections to the
30 The salary adjustment, effective January 2002, increased the annual salaries of Article III
judges as follows: for Chief Justice of the United States, from $186,300 to $192,600; for
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, from $178,300 to $184,400; for U.S. Courts of
Appeals judges, from $153,900 to $159,100; and for U.S. District Court judges and judges
on the U.S. Court of International Trade, from $145,100 to $150,000.
31 In addition to securing an ECI adjustment in judicial salaries for FY2002, the Judiciary
called for, but, as of this report’s writing, failed to persuade Congress to make, more sweeping
changes affecting judicial pay rates and the process for setting future pay levels for judges.th
Specifically, at the start of the 107 Congress, the Judiciary urged Congress to make future
cost-of-living adjustments for judges automatic, authorize a Presidential commission to
periodically advise the Congress and the President on appropriate compensation for
government officials, and enact legislation giving judges and other high level federal officials
a “catch-up” pay adjustment of 9.6% to recapture previous “lost” ECI adjustments, i.e.,
adjustments over the last decade which Congress did not statutorily authorize. Congress had
authorized ECI cost-of-living increases in judges’ and justices’ salaries for fiscal years 2001,
32 During debate on their respective FY2002 Treasury appropriations bills, the House and
Senate declined to adopt amendments which would have denied a pay adjustment for Members
of Congress and executive officials.
custom, the conferees’ action on the FY2002 CJS appropriations bill as enacted
allowed cost-of-living pay increases for justices and judges to keep apace with those
for Members of Congress and executive branch officials.33
Also, without requesting FY2002 funding for this purpose, the Judiciary called
for the creation of 54 “Article III” judgeships—judgeships created under Article III
of the Constitution and having lifetime, as opposed to fixed-term, appointments.3435
The Judiciary noted that since Congress last enacted a major judgeship bill in 1990,
increases in federal jurisdiction and law enforcement resources had contributed to a
more than 25% increase in the workload of the federal courts. However, increased
judgeships ultimately were not provided for by Congress in H.R. 2500 as enacted, nor
was provision for them included earlier in either the House or Senate CJS
As part of the budget process, the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) enacted by Congress in 1993 (P.L. 103-62; 107 Stat. 285) requires that
agencies develop strategic plans that contain goals, objectives, and performance
measures for all major programs. However, as noted earlier, the judicial branch is not
subject to the requirements of this Act.
S. 147 (Feinstein)
Southwest Border Judgeship Act of 20001. Creates, in federal judicial districts
in four southwest border States, nine permanent district judgeships and nine
temporary district judgeships. Introduced, and referred to Judiciary Committee,
January 23, 2001.
S. 1162 (Feinstein)
Companion bill to H.R. 570 (below). Introduced, and referred to Judiciary
Committee, July 11, 2001.
H.R. 272 (Gonzalez)
33 See “Pay” section under “Federal Personnel Issues,” in U.S. Library of Congress,
Congressional Research Service, Appropriations for FY2002: Treasury, Postal Service,
Executive Office of the President, and General Government, by Sharon S. Gressle, CRS
Report RL31002 (Washington: Jan. 16, 2002).
34 Specifically, the Judicial Conference had requested the addition of 6 permanent and 4
temporary court of appeals judgeships and 23 permanent and 21 temporary district court
35 Although giving the Judiciary far fewer new judgeships than had been requested, Congress
included in the Judiciary’s FY2001 appropriations title the creation of ten new district
judgeships; prior to that, in the Judiciary’s FY2000 appropriations title, Congress created nine
new district judgeships.
Companion bill to S. 147. Introduced and referred to Judiciary Committee,
January 30, 2001; referred to Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual
Property, February 12, 2001.
H.R. 570 (Biggert)
Federal Judicial Fairness Act of 2001. Repeals Federal statute limiting salary
increases for Federal judges or Supreme Court Justices to those specifically
authorized by Act of Congress, increases judicial pay immediately by 9.6%, and
provides for automatic annual cost-of-living increases in judicial salaries. Introduced,
and referred to Judiciary Committee, February 13, 2001; referred to Subcommittee
on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, February 23, 2001.
H.R. 2522 (Coble)
Federal Courts Improvement Act of 2001. Sets forth or modifies various
provisions regarding judicial process (including bankruptcy administrator authority
to appoint trustees) and judicial personnel administration, benefits, and protections,
(including provisions concerning disability retirement and cost-of-living adjustments
of annuities for territorial judges, compensation for Federal Judicial Center employees;
annual leave limit for judicial branch executives; and supplemental benefits for judicial
branch employees). Introduced, and jointly referred to Judiciary Committee and
Committee on Education and the Workforce, July 17, 2001. Referred to Judiciary
Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, July 20, 2001;
subcommittee hearings held, July 26, 2001. Jointly referred to Education and
Workforce Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations and Subcommittee on
CRS Report 98-527. Federal Courthouse Construction, by Stephanie Smith.
CRS Report RS20278. Judicial Salary-Setting Policy, by Sharon S. Gressle.
Groner, Jonathan, “Budget Bill Bolsters Courts, DOJ,” Legal Times, vol.24, Nov. 26,
— . “Lobbying for the Third Branch; Federal Judges Seeking Raises, Resources Turn
to AO Advocates for Help on the Hill,” Legal Times, vol. 24, June 4, 2001, p.
U.S. Administrative Office of the United States Courts. “Appropriations Committees
Act on Courthouse Funding, The Third Branch, vol. 33, August 2001, vol 33,
August 2001, at [http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/august01ttb/august01.html].
––. “House Appropriations Committee Approves Judiciary’s FY02 Spending Bill,”
The Third Branch , vol. 33, July 2001, pp. 1 & 3; also at
— . “Judiciary’s Slice of Budget Good News for FY02,” The Third Branch, vol. 33,
December 2001, at [http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/dec01ttb/december01.html].
––. “Senate Appropriations Committee Leaves Judiciary Looking to Basic Services,”
The Third Branch, vol. 33, August 2001, pp. 1 & 6; also at
U.S. Supreme Court. “Chief Justice’s 2001 Year-End Report on the Federal
Judiciary,” Jan. 1, 2002, at [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-
Department of State and International Broadcasting
The State Department, established July 27, 1789 (1 Stat.28; 22 U.S.C. 2651),
has a mission to advance and protect the worldwide interests of the United States and
its citizens. Currently, the State Department represents the activities of more than 50
U.S. agencies and organizations operating at 257 posts in 180 countries. As covered
in Title IV, the State Department funding categories include administration of
foreign affairs, international operations, international commissions, and related
appropriations. The total FY2001 State Department appropriation was $6.6 billion.
Typically, more than half of State’s budget (about 72% allocated for FY2001) is for
Administration of Foreign Affairs, which consists of salaries and expenses, diplomatic
security, diplomatic and consular programs, and security/maintenance of overseas
The Foreign Relations Authorization within P.L. 105-277 provided for the
consolidation of the foreign policy agencies. As of the end of FY1999, the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and the United States Information Agency
(USIA) were abolished and their budgets and functions were merged into the
Department of State.
International broadcasting, which had been a primary function of the USIA
prior to 1999, remains as an independent agency referred to as the Broadcasting
Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG includes the Voice of America (VOA), Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia (RFA),
Radio Free Iraq and Radio Free Iran. The BBG’s FY2001 appropriation was $441.4
million with just under 2,700 positions.
Security issues have remained a top priority since the August 7, 1998 terrorist
attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa. An immediate response was a $1.56 billion
supplemental enacted by the end of that year. In November 1999, the Overseas
Presence Advisory Panel reported its findings on embassy security needs and
recommendations. Also in November 1999, Congress authorized (P.L. 106-113)
$900 million annually for FY2000 through FY2004 for embassy security spending
within the embassy security, construction and maintenance (ESCM) account, in
addition to worldwide security funds in the diplomatic and consular programs
The State Department’s Response to the Terrorist Attacks.
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the
Department of State announced that 50 of its 260 embassies and consulates
worldwide temporarily closed. Three U.S. embassies—in Pakistan, Yemen, and
Turkmenistan—were evacuated. Reportedly since then, State recommended
embassies stock up on antibiotics, and may close facilities on a case-by-case basis if
the local population gets out of control and dangerous to U.S. personnel.
The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38) provided State
with $390,000 for Diplomatic and Consular Programs for added security salaries and
expenses, $7.5 million for Capital Investment Fund for improved communications at
domestic and overseas facilities, and $41 million for Emergencies in the Diplomatic
and Consular Service account for reward money and evacuation of personnel at high
threat embassies, should it be necessary. The supplemental also provided $12.25
million to the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) for expanded broadcasting
to Muslim audiences in and around Afghanistan.
The Administration’s FY2002 budget request for the Department of State and
international broadcasting totaled nearly $8 billion, more than 13% above the FY2001
enacted level of $6.6 billion. The request was comparable to the FY1999 enacted
level which had included the $1.56 billion emergency supplemental appropriation for
overseas security and Y2K computer compliance. Secretary of State Colin Powell
testified before the House Appropriations Committee on April 26, 2001 that the
Administration’s State Department budget request for FY2002 had 3 top priorities:
1) embassy construction and security; 2) information technology; and 3) hiring
additional Foreign and Civil Service staff. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $7.88 billion, slightly less than the Administration request, for State and
international broadcasting for FY2002. The House-passed funding level was reduced
by $15 million to $7.867 billion. The Senate agreed to $7.63 billion, about $236
million below the House level. The final enacted FY2002 appropriation for both State
and international broadcasting is $7.84 billion–about 11% higher than the FY2001
The President’s FY2002 request of $5,665.8 million for State’s administration
of foreign affairs was nearly 20% above the FY2001 enacted level. The
administration of foreign affairs request included: $3.705 billion for D&CP, $210
million for the capital investment fund (CIF); $242 million for the education and
cultural exchanges account; nearly $1.3 billion for ESCM; and $15.5 million for
emergencies in the diplomatic and consular services account. The House
Appropriations Committee set funding for State’s administration of foreign affairs at
$5,595.7 million. House floor action reduced this amount by $15 million to $5,580.7
million, transferring the funds to the Small Business Administration.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $5,224.1 million for
Administration of Foreign Affairs, nearly $357 million below the House level and
$442 million less than the President’s request. The full Senate reduced this amount
to $5,196.9 million. The entire reduction was from the Diplomatic and Consular
Programs account. Congress passed an FY2002 budget of $5,549.2 million for
State’s administration of foreign affairs account.
Continuing an emphasis on overseas security even before the September 11th
attacks, the Administration requested a total of $1.3 billion for worldwide security
upgrades. Of this total, $487.7 million was requested within D&CP, primarily for
ongoing expenses of past actions such as salaries of increased guards and maintenance
of security technology. In addition, the Administration requested $816 million within
ESCM, largely for upgrading overseas facilities, improving perimeter security, and
relocating highest risk posts. The ESCM account request represented an increase of
nearly 20% over the FY2001 enacted funding for both construction-related, as well
as security-related activities. The House agreed with these funding levels and
recommended nearly the same amount. The Senate recommended less for
security–$409.4 million within D&CP and $661.6 million within ESCM . Congress
enacted the House and White House-requested levels.
The nonsecurity-related funding request within D&CP was primarily for salaries
and expenses of personnel. Secretary Powell testified in early 2001 before
congressional committees that the Department has ignored warning signs in staffing
gaps, both in the Foreign and Civil Service. In addition, near term problems may
include anticipated retirements, difficulty in attracting applicants, and the need for
float staff to fill in when personnel attend training classes. The Administration hoped
to hire approximately 600 new employees in FY2002, including 360 general staff, 186
security professionals, and technical experts.
The House-passed bill would provide $3,645.7 million for D&CP — reducing
the full Committee-recommended level by $8 million and transferring that amount to
the Small Business Administration. In addition, the House expressed concerns about
management problems at State, as well as interest in right-sizing overseas posts.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $3,498.4 million for
D&CP, offering less than the House or the FY2002 requested amount for worldwide
security. The Senate Appropriations Committee had stated that $50 million of
unobligated funds would be added to worldwide security funds. The Committee also
noted that it would not recommend funds for hiring 186 Diplomatic Security (DS)
agents, contending that a disproportionate number of rookies-to-seasoned agents
could hamper DS effectiveness. The Senate reduced its D&CP funding to $3,471.2
million. Congressional action resulted in a total funding for DC&P FY2002 budget
at $3,630 million, including the full request for new hires.
The capital investment fund (CIF), which was established in 1994, provides for
purchasing information technology and capital equipment to ensure efficient
management, coordination, operation, and utilization of State’s resources. For many
years, State Department officials have testified that the Department’s technology
problems — ranging from archaic telephones and copy machines to lack of computers
and Internet access — have received inadequate funding. The FY2001 request was
$97 million — $17 million above the previous year’s level. The Bush Administration
requested $210 million for State’s CIF account in FY2002. This represented a 117%
increase over the FY2001 level. Secretary Powell’s goal was to put full Internet
capability on every desktop and improve communication equipment in all State
Department offices around the world. The House Appropriations Committee agreed
with the Administration request for $210 million; however, the funding was reduced
by a floor amendment, transferring $7 million from CIF to the Small Business
Administration. Both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the full Senate
agreed with the House level and Administration request of $210 million for CIF.
Congress enacted $203 million noting that additional funds were provided to CIF in
the emergency supplemental.
Education and cultural exchange programs include programs such as the
Fulbright, Muskie, and Humphrey academic exchanges, as well as the international
visitor exchanges and some Freedom Support Act programs. Secretary of State
Powell testified on Capitol Hill that he believes exchange programs are critical to
promoting American ideals and democracy abroad. Therefore, the Bush
Administration requested $242 million for the exchange account, an increase of more
than $10 million (4.5%) over the FY2001 level. This amount would be the highest
level for exchanges since the mid-1990s when the Freedom Support and SEED
programs were first funded. The FY2002 request is 21% higher than funding in the
late 1990s when the education and cultural exchange programs were administered
through the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) at funding levels hovering around $200
million. The House bill set funding at $237 million, $5 million less than the request.
The Senate passed the requested level of $242 million. The enacted FY2002 funding
level is the House-passed level of $237 million including $118 million for the Fulbright
The United States contributes in two ways to the United Nations and other
international organizations: (1) voluntary payments funded in the Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill and (2) assessed contributions included in the Commerce, Justice,
and State Appropriations measure. Assessed contributions are provided in two
accounts, international peacekeeping and contributions to international
organizations (CIO). Following a period of dramatic growth in the number and costs
of U.N. peacekeeping missions during the early 1990s, a trend that peaked in FY1994
with a $1.1 billion appropriation, funding requirements have declined in recent years.
The FY2000 enacted appropriation for CIO was $885 million, $500 million for
international peacekeeping, and $351 million for U.S. arrearage payments to the U.N.
if certain reform criteria are met by the United Nations. Only $100 million of the
appropriated arrearage payments have been released because of a lack of U.N. reform.
After the United States was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission earlier this
year, the Foreign Relations Authorization bill added a provision (Sec. 601, H.R.
1646) that would restrict payment of $244 million of U.S. arrearage payments to the
U.N. After the September 11th attacks, Congress passed S. 248/P.L. 107-46 which
authorized arrearage payments to the U.N. (For more detail, see CRS Issue Brief
IB86116, U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Vita Bite).
The Bush Administration requested $878.8 million for CIO which represents full
funding of U.S. assessed contributions to 44 U.N. organizations. The FY2002
request of $844.1 million for international peacekeeping would provide funding for
ongoing peacekeeping activities in Kosovo, East Timor, and Sierra Leone, to name
a few. The Administration had asked that 15% of these funds be two-year funding
because of the unpredictability of money for this account from year-to-year.
The House-passed bill provided $850 million for CIO and $844.1 million for
peacekeeping. The Senate passed $1,091.3 million for CIO; the $241 million
difference is largely for accounting issues. For international peacekeeping, the
Senate approved $773.2 million, $71 million less than the House level. Congress
enacted the House levels of $850 million for CIO and $844.1 million for
The international broadcasting operations account, established after
consolidation under the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in FY1995,
includes Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL),
Cuba Broadcasting, and newer surrogate facilities: Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio
Free Iraq and Radio Free Iran. When USIA integrated into the Department of State
at the end of FY1999, the BBG became an independent agency.
The Administration’s FY2002 request totaled $470 million for broadcasting,
including $24.9 million for Cuba Broadcasting and $16.9 million for capital
improvements. The request included funding for a “wholesale revamping” of VOA’s
current Arabic service, as well as actions to counter massive broadcast jamming,
particularly of RFA by China and of Cuba Broadcasting by Cuba. The capital
improvements funding request provided for technical improvements and maintenance
of existing facilities, as well as new medium wave transmission capability in the
Middle East. The House-passed bill provided $9 million more than requested for
international broadcasting–a total of $479 million. The Senate passed a total of
$456.5 million. The enacted FY2002 appropriation set funding at the House level of
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) enacted in 1993 (P.L.
103-62; 107 stat 285) required that agencies develop strategic plans that contain
goals, objectives, and performance measures for all major programs. The subsequently
published reports: U.S. Department of State FY1999-2000 Performance Plan
released February 1, 1999, and the United States Department of State Performance
Report, Fiscal Year 1999 established target goals and measured how successful the
State Department was in attaining those goals. With most of the 27 specified goals,
State was close to, or completely successful in, meeting its stated goals. The
Department of State Performance Plan, Fiscal Year FY2001 was released March
2000. In 2001, the Bush Administration released U.S. Department of State
Performance Plan, Fiscal Years 2001-2002.
H.R. 1646 (Hyde)/S. 1401 (Biden)
The Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003. Would
authorize State Department spending of appropriations and other foreign relations
activities. Introduced April 27, 2001. Committee reported bill to House (H.Rept.
107-57). Passed by the House (352-73) May 16, 2001. Referred to Senate Foreign
Relations Committee May 17, 2001. Senate Foreign Relations Committee markup
held July 26. Committee reported bill to the Senate (S.Rept. 107-60) on Septemberth
State Department Issues
CRS Report RL30662. Embassy Security: Background, Funding, and the Budget,
by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RS20855. Foreign Policy Budget for FY2002, by Susan Epstein and
CRS Report RL31046. Foreign Relations Authorization, FY2002/2003: An
Overview, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Report RL30926. State Department and Related Agencies FY2002
Appropriations, by Susan B. Epstein.
CRS Issue Brief IB86116. U.N. System Funding: Congressional Issues, by Vita Bite.
CRS Report RL31011. Appropriations for FY2002: Foreign Operations, Export
Financing, and Related Programs, by Larry Nowels.
Other Related Agencies
Background and Current Issues
This section includes all other related agencies covered by title V of the CJS36
appropriations bill whose FY2001 appropriations exceeded $1.8 million. The CJS
appropriations also cover funding for several relatively small governmental functions,
including several special government commissions. (For additional information on the
funding of other related agencies covered by this legislation, see: Budget of the Unitedthnd
States Government, Fiscal Year 2001–Appendix (106 Cong., 2 sess.))
Maritime Administration (MARAD). MARAD administers programs that
aid in the development, promotion, and operation of the Nation’s merchant marine
(including programs that benefit vessel owners, shipyards, and ship crews). The
Administration requested $103 million for MARAD for FY2002, $116.5 million less
36 Agencies which have received appropriations of less than $1.8 million include: Commission
for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad ($490 thousand in FY2001; $489 thousand
requested for FY2002); Commission on Electronic Commerce (newly created body, FY2000
funding was $1.4 million; no additional funding in FY2001or FY2002 request); Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe ($1.37 million for FY2001; $1.5 million requested for
FY2002t); the Marine Mammal Commission ($1.7 million for FY2001; $1.7 million requested
for FY2002), Commission on Ocean Policy ($1 million for 2001; nothing requested for
FY2002), and the newly created Congressional/Executive Commission on China ($500
thousand for 2001; $500 thousand requested for FY2002).
than Congress appropriated in FY2001. MARAD’s proposed budget for FY2002 is
less than half of its enacted FY2001 budget because the Administration’s budget calls
for the Department of Transportation (DOT) to shift $98 million to the Department
of Defense (DOD) for the Maritime Security Program (MSP). MSP consists of
privately-owned, U.S. flag, and U.S. crewed liner fleet in international trade that are
available to support DOD sustainment in a contingency. Zero funding for FY2002
was recommended for the Title XI Guaranteed Loan Program which insures financing
for construction of U.S. built ships and U.S. shipyard modernization and
improvement. No new commitments for loan guarantees are projected for the Federal
Ship Financing Fund as this Fund is used only to underwrite guarantees made under
the Title XI loan guarantee program prior to 1992. The Administration recommended
$89.1 million for operating MARAD and training ship crews for FY2002, which is
$2.3 million more than Congress appropriated in FY2001. The Administration
proposed $10 million for a new category – Ship Disposal, which is intended to
dispose of at least three obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $231.7 million for
MARAD for FY 2002, $12.6 million more than was appropriated in FY 2001. The
House’s funding level was $128.7 million more than the Administration’s request
because the House budget maintains the MSP program ($98.7 million) under DOT
and includes $30 million for the Title XI Guaranteed Loan Program (versus the
Administration’s zero funding). The House Committee’s recommendation also
included $89.1 million for operations and training, and $10 million for ship disposal,
both equal to the President’s request. The House-passed bill approved the
The Senate Committee recommended $291.7 million for MARAD for FY 2002,
which was $72.6 million more than was appropriated in FY 2001, $60 million more
than the House’s recommendation and $188.7 more than the President requested.
The Senate recommended $100 million for the Title XI Guaranteed Loan Program,
$70 million more than the House recommended and $100 million more than the
President’s request. The Senate recommended zero funding for the Ship Disposal
Program versus the House and President’s recommendation of $10 million. The
Senate recommended $98.7 million for the MSP program and that the program
remain under DOT rather than be shifted to the DOD as the Administration requested.
The Senate recommended $89.1 million for operations and training, equal to the
House and Administration’s request. The Senate-passed bill approved the
The conference agreement included $98.7 million for MSP, $89.1 million for
operations and training, and $33 million for the Title XI Guaranteed Loan Program.
The conference agreement provided no funding for ship disposal.
The Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA is an independent
federal agency created by the Small Business Act of 1953. While the agency
administers a number of programs intended to assist small firms, arguably its three
most important functions are to guarantee — principally through the agency’s 7(a)
general business loan program — business loans made by banks and other financial
institutions; to make long-term, low-interest loans to victims of hurricanes,
earthquakes, other physical disasters, and acts of terrorism; and to serve as an
advocate for small business within the federal government.37
For FY2001, the Administration had requested a total appropriation of $1,057.8
million — a figure which included $50.5 million in an emergency supplemental
appropriation to support the agency’s disaster loan program. This compared to a
$847 million CJS appropriation for SBA for FY2000. More specifically, the FY2001
request included $419 million for Salaries & Expenses (S&E), an increase of $96.3
million over the FY2000 appropriation.38
For FY2001, the House CJS bill followed the recommendation of the
Appropriations Committee. An amendment, however, added $4.5 million for the
Women’s Business Centers program. The result: a total FY2001 appropriation for
SBA of $860.7 million, including $304.1 million for S&E. For its part, the Senate
Appropriation Committee recommended a total FY2001 appropriation for SBA of
$887.5 million, including $143.5 for S&E. The conference agreement did not split
funding for non-credit business assistance programs into a separate account, as
proposed in the budget request and the Senate-reported amendment, but rather
included funding for such programs under this account.
For FY2002, the Administration requested a total appropriation for SBA of
$539 million (and an additional carryover balance of $37.9 million in the agency’s
Disaster Loan Programs account). In December 2000, Congress approved a total
FY2001 appropriation for SBA of $899.5 million. Thus, the FY2002 request
represented a decrease of $360.5 million from the previous year. SBA’s FY2002
budget request, however, asserted that the agency would be able to maintain or
increase its assistance to small business with reduced resources, mainly by increasing
user fees and restructuring disaster relief funding.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended a $727.9 million CJS
appropriation for the SBA for FY2002, which included $303.6 million for S&E.
Notably, the recommendation included $77 million for the guaranteed loan subsidy
for the 7(a) program, whereas — as noted above — the Administration sought to
offset the subsidy cost by increasing user fees. The full House increased SBA’s
funding to $744.9 million with transfers from the Department of State and the
Department of Commerce. The Senate-passed bill recommended $773.5 million,
$28.6 million more than the House-passed level and $231.5 million more than was
The conference agreement provided the SBA with a total appropriation of
$768.5 million for FY2002, including $308.5 million for S&E.
SBA’s Response to the Terrorist Attack. Following the terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center, the SBA dispatched employees to New York City. The
37 For information about the SBA, see Small Business Administration: Overview and Issues,
CRS Report 96-649, by Bruce K. Mulock
38 For the SBA, the category “Salaries and Expenses” includes a host of non-credit programs
SBA worked in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the American Red Cross and other federal, state and local agencies in
support of the New York City Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (NYOEM)
to assist the residents of New York City who were stricken by the terrorist attacks.
SBA loan officers were available in Disaster Recovery Centers located
throughout the disaster area to assist business owners and individuals. SBA disaster
assistance was available not only to small firms; the agency made loans to businesses
of all sizes, nonprofit organizations, homeowners and renters. In addition to Physical
Disaster Loans to repair or replace disaster damage to property and Economic Injury
Disaster Loans (EIDL) to cover operating expenses businesses could have afforded
to pay if the disaster had not occurred, the agency also administered a Military
Reservists EIDL program.39 The purpose of the MREIDL program was to provide
funds to eligible small businesses to meet their ordinary and necessary operating
expenses they could have met, but were unable to meet, because of essential40
employees being “called-up” to active duty in their role as military reservists. Details
on SBA’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks can be accessed from the
agency’s home page at [http://www.sba.gov/]. These programs fell within the funding
purposes enumerated in the emergency supplement appropriations bill (H.R. 2888)
passed by Congress in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001
Legal Services Corporation. LSC is a private, non-profit, federally-funded
corporation that provides grants to local offices that, in turn, provide legal assistance
to low-income people in civil (non-criminal) cases. The LSC has been controversial
since its inception in the early 1970s, and has been operating without authorizing
legislation since 1980. There have been ongoing debates over the adequacy of
funding for the agency, and the extent to which certain types of activities are
appropriate for federally funded legal aid attorneys to undertake. In annual
appropriations laws, Congress traditionally has included legislative provisions
restricting the activities of LSC-funded grantees, such as prohibiting representation
in certain types of cases or conducting any lobbying activities.
P.L. 106-553 included $330 million for LSC for FY2001. This is $25 million
higher than the FY2000 LSC appropriation and $10 million lower than the Clinton
Administration’s FY2001 budget request. The LSC appropriation includes $310
million for basic field programs and independent audits, $10.8 million for management
and administration, $2.2 million for the inspector general, and $7 million for client
self-help and information technology. It should be noted that P.L. 106-554 mandated
39 In response to the need of victims of September 11, SBA officials acted administratively
to provide greater access to the EIDL program. Previously, only business located in declared
disaster ares were eligible for the EIDL program. Under the new regulations, EIDL assistance
is available nationwide to eligible small businesses that have suffered substantial economic
injury as a direct result of the September 11 attacks or a federal action taken in response to
40 For information on the impact of the terrorist attacks on small business, an overview of the
SBA’s disaster assistance programs, and summaries of proposed legislation, see CRS Report
RS21061, Small Business Disaster Assistance: Responding to the Terrorist Attacks, by
Bruce K. Mulock.
a 0.22 percent government-wide rescission of discretionary budget authority for
FY2001 for almost all government agencies. Thus, the $330 million appropriation for
LSC for FY2001 was reduced to $329.3 million.
For FY2002, the Bush Administration requested $329.3 million for the LSC,
which included $310 million for basic field programs, $12.4 million for management
and administration, $4.4 million for client self-help and information technology, and
$2.5 million for the inspector general. The budget request also continued all
restrictions on LSC-funded activities currently in effect. The Administration’s
FY2002 request for LSC ($329.3 million) was the same as the amount currently
obligated for the program for FY2001. Historically, the Corporation’s highest level
of funding was $400 million in FY1994 and FY1995.
For FY2002, the House and Senate also recommended a total of $329.3 for LSC
and included existing provisions restricting the activities of LSC grantees. In carrying
out LSC’s vision of an effective and efficient statewide system of delivering legal
services to the poor, grantees have been merging and reconfiguring their legal services
programs to better use every federal dollar allocated to them. The House Committee
report indicated concern about the LSC overruling, without appeal, certain
configurations implemented by grantees via the state planning process. The House
Committee report directed the LSC to review the state planning process and the
concerns raised and report back to the Committee by September 4, 2001, with a
proposal (that includes input from the stakeholders) that outlines the reconfiguration41
standards and the process for states to appeal LSC’s decisions.
P.L. 107-77 included $329.3 million for LSC for FY2002. This is identical to
the FY2001 appropriation for LSC (after the rescission) and the Bush
Administration’s FY2002 budget request for LSC. The LSC appropriation for
FY2002 included $310 million for basic field programs, $12.4 million for management
and administration, $4.4 million for client self-help and information technology, and
$2.5 million for the inspector general. P.L. 107-77 also included existing provisions
restricting the activities of LSC grantees.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The Commission
enforces laws banning employment discrimination based on race, color, national
origin, sex, age or disability. The EEOC’s workload has increased dramatically since
the agency first was created under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Passage
of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as
well as employees’ growing awareness of their rights, have made it difficult for the
agency’s budget and staffing resources to keep pace with its heightened caseload.
Congress approved $279 million for the agency’s FY1999 budget, an increase
of $37 million. The following year the appropriation rose minimally to $282 million.
Although the Commission received $21 million more for FY2001 ($303 million), the
increase was about half of that requested by the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless,
41 In response to the request made by the House, the following report was prepared by LSC:
Legal Services Corporation. A Special Report to Congress. State Planning and
Reconfiguration. September 2001.
the funding increases of the last few years enabled the EEOC to cut by 69% the
backlog of private sector charges from a high of 111,000 in mid-1995 and reduce the
average processing time for private sector charges to 216 days. (The latter was
largely due to the Commission’s expanded use of alternative dispute resolution
procedures, e.g. mediation).
President Bush requested $310.4 million for FY2002 – an increase of $7.2
million – to allow the agency to further enhance its record in its private sector
program and make improvements in its federal sector program, among other things.
The House approved the President’s request for $310.4 million to fund the EEOC.
The House Committee directed the Commission to continue reducing the backlog of
private sector discrimination charges and continue at least its current spending level
($1.8 million) on contract mediation, which is in addition to the mediation performed
by EEOC staff. It expressed concern about the still high level of these charges and
expects the agency to exceed the small (6%) backlog reduction that was assumed in
the Administration’s budget request. The Senate version of CJS provided the same
level of funding–$310.4 million–as requested by the Administration and passed by the
House for the EEOC. Congress enacted that level for EEOC in FY2002.
Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission collects and studies
information on discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws. It received
an appropriation of $8.9 million in FY2001 and FY2000. The President’s request for
FY2002 called for a slight increase to $9.1 million. The House and the Senate agreed
to provide the Administration’s request which Congress enacted.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC is an
independent agency charged with regulation of interstate and foreign communication
by means of radio, television, wire, cable and satellite. For FY2002 Congress
approved total funding for the FCC of $245.1 million, a 6.8% increase over FY2001
resources of $229.5 million. The amount enacted was $6.5 million more than the
$238.6 million approved by the House and $7.5 million less than the Senate bill42
amount of $252.5 million. Of the $245.1 million total, $218.8 million is to be
derived from offsetting fee collections, as provided in both the House and Senate bills,
resulting in a net direct appropriation of $26.3 million. The Commission had
requested $248.5 million in total funding, an 8.3% increase over FY2001 resources.43
In their report, House-Senate conferees reiterated concerns, expressed earlier by
both Appropriations Committees, about “the declining standards of broadcast
televison and the impact of this decline on Americas’s children.”44 The conferees
42 The House and Senate-passed amounts both included $218.8 million in offsetting regulatory
fees as requested by the Commission, while the House provided for a direct appropriation of
$19.8 million and the Senate approved a direct appropriation of $33.8 million.
43 The FCC request consisted of $218.8 million in offsetting regulatory fees and a direct
appropriation of $29.8 million.
44 The House Committee said it hoped the Commission would take “greater steps toward
carrying out its responsibilities” under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, Section 1464. The
procedures developed by the FCC for addressing “obscene, indecent, or profane, language by
added that they expected the FCC to “continue in its efforts to address these
The conference agreement said that it did not include Senate report language
which had recommended $4 million for the Commission’s Excellence in Engineering
program. Instead, the conferees recommended that the FCC pursue a “modified
approach to an ‘Excellence in Engineering’ effort.”45
In keeping with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results
Act, the FCC, as part of its FY2002 budget request, set forth its overall mission and
general and specific goals for a five-year time frame.
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). The FMC regulates a large part of
the waterborne foreign commerce of the United States. The Administration requested
$16.5 million for the FMC for FY2002, $1 million more than Congress appropriated
in FY 2001. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $15.5 million,
which was equal to the amount enacted for FY 2001 and $1 million less than the
President’s request. The House-passed bill approved the Committee’s
recommendations. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $17.5
million, which was about $2 million more than Congress appropriated in FY 2001 and
$1 million more than the President’s request. The Senate-passed bill approved the
Committee’s recommendations. The conference agreement provided $16.5 million
for the FMC, equal to the Administration’s request.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC, an independent agency,
is responsible for enforcing a number of federal antitrust and consumer protection
laws. In recent years the FTC has used pre-merger filing fees collected under the
Hart-Scott-Rodino Act to entirely fund its operations; Zero ($0) direct appropriations
have been required.
means of radio communication,” the Committee said, “are cumbersome and reactive only.”
The Committee, at the same time, commended “recent FCC efforts to take a more aggressive
stance in curbing an assault of obscene matter over the airwaves while remaining cognizant
of the constitutional rights of our citizens.”
In a similar vein, the Senate Appropriations Committee expressed its concern about “the
declining standards of broadcast television and the impact this decline is having on America’s
children.” The Committee referred to an analysis of all prime-time programming which, it
said, had found a tripling in overall sexual content, foul language and violence over the past
decade. The Committee directed the FCC to continue to report to Congress on the issues
associated with “resurrecting a broadcast industry code of conduct for content of
programming that, if adhered to by the broadcast industry, would protect against the further
erosion of broadcasting standards.”
45 “The purpose of this effort,” the conference report said, “would be to reestablish the
engineering preeminence of the Commission which must be more fluent in technology than the
entities it regulates. The conferees recommend that the Commission establish a means by
which colleges and universities may submit proposals to advance cooperative efforts towards
excellence in engineering.” The conferees directed the Commission, before taking any action
in this regard, to first submit a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
For FY2001, the Administration requested an increase in the FTC’s program
level from $125 million to $164.6 million. The FY2001 request included $7 million
derived from estimated FY2000 carryover fee balances and an anticipated $157.6
million from pre-merger filing fees; therefore, as was the case the previous year, for
FY2001 the FTC requested no net direct appropriation. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended a CJS appropriation of $134.8 million for the agency for
FY2001. That request included $13.7 million derived from estimated FY2000
carryover fee balances and an anticipated $121.1 million for pre-merger filing fees.
The House bill mirrored the committee’s recommendation.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended a program level for the
agency for FY2001 of $159.5 million, to be derived exclusively from the collection
of pre-merger filing fees.
The conference agreement approved by Congress in December 2000 included
a total operating level of $147.2 million for the FTC for FY2001. The conference
agreement assumed that, of the amount provided, $145.3 million would be derived
from fees collected in FY2001 and $1.9 million would be derived from estimated
unobligated fee collections available from FY2000. These actions resulted in a final
direct appropriation of zero ($0).
For FY2002 the Administration requested a program level of $156.3 million for
the FTC, an increase of $9.1 million over the current year appropriation. All of the
funding would come from offsetting collections derived from fees collected for pre-
merger filings during FY2002, so as to result in a final direct appropriation of zero
($0). The House approved a slightly smaller funding level: $156 million. The Senate-
passed bill recommended $156.3 million. This amount, too, would be entirely derived
from fees collected by the agency.
Congress provided the FTC with $156 million for FY2002.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC administers and
enforces federal securities laws in order to protect investors and to maintain fair and
orderly stock and bond markets. The SEC collects fees on various securities market
transactions. In recent years, these collections have exceeded the agency’s budget by
a wide margin. Legislation before the 107th Congress (S. 143 and H.R. 1088)
proposed reducing these fees.
In 2000, Congress approved a total operating level of $422.8 million for the SEC
for FY2001, an increase of $55.0 million over FY2000. The figure was comprised
of $127.8 million in offsetting fee collections for FY2001 and $295 million in FY1999
collections. The result: no direct appropriations were required for the agency for
For FY2002, the Administration requested a total operating level of $437.9
million for the SEC, an increase of $15.1 million over FY2001. As was the case in
FY2001, no direct appropriations would be needed – instead, the SEC would be
funded entirely by current and prior year fee collections.
The House approved SEC spending at the level of the Administration’s request:
$437.9 million, of which $109.5 million would come from fees collected in FY2002
and the remaining $324.4 million from prior-year fees. The Senate approved a higher
amount - $514.0 million ($109.5 million from current year fees and $404.5 million
from FY2000 fees). The conference agreement adopted the House proposal. No
direct appropriations would be needed.
The State Justice Institute (SJI). The Institute is a private, non-profit
corporation that makes grants and conducts other activities to further the
development of judicial administration in State courts throughout the United States.
Under the terms of its enabling legislation, SJI is authorized to present its request
directly to Congress, apart from the President’s budget. The Institute requested
$15.0 million for FY2002, more than double its FY2001 funding amount of $6.835
million.46 Congress, however, scaled back the SJI appropriation for FY2002
significantly, approving $3.0 million, instead of $6.835 million and $6.2 million
approved by the House and Senate respectively. (Separate from the Institute’s
request, the President had requested the same funding amount for SJI as appropriated
for FY2001—$6.835 million.47)
The conference report stated that the $3.0 million appropriated for the SJI is
“available for fiscal year 2002 only” and that the conferees did not recommend
continued federal support for the Institute beyond FY2002. “The termination of
funding for this program,” the report explained, “does not necessarily mean the
dissolution of the Institute. The conferees encourage the Institute to solicit private
donations and resources from State and local agencies.”
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). USTR is located in the
Executive Office of the President. USTR is the chief trade negotiator for the United
States and is responsible for developing and coordinating U.S. international trade and
direct investment policies. The President’s FY2002 request was $30.1 million, just
slightly above the amount ($29.5 million) approved by Congress for FY2001. The
House and Senate approved funding the President’s full FY2002 request, which was
enacted by Congress.
U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). ITC is an independent,
quasi-judicial agency that advises the President and Congress on the impact of U.S.
foreign economic policies on U.S. industries and is charged with implementing various
U.S. trade remedy laws. Its six commissioners are appointed by the President for 9-
46 In its FY2002 budget submission to Congress, the Institute stated that the financial
assistance it provided “is an especially appropriate form of Federal assistance because it
enables all 50 State court systems — as well as the Federal courts — to benefit from the
innovations and improvements made in any one State’s court system. The Institute’s grants
spark those innovations and transfer information about them to every other court system in
the country. No Federal agency can match the scope of the Institute’s authority, and no state
can fulfill its national mission.”
47 The President’s budget request stated that appropriations for SJI in FY2002 were “intended
to provide for continuation of Institute operations at a reduced level.” Appendix; Budget of
the United States Government; Fiscal Year 2002, p. 1222.
year terms. Its budget request was submitted to Congress by the President without
revision. For FY2002, ITC requested $51.4 million, a $3.4 million increase over the
FY2001 level ($48.1 million). The House and Senate approved funding the full
FY2002 request, and Congress passed that amount.
U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. The
Commission, established in P.L. 105-292, is an independent agency charged with the
annual and ongoing review and reporting of the facts and circumstances of violations
of religious freedom. The appropriation for FY1999 was $3 million. No additional
funds were appropriated for FY2000 or FY2001. The Bush Administration requested
$3 million for this Commission for FY2002 with which the House agreed. The Senate
bill provided no funding. Congress passed the requested amount of $3 million.
H.R. 518 (Regula et al.)
Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to revise the injury threshold the International
Trade Commission must consider to determine the risk of increased imports to a
domestic industry producing like or directly competitive articles in escape clause
(Sec.201) actions. Introduced February 7, 2001; referred to House Ways and Means
H.R. 1988 (English et al.); S. 979 (Durbin et al.)
Amends the Trade Act of 1974 to revise the injury threshold the International
Trade Commission must consider to determine the risk of increased imports to a
domestic industry producing like or directly competitive articles in escape clause
(Sec.201) actions. Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to revise various factors that the
Commission must consider in making material injury determinations in countervailing
duty and antidumping duty proceedings. H.R. 1988 introduced May 24, 2001;
referred to House Ways and Means Committee. S. 979 introduced May 26, 2001;
referred to Senate Finance Committee.
S. 422 (Wellstone); H.R. 837 (Oberstar et al.)
Directs the International Trade Commission to consider U.S. produced taconite
pellets to be like or directly competitive with semifinished steel slab for purposes of:
(1) Section 201 injury determinations, and (2) antidumping or countervailing duty
determinations. S. 422 introduced March 1, 2001; referred to Senate Finance
Committee. H.R. 837 introduced March 7, 2001; referred to House Ways and Means
S. 187 (Snowe et al.); H.R. 1782 (Manzullo et al.)
Small Business Export Enhancement Act of 2001 - Amends the Trade Act of
1974 to establish in the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) the
position of Assistant USTR for Small Business to promote the trade interests of small
businesses, remove foreign trade barriers that impede small business exporters, and
enforce existing trade agreements beneficial to small businesses. S. 187 introduced
January 25, 2001; referred to the Senate Budget and Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee. H.R. 1782 introduced May 9, 2001; referred to House Committee on
Ways and Means.
S. 714 (Snowe et al.)
Expresses the sense of Congress that the U.S. Trade Representative should
pursue the establishment of a small business advocate at the World Trade
Organization (WTO) to safeguard the interests of small firms and represent those
interests in trade negotiations involving the WTO. Introduced April 5, 2001; referred
to the Senate Finance Committee.
S. 19 (Daschle et al.)
Protecting Civil Rights for All Americans Act. Would authorize $400 million for
the Legal Services Corporation for FY2002. Introduced January 22, 2001; referred
to S. Judiciary Committee.
CRS Report 95-178. Legal Services Corporation; Basic Facts and Current Status,
by Carmen Solomon-Fears.
Appendix. Appropriations Funding for Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies, FY2001 and FY2002
Title I. Department of Justice
FY2001FY2002House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Office of Justice Programs4,657.43,673.04,333.94,147.14,293.3
Interagency Law Enforcement 325.1338.1340.2337.0338.6
Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) 3,245.1 3,507.1 3,492.3 3,469.1 3,524.9
Immigration and Naturalization
Federal Prison System4,306.44,666.14,648.04,689.54,625.6
Other 759.7 468.3 472.1 620.3 430.5
Total: Justice Department21,049.521,107.821,723.321,544.721,661.9
Title II. Department of Commerce and Related Agencies
FY2001 FY2002 House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Bureau of the Census432.7543.4519.8517.1490.8
Economic and Statistical Analysis53.662.562.562.562.5
Administration 333.7 329.6 344.7 344.1 344.5
Bureau of Export Administration64.768.968.968.968.9
Minority Business Development
Agency 27.2 28.4 28.4 28.4 28.4
National Oceanic and
Patent and Trademark Officea(1,037.0)(1,139.0)(1,129.0)(1,139.0)(1,126.0)
National Institute of Standards
National Telecommunications and
Administration 438.9 365.5 365.6 371.6 365.6
FY2001 FY2002 House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Subtotal: Commerce Department5,152.85,089.45,108.75,596.85,430.4
Office of the U.S. Trade
Representative 29.5 30.1 30.1 30.1 30.1
International Trade Commission48.051.451.451.451.4
Subtotal: Related Agencies77.481.581.581.581.5
Total: Dept. of Commerce and
Title III. Judiciary
FY2001 FY2002 (H.R. (H.R. FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest2500)2500)Enacted
Supreme Court — salaries and
expenses 37.5 42.1 42.1 40.0 40.0
Supreme Court — building and
grounds 7.5 117.7 70.0 7.5 37.5
U.S. Court of Appeals for the
U.S. Court of International Trade12.422.214.171.124.1
Courts of Appeals, District
Courts, other judicial services —
salaries and expenses3,352.93,735.83,631.93,559.03,591.1
Vaccine Injury Act Trust Fund126.96.36.199.72.7
Fees of Jurors and
Commissioners 59.4 50.1 48.1 50.1 48.1
Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts 58.2 63.0 60.0 58.2 61.7
Federal Judicial Center18.720.320.219.719.7
U.S. Sentencing Commission9.912.411.611.311.6
General Provisions – Judges’ Pay
Raise 8.8 8.0 0.0 8.6 8.6
Title IV. Department of State and International Broadcasting
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Administration of Foreign
Affairs 4,777.2 5,665.8 5,580.7 5,196.9 5,549.2
International Organizations and
Conferences 1,713.1 1,722.9 1,694.1 1,864.5 1,694.1
International Commissions 56.163.260.359.360.5
Subtotal: State Departmentc6,600.87,506.57,388.27,174.67,361.5
Total: State Department, and
Title V. Other Related Agencies
FY2001 FY2002 (H.R. Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Small Business Administration857.6542.0744.9773.5738.5
Legal Services Corporation329.3329.3329.3329.3329.3
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on Civil Rights188.8.131.52.19.1
Commission (FCC) 29.329.819.833.826.3
Federal Maritime Commission15.516.515.517.516.5
Federal Trade Commissione0.00.00.00.00.0
Securities and Exchangef
State Justice Institute6.815.0g184.108.40.206
U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom-.-3.03.00.03.0
Other 1.9 h 11.2 13.8 14.8 15.5
Total: Related Agencies2,196.51,804.22,119.22,300.42,114.2
Title VI. General Provisions
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Title VII. Rescissions
FY2001 FY2002 House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Department of Justice–––––
Working capital fund0.00.00.00.00.0
Asset forfeiture fund0.00.00.00.0-40.0
Federal Bureau of
Investigation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Administration – – – 0.0 0.0
Drug diversion fund 8.00.00.00.00.0
Department of Commerce,
Department of State and
activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 126.6 0.0
Broadcasting Board of
Governors 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
operations 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
loan (Title XI
program) 7.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Administration 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Business Loans Program
Account 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -5.5
Exch.Commission 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -50.0
FY2001 FY2002 House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Wildlife Conservation and
Total Appropriation Funding, Titles I-IX, FY2001 and FY2002
FY2001FY2002House Senate FY2002
Department or AgencyEnactedRequest(H.R. 2500)(H.R. 2500)Enacted
Sources: U.S. House of Representatives. Committee on Appropriation.
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Figures are for direct appropriations only; in some
cases, agencies supplement these amount with offsetting fee collections, including collections carried
over from previous years. These agencies include: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Patent
and Trademark Office, Small Business Administration, Federal Communications Commission,
Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information on such
fees are contained in the background and issues sections of this report.
a The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is fully funded by user fees. The fees collected, but not
obligated during the current year, are available for obligation in the following fiscal year.
b As of October 1, 1999 both USIA and ACDA were consolidated into the Department of State.
International Broadcasting remains an independent agency.
c In addition to appropriations, State has authority to spend certain collected fees from machine readable
visas, expedited export fees, etc. For FY2000 this amount equals $322.1 million; the estimated
amount for such fees for FY2001 is $390.9 million. The President’s FY2002 request includes use
of $414.2 million in collected fees.
d For FY2001, Congress approved $229.5 million in overall funding resources for the FCC, consisting
of a direct appropriation of $29.3 million and $200.1 million in offsetting regulatory fee collections.
The President requested $248.5 million in overall FY2002 funding resources, consisting of a direct
appropriation of $29.8 million and $218.8 million in offsetting fee collections. The House approved
$238.6 million in overall FY2002 funding resources, consisting of a direct appropriation of $19.8
million and $218.8 million in offsetting collections. The Senate approved $252.5 million in overall
FY2002 funding resources, consisting of a direct appropriation of $33.8 million and $218.8 million
in offsetting collections. Congress enacted $245.1 million for FY2002, consisting of a direct
appropriation of $26.3 million and $218.8 million in offsetting collections.
e The FTC is fully funded by the collection of pre-merger filing fees.
f The SEC is fully funded by transaction fees and securities registration fees.
g Under the terms of its enabling legislation, the State Justice Institute is authorized to present its budget
request directly to Congress. For FY2002, the Institute requested $15 million—as distinguished
from the President’s request, which called for $6.8 million.
h Other includes agencies receiving appropriations of less than $1.8 million in FY1999 and FY2000.
These agencies include Commission for the Preservation of American Heritage Abroad; Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Commission on Electronic Commerce; the Marine Mammal
Commission, the Commission on Ocean Policy, and the Congressional/Executive Commission on