57–676 PDF 

Calendar No. 497 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 111–238 

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011 

JULY 29, 2010.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DURBIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 3677] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3677) making appropriations for financial services and general government 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2011 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $48,295,857,000 

Amount of 2010 appropriations 1 ............................. 46,433,993,000 

Amount of 2011 budget estimate ............................ 48,219,254,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2010 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,861,864,000 

2011 budget estimate ........................................ ∂76,603,000 1 Includes $125,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in Public Law 

111–118, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010; $60,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in Public Law 111–144, the Temporary Extension 

Act of 2010; and $80,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in Public 

Law 111–157, the Continuing Extension Act of 2010. 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Overview and Summary of Bill .............................................................................. 5 

Title I: Department of the Treasury: 

Departmental Offices ....................................................................................... 9 

Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs ............ 13 

Office of the Inspector General ................................................................ 14 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration .............................. 15 

Special Inspector General for Troubled Asset Relief Program .............. 16 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ........................................................ 18 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund ................................................................................ 19 

Financial Management Service ....................................................................... 19 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau .................................................. 20 

United States Mint ........................................................................................... 21 

Bureau of the Public Debt ............................................................................... 21 

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund ................................. 22 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing ................................................................. 23 

Internal Revenue Service ................................................................................. 24 

Taxpayer Services ..................................................................................... 26 

Enforcement ............................................................................................... 30 

Operations Support ................................................................................... 32 

Business Systems Modernization ............................................................. 33 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ......................................... 34 

Administrative Provisions—Internal Revenue Service .......................... 34 

Administrative Provisions—Department of the Treasury ............................. 35 

Title II: Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the 

President: 

Compensation of the President ....................................................................... 37 

The White House .............................................................................................. 37 

Executive Residence at the White House ....................................................... 38 

White House Repair and Restoration ............................................................. 38 

Council of Economic Advisers .......................................................................... 39 

National Security Council and Homeland Security Council ......................... 39 

Office of Administration ................................................................................... 39 

Office of Management and Budget .................................................................. 40 

Government-wide Management Councils ....................................................... 41 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................................... 42 

Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center ......................................... 43 

Funds Appropriated to the President: 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ................................................... 43 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs .................................................... 45 

Unanticipated Needs ........................................................................................ 47 

Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation .................................... 47 

Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information Technology .......... 48 

Special Assistance to the President ................................................................ 49 

Official Residence of the Vice President ......................................................... 49 

Administrative Provisions—Executive Office of the President and Funds 

Appropriated to the President ..................................................................... 49 

Title III: The Judiciary: 

Supreme Court of the United States .............................................................. 51 

Care of the Building and Grounds .................................................................. 52 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ............................... 53 

United States Court of International Trade ................................................... 54 

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ................. 54 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund ................................................................ 56 

Defender Services ............................................................................................. 56 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners ................................................................. 57 

Court Security ................................................................................................... 57 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts ........................................ 57 

Federal Judicial Center .................................................................................... 58 

Judicial Retirement Funds .............................................................................. 58 

United States Sentencing Commission ........................................................... 59 

Administrative Provisions—The Judiciary ..................................................... 59 

Title IV—District of Columbia: 

Federal Funds: 

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support ...................................... 60 

Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the 

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 61 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts ............................ 62 

Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts .................................. 63 

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency for the District of Columbia ..................................................... 64 

Federal Payment to the Public Defender Service for the District 

of Columbia ............................................................................................ 65 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ..................................................................................................... 65 

Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council .......... 66 

Federal Payment for Judicial Commissions ............................................ 67 

Federal Payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the 

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 68 

Federal Payment for School Improvement .............................................. 69 

Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform ......................... 74 

Federal Payment for Consolidated Laboratory Facility ......................... 74 

Federal Payment for the D.C. National Guard ....................................... 75 

Federal Payment for Housing for the Homeless ..................................... 76 

Federal Payment for Reconnecting Disconnected Youth ....................... 76 

Federal Payment for Redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths Hospital 

Campus ................................................................................................... 77 

Federal Payment for HIV/AIDS Prevention ............................................ 77 

District of Columbia Funds ............................................................................. 78 

Title V—Independent Agencies: 

Administrative Conference of the United States ........................................... 79 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation .............................................. 79 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ...................................................... 80 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................... 82 

Election Assistance Commission ..................................................................... 83 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................................ 84 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General .......... 85 

Federal Election Commission .......................................................................... 86 

Federal Labor Relations Authority ................................................................. 86 

Federal Trade Commission .............................................................................. 87 

General Services Administration .................................................................... 89 

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation ...................................................... 100 

Merit Systems Protection Board ..................................................................... 101 

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation ....................................... 101 

National Archives and Records Administration ............................................. 102 

National Credit Union Administration ........................................................... 107 

Office of Government Ethics ............................................................................ 108 

Office of Personnel Management ..................................................................... 109 

Office of Special Counsel .................................................................................. 113 

Postal Regulatory Commission ........................................................................ 114 

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ................................................. 116 

Securities and Exchange Commission ............................................................ 116 

Selective Service System .................................................................................. 120 

Small Business Administration ....................................................................... 121 

United States Postal Service ........................................................................... 129 

Office of Inspector General ....................................................................... 131 

United States Tax Court .................................................................................. 132 

Title VI—General Provisions—This Act ................................................................ 134 

Title VII—General Provisions—Government-wide ............................................... 136 

Title VIII—General Provisions—District of Columbia ......................................... 140 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 142 
Page

4 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 143 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 143 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 156 

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 157 

Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority ............................................... 163 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

The Financial Services and General Government appropriations 

bill provides funding for the Department of the Treasury, including 

the Internal Revenue Service; the Executive Office of the President; 

the Judiciary; the District of Columbia; and more than two dozen 

independent Federal agencies. The Committee recommends $48,295,857,000 in discretionary 

and mandatory appropriations. This represents an increase of 

$1,861,864,000 over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and an increase of $76,603,000 over the budget request. Of the total, 

$25,400,000,000 is provided in discretionary appropriations consistent with Committee spending guidance, and $117,751,000 below 

the budget request of $25,517,751,000. Mandatory appropriations 

total $22,895,857,000. 

The Committee-recommended bill is consistent with the approved 

subcommittee allocation guidance for the Financial Services and 

General Government appropriations bill. The Committee has made 

difficult but necessary decisions to craft a bill that is within strict 

fiscal limitations. 

PROJECT FUNDING 

Agency 

Items in Senate bill at President’s request Congressionally 

directed spending in Senate bill 

Department of the Treasury ........................................................................................ .............................. $2,400,000 

District of Columbia ................................................................................................... .............................. 1,000,000 

General Services Administration ................................................................................. $997,532,000 92,000,000 

Office of National Drug Control Policy ....................................................................... 2,187,500 ..............................

Small Business Administration .................................................................................. .............................. 28,600,000 

Total ............................................................................................................... 999,719,500 124,000,000 

Combined Total Project Funding in bill ........................................................ 1,123,719,500 

The Small Business Administration account includes congressionally directed spending totaling $28,600,000 for 117 projects. 

The President did not request any specific projects. The Committee 

includes one congressionally directed spending item for the District 

of Columbia and one for the Department of the Treasury. Within 

the funds provided for the General Services Administration, the 

President requested $997,532,000, of which $676,362,000 is for construction of designated Federal buildings and $321,170,000 is for 

repair of designated Federal buildings. The Committee includes 

$92,000,000 for one Federal building construction project not included in the President’s request but which is the top priority of 

the judiciary. The Committee includes funding for two drug programs within the Office of National Drug Control Policy that were 

requested by the President. 
6 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2011, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as 

amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ [PPA] shall 

mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports 

and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. 

REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES 

The Committee includes a provision (sec. 608) establishing the 

authority of agencies to reprogram funds and the limitation on that 

authority. The provision specifically requires the advance approval 

of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, project, or activity [PPA]; (3) increases funds or 

personnel for any PPA for which funds have been denied or restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds that were 

directed in such reports for a specific activity to a different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 

percent, whichever is less; (6) reduces an existing PPA by 

$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (7) creates, reorganizes, or restructures offices different from the congressional budget justifications or the table at the end of the Committee report, 

whichever is more detailed. 

The Committee retains the requirement that each agency submit 

an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming and transfer 

authorities provided in this act. Specifically, each agency should 

provide a table for each appropriation with columns displaying the 

budget request; adjustments made by Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the fiscal year enacted level. The table 

shall delineate the appropriation both by object class and by PPA. 

The report must also identify items of special congressional interest. 

The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a detailed 

justification of increases and reductions and the specific impact the 

proposed changes will have on the budget request for the following 

fiscal year. Except in emergency situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later than June 30. 

The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs and 

activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should be 

submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or a situation that could not have been anticipated when formulating the 

budget request for the current fiscal year. Further, the Committee 

notes that when a Department or agency submits a reprogramming 

or transfer request to the Committees on Appropriations and does 
7 

not receive identical responses from the House and the Senate, it 

is the responsibility of the Department to reconcile the House and 

the Senate differences before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not 

possible, to consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved. 

RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES 

Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its inquiries and requests for information and assistance through the 

budget offices of the various departments, agencies, offices, and 

commissions. The Committee has often pointed to the natural affinity and relationship between the budget offices and the Committee 

which makes such a relationship workable. The Committee reiterates its longstanding position that while the Committee reserves 

the right to call upon any office or officer in the departments, agencies, and commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and these entities must be through the budget offices. To 

help ensure the Committee’s ability to perform its responsibilities, 

the Committee insists on having direct, unobstructed, and timely 

access to the budget offices and expects to be able to receive forthright and complete responses from those offices and their employees. 

The Committee has encountered growing difficulties in securing 

timely agency compliance with mandated reporting requirements 

and has experienced several situations in which deadlines for submission of reports were disregarded entirely. The Committee expects and directs all agencies from which reports are required to 

allow sufficient time to secure any necessary internal and external 

clearances of reports in order to satisfy congressional deadlines. 

The Committee strongly urges agencies to alert the Committee as 

far as possible in advance of any expected slippage in meeting a report delivery due date. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS 

Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the agency, 

but instead are the primary tool used by the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is aware that 

the format and presentation of budget materials is largely left to 

the agency within presentation objectives set forth by OMB. In 

fact, OMB Circular A–11, part 6 specifically states that the ‘‘agency 

should consult with your congressional committees beforehand to 

ensure their awareness of your plans to modify the format of agency budget documents.’’ The Committee expects all the budget justifications to adhere to this directive and provide the data needed 

to make appropriate and meaningful funding decisions. 

The Committee directs that justifications submitted with the fiscal year 2012 budget requests by agencies funded under this act 

must contain the customary level of detailed data and explanatory 

statements to support the appropriations requests at the level of 

detail contained in the funding table included at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, proposed changes in the agency’s 

financial plan from prior year enactment, and detailed data on all 
8 

programs and comprehensive information on any office or agency 

restructurings. At a minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and materials that compare programs, projects, and 

activities that are proposed for fiscal year 2012 to the fiscal year 

2011 enacted level. 

The Committee is aware that the analytical materials required 

for review by the Committee are unique to each agency in this act. 

Therefore, the Committee expects that each agency will coordinate 

with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 
(9) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $304,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 346,401,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 334,900,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Departmental Offices consist of the Office of the Secretary 

and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International Affairs, the Office 

of Domestic Finance, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Office of Tax Policy, the Office of Economic Policy, the 

Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the 

Office of Public Affairs, the Office of the Treasurer, and the Office 

of Management. The Secretary of the Treasury has the primary 

role in formulating and managing the domestic and international 

tax and financial policies of the Federal Government. The Secretary’s responsibilities funded by the Salaries and Expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing U.S. domestic and international economic and tax policy; formulating fiscal 

policy; governing the fiscal operations of the Government; executing 

the Nation’s financial sanction policies; disrupting and dismantling 

terrorist financial infrastructure; protecting the United States and 

international financial system from terrorist financing, money 

laundering, and other financial crimes; managing the public debt; 

managing international development policy; representing the 

United States on international monetary, trade and investment 

issues; overseeing Department of the Treasury overseas operations; 

and directing the administrative operations of the Department of 

the Treasury. The majority of the Salaries and Expenses appropriation provides resources for policy formulation and implementation 

in the areas of domestic and international finance, terrorist financing and financial crimes, tax, economic, trade, financial operations 

and general fiscal policy. This appropriation also provides resources 

to support the Secretary, policy components, and departmental administrative policies in financial and personnel management, procurement operations, and information systems and telecommunications. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $334,900,000 for the Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices account of the 
10 

Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2011. This amount is 

$11,501,000 below the budget request and $30,012,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The funding recommendations are 

made based on information included in the budget justification. 

The Committee notes that funds previously provided to this account for ‘‘Administration’’ have been allocated by budget activity 

as proposed in the budget request. Language is included allowing 

the Department to transfer up to 4 percent between activities upon 

notification. Transfers may be made in excess of 4 percent upon approval of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

to the fiscal year 2011 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation for each office: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

budget estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Executive direction (including General counsel) ....................................... 21,983 38,587 35,587 

Economic policies and programs .............................................................. 47,249 70,562 68,362 

Financial policies and programs ............................................................... 48,580 91,212 84,912 

Terrorism and financial intelligence ......................................................... 64,611 102,613 102,613 

Treasury-wide management and programs ............................................... 22,679 43,426 43,426 

Administration 1 ......................................................................................... 99,786 ........................ ........................

Total, Departmental offices .......................................................... 304,888 346,401 334,900 

1 Funds provided in fiscal year 2010 for ‘‘Administration’’ are recommended to be allocated by budget activity in fiscal year 2011 as proposed in the budget request. 

Major initiatives funded within recommended levels include increased staffing in order to support the response to the global financial crisis, the increasingly complicated financial markets, and 

a changing regulatory landscape. Funding will also support additional staff for coordinating efforts to disrupt terrorist and other illicit financing. 

The Committee recommends the following increases to the budget request: 

National Academy of Sciences Study (Economic Policies and Programs): ∂$1,000,000.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for 

the Department to transfer to the National Academy of Sciences for 

a study on the long-term economic effects of the aging population 

in the United States. This demographic shift will impact the Nation’s economic and financial state, affecting individuals, Government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare, and many 

economic and business sectors, including private mechanisms supporting retirees. The study will provide a basis for identifying potential policy recommendations for addressing the impacts of this 

demographic change. This funding will be sufficient to complete the 

study. 

Office of Financial Education (Financial Policies and Programs): 

∂$1,000,000.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$1,000,000 above the budget request for the Office of Financial 

Education. The Office of Financial Education administers the National Financial Literacy Challenge and develops strategies to combat predatory lending. The Office of Financial Education also coordinates the efforts of the Financial Literacy and Education Commission, a group chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury and composed of representatives from 20 Federal departments, agencies, 
11 

and commissions. The Commission works to improve financial literacy and education for people throughout the United States. The 

recommended increase shall be utilized to enhance financial education efforts, including to support the revision of the national 

strategy on financial literacy and the development of measurable 

goals and objectives for the Financial Literacy and Education Commission. 

The Committee makes the following findings: 

Departmental Responsiveness.—The Committee continues to be 

dissatisfied with the responsiveness of the Department of the 

Treasury to questions and requests for information from the Committee. For example, the Department submitted hearing testimony 

less than 25 hours prior to the commencement of an April 2010 

hearing on the foreclosure crisis and less than 24 hours prior to the 

commencement of a June 2009 hearing on the Federal Government’s payment of interchange fees. 

The Committee notes that included in the recommended funding level for Departmental Offices for fiscal year 2011 is $2,274,000 for 

the Office of Legislative Affairs. The primary responsibility of this 

office, and the intended purpose of the Committee’s recommended 

funding, is to serve as the principal contact and coordinator for all 

Departmental interaction with the Congress, including responding 

to congressional inquiries, facilitating replies from other offices in 

the Department, monitoring the flow of congressional correspondence to ensure accurate and prompt response, and coordinating Departmental testimony before congressional committees. The Committee directs the Department and the Office of Legislative Affairs 

to respond promptly and completely to all requests for information 

from the Committee and also to keep the Committee promptly and 

fully informed of the status of all requests from the Committee. 

Management of the Financial Crisis.—The Committee appreciates the Department’s efforts to stabilize the economy during 

such uncertain economic and financial conditions. The Committee 

notes that the Treasury Office of Inspector General continues to 

identify the management of the Treasury’s new authorities related 

to distressed financial markets as a major management challenge 

facing the Department. Under these programs, the Department has 

an unprecedented role in managing billions in taxpayer dollars. 

The Committee directs the Department to ensure that these programs are administered soundly and efficiently in order to minimize risks to the taxpayer. The Committee also directs management to maintain focus on the Treasury’s other critical missions— 

including terrorism and financial intelligence and assistance to 

community development financial institutions—in addition to management of policies and programs related to stabilizing the economy. 

Foreclosure Crisis.—The Committee continues to be concerned 

that the Department’s strategy to reduce mortgage foreclosures and 

keep American families in their homes has fallen far short of the 

goal of modifying 3 to 4 million mortgages. The Committee notes 

that the Department has announced changes to the Home Affordable Modification Program [HAMP] that will provide some relief for 

unemployed homeowners and provide servicers more incentives to 

assist homeowners who owe more than their home is worth. In im-
12 

plementing these changes and making future improvements to the 

program, the Committee directs the Department to focus on how to 

best induce servicers to consider and implement principal reductions when it is financially beneficial to the borrower and lender. 

The Committee also directs the Department to ensure mortgage 

servicers are properly complying with HAMP agreements and to 

provide ample technical assistance and outreach to properly educate servicers about their responsibilities under the program. 

Economic Sanctions and Divestments.—The Committee recommendation includes $102,613,000 for Terrorism and Financial 

Intelligence programs. With these funds, the Department will continue to issue and enforce economic and trade sanctions consistent 

with national security and foreign policy goals. These sanctions are 

a key tool for asserting U.S. policy toward countries and entities 

under sanction. The Committee directs the Department to fully implement all sanctions and divestment measures, particularly those 

applicable to North Korea, Burma, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. 

The Committee directs the Department to promptly notify the 

Committee of any resource constraints that adversely impact the 

implementation of any sanctions program. 

Proceeds of Corruption.—Corrupt politicians, terrorists and those 

involved in organized crime are often able to hide their identity behind a corporate veil, allowing them to enjoy the proceeds of corruption and bribery, including on U.S. soil. The Committee directs 

the Department of Treasury to use its rulemaking authority to 

strengthen customer due diligence requirements for U.S. financial 

institutions, consistent with applicable statutory authorities and 

international standards, including by identifying the beneficial 

owner of corporate vehicles, where appropriate. 

The Committee also directs the Department, in consultation with 

the other members of the United States delegation to the Financial 

Action Task Force [FATF], to take a leadership role in prioritizing 

prevention of the illicit flow of corrupt funds, including by strengthening FATF anti-corruption requirements and by conducting an extensive typology exercise on foreign corruption. The typology exercise will inform financial institutions on how to recognize the proceeds of corruption and therefore help prevent the flow of illicit 

funds into the United States. The Committee also urges the U.S. 

delegation to work with other member states to assess the implementation of the FATF’s 40∂9 Recommendations in practice, as 

well as in law, to ensure that the task force’s recommendations are 

being effectively implemented and enforced by all countries. 

The Committee directs the Department to provide a written report to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 

Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs within 180 days of enactment 

on activities related to preventing the flow of proceeds of corruption 

into the United States, specifically including activities related to 

identifying the beneficial ownership of corporate vehicles, where 

appropriate, and participation in FATF activities and initiatives. 

Stored Value Cards.—Pursuant to the Credit Card Accountability 

Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–24), the 

Department was required to issue regulations implementing the 

Bank Secrecy Act regarding the sale, issuance, redemption, or 

international transport of stored value, including stored value 
13 

cards. The Committee directs the Department to address the issue 

of international transport of stored value devices, which continues 

to be a major concern for law enforcement agencies. The Committee 

directs the Department, in coordination with the Department of 

Homeland Security, to submit a written report to the Committee on 

the status of the regulations on the international transportation of 

stored value devices not later than 90 days after enactment of this 

act. 

Management of Capital Investments and Information Security.— 

The Treasury Office of Inspector General continues to cite the Department’s management of capital investments and information security as top management challenges. Treasury is currently planning and managing several capital investments, including the transition to a new telecommunications contract, the implementation of 

enhanced information security requirements, and a modernization 

of systems supporting the implementation of the Bank Secrecy Act. 

The Committee recognizes efforts the Department has made to emphasize capital investment management Department-wide. 

The Committee directs the Department to continue improving 

the management of capital investments, specifically focusing on integrating all of the Department’s bureaus into improvement efforts 

and institutionalizing improvements so that taxpayers will benefit 

from better management of future capital projects. The Committee 

notes that section 119 of the bill requires the Secretary of the 

Treasury to develop an annual Capital Investment Plan, to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the 

House of Representatives within 30 days following submission of 

the President’s annual budget request. The Committee directs the 

Office of the Chief Information Officer to ensure that adequate resources are devoted both to projects in the capital phase and to 

proper maintenance and modernization of existing systems and to 

ensure that all projects are tracked properly and described completely in the annual Capital Investment Plan. 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $9,544,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 22,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 1997 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 

established this account, which is authorized to be used by or on 

behalf of Treasury bureaus at the Secretary’s discretion to modernize business processes and increase efficiency through technology investments, as well as other activities that involve more 

than one Treasury bureau or Treasury’s interface with other Government agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 for 

Department-wide systems and capital investments programs 
14 

[DSCIP]. This amount is $9,000,000 below the budget request and 

$3,456,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The following table compares the Committee recommendation 

with the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 enacted 

levels. 

DSCIP Initiative Fiscal year 2009 enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget estimate 

Fiscal year 2011 

budget estimate 

Committee recommendation 

E-Government Initiatives .............................................. $2,057,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Enterprise Content Management .................................. 6,000,000 ........................ $5,000,000 $5,000,000 

Treasury Secure Data Network ..................................... 4,400,000 ........................ ........................ ........................

Cyber Security—Information Security .......................... 3,000,000 $3,000,000 ........................ ........................

Annex Repair and Renovation ...................................... 11,518,000 4,544,000 ........................ ........................

Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network .......................... ........................ 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Financial Innovation and Transformation .................... ........................ ........................ 17,000,000 8,000,000

Total ................................................................ 26,975,000 9,544,000 22,000,000 13,000,000 

The Committee notes that the DSCIP account has been utilized 

to fund a wide variety of multi-year initiatives. Given the complexity of these initiatives, the bill includes language in section 119 

directing the Department of the Treasury to submit an annual 

Capital Investment Plan to the Committees on Appropriations 

within 30 days after the President’s budget submission. The recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the Financial Innovation and Transformation Program instead of $17,000,000 included in the budget request. The Committee is supportive of the 

concept of the program, which the Committee understands is supported by the administration due to its potential to provide Government-wide solutions for processing financial transactions. However, 

the budget justifications for this program were not sufficiently detailed for the Committee to make a recommendation for the full 

amount of funding requested. The Committee directs the Department to provide a detailed justification within 60 days of enactment including specific cost estimates for each portion or discrete 

project within the program. The Committee looks forward to learning more about the Department’s and the administration’s proposals for activities under this program and will make future funding recommendations based on detailed funding estimates. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $29,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 30,269,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,269,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

As a result of the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General 

[IG] Act, the Secretary of the Treasury established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] in 1989. 

The OIG conducts and supervises audits, evaluations, and investigations designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2) keep the Secretary and Congress 

fully and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of departmental programs and operations. The audit 
15 

function provides program audit, contract audit, and financial 

statement audit services. Contract audits provide professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and 

settlement of contracts. Program audits review and audit all facets 

of agency operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial statements fairly present the agency’s financial condition 

and results of operations, the adequacy of accounting controls, and 

compliance with laws and regulations. These audits contribute significantly to improved financial management by helping Treasury 

managers identify improvements needed in their accounting and 

internal control systems. The evaluations function reviews program 

performance and issues critical to the mission of the Department. 

The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,269,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General. This 

amount is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget request and 

$3,569,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Additional 

funds are provided to support additional audits and investigations 

beyond the limited scope supportable within current resources 

given the Inspector General’s increased workload resulting from required reviews of certain bank failures. The Committee directs that 

the highest priority for such additional audits shall be the Bank 

Secrecy Act Information Technology Modernization project currently being planned and implemented by Treasury’s Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network. The Committee directs that the Inspector General shall submit a written report to the Committee regarding this project, including contractor oversight and progress regarding budget and schedule, on March 31, 2011 and semiannually 

thereafter. In addition, the Committee directs the Inspector General to perform audits on Treasury’s anti-money laundering and 

terrorist financing activities, capital investment spending and planning, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, 

and areas identified by the Inspector General as presenting a high 

risk to taxpayer-funded spending. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $152,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 155,452,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 155,452,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration [TIGTA] 

was established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 

(Public Law 105–206). TIGTA was created to provide independent 

audit and investigative services necessary to improve the quality 

and credibility of oversight of the Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. 

Funding was first appropriated for this account in the fiscal year 
16 

2000 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act (Public 

Law 106–58). 

TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to assess 

the operations and programs of the IRS and related entities, the 

IRS Oversight Board and the Office of Chief Counsel to (1) promote 

the economic, efficient and effective administration of the Nation’s 

tax laws and to detect and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs 

and operations; and (2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and 

other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these programs 

and operations, and keep the Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of these issues and the progress made in resolving 

them. TIGTA reviews existing and proposed legislation and regulations relating to the programs and operations of the IRS and related entities and makes recommendations concerning the impact 

of such legislation and regulations on the economy and efficiency 

in the administration of programs and operations of the IRS and 

related entities. The audit function provides program audit, limited 

contract audit, and financial audit services. Program audits review 

and audit all facets of the IRS and related entities in an effort to 

improve IRS systems and operations, while ensuring fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers. Contract audits focus on invoices/ 

vouchers submitted to the IRS to determine whether charges are 

valid and to identify erroneous and improper payments. The investigative function provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal activities involving IRS programs and operations 

and protects the IRS and related entities against external attempts 

to corrupt or threaten the administration of the tax laws. 

During fiscal year 2009, TIGTA’s combined audit and investigative efforts recovered, protected, and identified monetary benefits 

totaling more than $14,700,000,000. TIGTA’s Office of Audit completed 142 reports and its Office of Investigations closed 3,527 investigations. Enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) spurred the immediate need 

for increased oversight of economic stimulus funding throughout all 

levels of government. TIGTA serves a critical role in promoting integrity and efficiency in the use of funds, particularly through its 

work in scrutinizing the IRS’s administration of various tax credits 

and other economic stimulus provisions in the Recovery Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $155,452,000 for 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This 

amount is an increase of $3,452,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee appreciates the challenges TIGTA faces in adapting its oversight activities to address increasingly complex and high-risk issues associated with IRS operations, including detection and investigation of 

fraud and electronic crime, review of procurement activities, and 

safeguarding of taxpayer privacy. The Committee recognizes that 

growth in the size and workload of the IRS generates concomitant 

increased work for TIGTA. The Committee expects that the increased funding provided will be devoted to critical oversight of the 

administration’s renewed emphasis on addressing illegal overseas 

tax evasion and closing tax loopholes so as to make it more profit-
17 

able for companies to create jobs in the United States. In addition, 

the funding will support TIGTA’s role in coordinated Governmentwide activities that identify and review weaknesses and 

vulnerabilities that expose Federal programs and operations to 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. 

The Committee commends TIGTA for its ongoing review of the 

IRS’s business systems modernization program and other information technology projects. The Committee also acknowledges the critical importance of the priorities TIGTA has identified in its strategic plan, including adapting to the IRS’s continuously evolving 

operations and mitigating intensified risks associated with modernization, security, addressing the tax gap, and human capital 

challenges facing the IRS. In addition, TIGTA plays a pivotal role 

in responding to threats and attacks against IRS employees, property, and sensitive information. Furthermore, the Committee appreciates and expects TIGTA’s vigilance in monitoring IRS efforts 

to implement the 56 tax provisions of the Recovery Act. 

The Committee shares TIGTA’s ongoing concern that the IRS is 

developing and launching its modernized systems without adequately contemplating the security implications. The Committee 

urges continued TIGTA oversight of tax gap issues, including data 

reliability, tax law enforcement, and taxpayer assistance, to ensure 

that the IRS enhances voluntary compliance by balancing taxpayer 

services and enforcement without jeopardizing taxpayer rights. The 

Committee would welcome future TIGTA work to evaluate the 

IRS’s volunteer and low-income taxpayer assistance programs; 

study the misclassification of employees as independent contractors 

and its impact on the tax gap; examine ‘‘phishing’’ schemes and 

other external and electronic attempts that expose taxpayers to 

surrendering private information that could be used for identity 

theft and undermine tax administration; and identify best practices 

and safeguards to reduce and mitigate threats to the security of 

IRS employees and its data infrastructure and facilities. 

SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF

PROGRAM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $23,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 49,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (Public Law 110–343) 

established the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program [SIGTARP] to perform audits and investigations of the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP]. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $49,600,000 for the SIGTARP for 

fiscal year 2011, equal to the budget request. This amount is 

$26,300,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, which funded 

only the latter portion of that fiscal year. The Committee is pleased 

with the quality of the audits and investigations conducted by the 
18 

SIGTARP, particularly with regard to written materials provided 

to the Congress and public. 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $111,010,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 100,419,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 121,669,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], a bureau 

within the Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, is the largest overt collector of financial intelligence in the United States. FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the 

financial system from the abuses of financial crime, including terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit activity. 

FinCEN accomplishes its mission by administering the Bank Secrecy Act, a collection of statutes that form the Nation’s anti-money 

laundering/counter-terrorist financing regulatory regime. As the 

delegated administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is responsible for the development and implementation of regulations, 

rules, and guidance issued under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN 

also oversees the work of eight Federal agencies that have been 

delegated responsibility to examine various sectors of the financial 

industry for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act’s requirements. 

FinCEN is responsible for collecting, maintaining, and disseminating the information reported by financial institutions under the 

Bank Secrecy Act through a Government-wide access service. 

FinCEN is the United States’ Financial Intelligence Unit [FIU] and 

a founding member of the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence 

Units. As the United States’ FIU, FinCEN routinely shares information and cooperates with other FIUs around the world to address the global problems of terrorist financing, money laundering, 

and other illicit activity. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $121,669,000 for the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN]. This amount is 

$10,659,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$21,250,000 above the budget request. The Committee rejects the 

proposal to fund a portion of the Bank Secrecy Act Information 

Technology Modernization project using proceeds from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. Of the amount recommended above the request, $19,750,000 reflects the Committee’s recommendation to 

fund the project exclusively through the account designated for 

FinCEN Salaries and Expenses. 

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above the 

budget request to enhance efforts to fight fraud and illicit financing 

by expanding FinCEN’s analytical support to the network of more 

than 300 law enforcement and regulatory authorities comprised of 

Federal, State, and local agencies, United States Attorneys offices, 

State attorneys general, and local district attorneys. 
19 

Information Technology Modernization.—The Committee recommends a total of $45,835,000 to support FinCEN’s efforts to 

modernize the technical environment for implementation of the 

Bank Secrecy Act [BSA] in accordance with the estimate provided 

for that project for fiscal year 2011. The modernization will re-engineer the BSA data architecture, update antiquated infrastructure 

required to support data capture and dissemination, implement innovative Web services and enhanced electronic filing, and provide 

enhanced analytical tools. This system is used by banks, Federal 

law enforcement, State and local law enforcement, and other Federal intelligence agencies to report, gather, and analyze data to 

identify money laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and 

vulnerabilities in the financial industry. The current infrastructure 

is outdated and limits the capabilities of these users, which ultimately limits the capability of the Treasury and its partners to 

pursue money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion. 

The Committee is pleased with the steps FinCEN has taken to 

strengthen its acquisition and project management competencies 

and directs the agency to continue to pursue employee education 

and training efforts in this area, including training on proper budget execution practices. The Committee also directs FinCEN to place 

a top priority on contractor oversight and on involving its wide variety of stakeholders in the development of the modernized system. 

FinCEN is directed to submit a semiannual report to the Committee on Appropriations summarizing the agency’s progress regarding the modernization effort, including milestones planned and 

achieved, progress on cost and schedule, management of contractor 

oversight, strategies to involve stakeholders, and acquisition management efforts. 

The Committee also directs FinCEN to focus efforts on improving 

the completeness and reliability of BSA data in accordance with 

recommendations by the Treasury Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. The Committee notes that while a 

new BSA infrastructure will improve the capabilities of processing 

and analyzing BSA data, the accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of 

the data itself will ultimately determine the effectiveness of the 

system and related processes. 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends a rescission of $81,750,000 of unobligated balances in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $244,132,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 235,253,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 235,253,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In 1940, the Department of the Treasury established the Fiscal 

Service, which consisted of the Bureau of Accounts, the Bureau of 
20 

the Public Debt, and the Office of the Treasurer. A 1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service created the Bureau of Government Financial Operations, which was formed from a merger of the Bureau 

of Accounts and most functions of the Office of the Treasurer. In 

1984, the Bureau of Government Financial Operations was renamed the Financial Management Service [FMS]. 

FMS implements payment policy and procedures for Federal 

agencies, issues and distributes payments, promotes the use of electronics in the payment process, and assists agencies in converting 

payments from paper checks to electronic funds transfer [EFT]. 

FMS provides debt collection operational services to client agencies, 

implements collections policy, regulations, standards, and procedures for the Federal Government, and assists agencies in converting collections from paper to electronic media. 

FMS provides financial accounting, reporting, and financing services to the Federal Government and the Government’s agents who 

participate in the payments and collections process by generating 

a series of daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual Government-wide 

reports. FMS also works directly with agencies to help reconcile reporting differences. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $235,253,000 for salaries and expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request 

and $8,879,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. An additional amount of $80,036,000 is also estimated to be available to 

FMS from reimbursable resources for debt collection activities. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $103,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 106,168,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 101,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Homeland Security Act created the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 

and Trade Bureau [TTB] within the Department of the Treasury 

and charged TTB with collecting revenue and protecting the public. 

TTB enforces certain Federal laws and regulations relating to alcohol and tobacco. TTB works directly and in cooperation with others to maintain a sound revenue management and collection system that continues to reduce the regulatory burden, improve service, collect the revenue due, and prevent tax evasion and other 

criminal conduct. TTB is also responsible for preventing consumer 

deception, ensuring that regulated products comply with Federal 

commodity, safety, and distribution requirements, and providing 

customer service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $101,000,000 for TTB for fiscal year 

2011. This amount is $5,168,000 below the budget request and 

$2,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee 

does not recommend, for the second year in a row, assessing fees 
21 

on producers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol in order to offset 

TTB’s operating costs, as proposed in the budget. The recommended funding level for TTB is decreased by the cost assumed 

in the budget for implementing the proposed collections. 

The Committee reminds the Department of Treasury and TTB that the fiscal year 2010 enacted level included $3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011, for hiring, training, and 

equipping of special law enforcement agents to target tobacco 

smuggling and other criminal diversion activities. The Committee 

directs the Department and TTB to place a high priority on hiring 

these positions and conducting robust criminal enforcement activities at TTB. 

UNITED STATES MINT

UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic 

and investment products, and provides for security and asset protection. Public Law 104–52 established the U.S. Mint Public Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund, and 

the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits annual 

audited business-type financial statements to the Secretary of the 

Treasury and to Congress in support of the operations of the revolving fund. 

The operations of the Mint are divided into two major activities: 

Manufacturing and sales (including circulating coinage and numismatic and investment products); and protection. The Mint is credited with receipts from its circulating coinage operations, equal to 

the full cost of producing and distributing coins that are put into 

circulation, including depreciation of the Mint’s plant and equipment on the basis of current replacement value. Those receipts pay 

for the costs of the Mint’s operations, which include the costs of 

production and distribution. The difference between the face value 

of the coins and these costs is a profit, which is deposited as seigniorage to the general fund. In fiscal year 2009, the Mint transferred $475,000,000 to the general fund. Any seigniorage used to finance the Mint’s capital acquisitions is recorded as budget authority in the year that funds are obligated for this purpose and as receipts over the life of the asset. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a spending level of $25,000,000 for 

circulating coinage and protective service capital investments for 

the Mint. This amount is a decrease of $1,700,000 below the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $182,244,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 175,985,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,985,000 
22 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The Public Debt 

Service took general charge of debt operations including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement, which had been conducted by several independent divisions within the Treasury. Acting under the authorization of the Reorganization Act of 1939, the 

President created the Bureau of the Public Debt, which was established as part of the Fiscal Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30, 1940 (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings 

Bonds Division, a separate organization, was made part of the Bureau. 

This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all public 

debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. savings-type 

securities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $175,985,000 for the Bureau of the 

Public Debt for fiscal year 2011. This amount is a decrease of 

$6,259,0000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is equal 

to the budget request. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $246,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 250,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 302,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes 

investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing community development financial institutions [CDFIs] through the CDFI 

program. CDFIs include community development banks, credit 

unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and microloan 

funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in lending and 

investment for affordable housing, small business, and community 

development within underserved communities. The CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program, which provides a financial incentive to insured depository institutions to undertake community development financing activities. The CDFI 

Fund also administers the New Markets Tax Credit Program, a 

program that provides an incentive to investors in the form of a tax 

credit, which is expected to stimulate private community and economic development activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $302,400,000 for the CDFI Fund, 

which is $55,650,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$52,400,000 above the budget request. 
23 

Bank on USA.—The Committee recommends $52,400,000 for the 

Bank on USA program to promote access to affordable financial 

services and basic consumer credit products for households without 

access to such products and services. These households face a number of problems, including high fees for alternative financial services such as check-cashing, barriers to saving and building credit, 

and increased exposure to risks such as fraud and theft. Many of 

these households also lack access to reasonably priced short-term 

consumer credit to meet emergency or regular needs, often turning 

to payday loans, refund anticipation loans, pawn shops and other 

high-priced alternatives for credit needs. Of funding recommended 

for the Bank on USA program, $2,400,000 is provided for an eligible entity or entities located in Hawaii. The Committee directs the 

CDFI Fund to submit a detailed spending plan on the Bank on 

USA program to the Committee within 120 days of enactment. 

Healthy Food Financing Initiative.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000 for the Healthy Food Financing Initiative. The goal of 

the initiative is to increase the availability of affordable, healthy 

foods in underserved urban and rural communities. Currently, 

many of these communities are only served by fast food restaurants 

and convenience stores that offer few healthy food options. Recommended funding will increase the availability of affordable financing for grocery store development, supplies and equipment to 

improve food production technology, and improvements and modernization of food distribution mechanisms and infrastructure. 

Small Dollar Loan Program.—The Committee recommends 

$7,500,000 for grants to qualified CDFIs for the purpose of building 

sufficient capital to support loans of $2,500 or less pursuant to section 1206 of Public Law 111–203. Such ‘‘small dollar loans’’ will 

provide consumers access to mainstream financial institutions and 

alternatives to payday loans and other predatory lending. 

Native Programs.—The Committee recommends a set-aside of 

$12,000,000 for grants, loans, and technical assistance and training 

programs to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, and Native 

Hawaiian communities in the coordination of development strategies, increased access to equity investments, and loans for development activities. 

The Committee understands that many CDFIs are experiencing 

difficulty obtaining non-Federal funding due to the economic downturn. The Committee recommends continuing the temporary waiver 

of matching fund requirements for CDFI programs so that CDFIs 

can continue to invest in and assist underserved communities during the economic crisis. The Committee intends to reinstate matching fund requirements when capital markets return to normal function. 

The Department is directed to fund the Bank Enterprise Award 

program at a level of $25,000,000. 

BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] has been the sole 

manufacturer of U.S. paper currency for almost 150 years. The origin of the BEP is traced to an act of Congress passed on February 
24 

25, 1862, 12 Stat. 345, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury 

to issue a new currency—United States notes. While this law was 

the cornerstone authority for the operations of the engraving and 

printing division of the Treasury for many years, it was not until 

an Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 100, that the Congress first referred to this division as the ‘‘Bureau of Engraving and Printing.’’ 

The Bureau’s status as a distinct bureau within the Department of 

the Treasury was solidified by section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1897, 

30 Stat. 18, which placed all of the business of the BEP under the 

immediate control of a director, subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The 1897 law is now codified in 31 U.S.C. 

303. 

The BEP designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve 

notes and other security documents issued by the Federal Government. 

The operations of the BEP are currently financed by means of a 

revolving fund established in accordance with the provisions of 

Public Law 656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the 

BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed. The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital equipment and provide 

for working capital needs. 

No direct appropriation is required to cover the activities of the 

BEP. 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] administers the Nation’s tax 

laws and collects the revenue that funds over 96 percent of the 

Federal Government’s operations and public services. The IRS’s 

mission is to provide taxpayers with quality service by helping 

them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. The IRS focuses 

its enforcement programs toward increasing voluntary tax compliance by deterring taxpayers inclined to evade their tax obligations 

while vigorously pursuing those who violate the law. Each year, 

IRS employees deal directly with more American taxpayers than 

any other institution, public or private. 

During fiscal year 2009, the IRS processed more than 236 million 

returns, provided nearly 127 million refunds, and collected over 

$2,300,000,000,000 for the Federal Government. Of the 144 million 

individual income tax returns processed, 66 percent were filed electronically. This marks a significant increase in electronically filed 

returns compared to the 31 percent in fiscal year 2001. The IRS 

provided taxpayer assistance through over 296 million visits to the 

IRS.gov Web site and through nearly 68 million telephone calls. 

The IRS employed a total work force of 105,814, including seasonal 

and part-time employees. In fiscal year 2009, the average cost of 

collecting $100 in tax revenue was 50 cents. An important focus for 

the IRS in recent years has been to undertake a major modernization of its systems, including expanding its Internet services, and 

business operations to better serve taxpayers and enforce the law. 
25 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,508,243,000 for the Internal 

Revenue Service for fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of 

$362,120,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$125,027,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports 

the requested additional funding, and expects the IRS to devote 

these resources to reducing the tax gap by investing in a strong 

compliance program and initiatives to address international tax 

evasion, as well as needed upgrades to IRS information technology 

systems to streamline tax administration, protect taxpayer information, and replace aging infrastructure. 

Tax Gap.—The vast majority of Americans pay their fair share 

of taxes, yet there is still a ‘‘tax gap.’’ The tax gap is the difference 

between what taxpayers are supposed to pay and what they actually do pay. In its update of the results of a 3-year study, the IRS 

found that for tax year 2001, about 84 percent of owed taxes were 

paid voluntarily and timely. However, a significant number of taxpayers do not comply with the Tax Code resulting in an estimated 

gross tax gap of $345,000,000,000. The IRS estimates that after enforcement and other late payments are factored into the gross tax 

gap, the net tax gap is about $290,000,000,000. The most current 

estimate of the tax gap remains largely unchanged from the IRS’s 

initial update conducted in 2006, and has remained relatively stable for the past three decades based on previous IRS studies. The 

accuracy of the tax gap, however, is uncertain given the use of outdated and incomplete information and questionable methodology. 

Some experts, including the GAO and TIGTA, believe that the tax 

gap may actually be higher than estimated by the IRS. The Committee strongly believes that the IRS can and must reduce the tax 

gap if the IRS is given additional resources and is able to improve 

its operational capabilities (most notably through the Business Systems Modernization program). 

To reduce the tax gap, experts recommend a number of approaches. These include: improving information reporting, improving taxpayer services, increasing research on noncompliance, improving the partnership between the IRS and the tax administration community, and leveraging technology to improve IRS’s systems. The Committee supports all of these approaches in combination. 

The Committee remains concerned that absent a better understanding of the current sources of noncompliance, efforts to improve compliance may be hampered, misdirected, and difficult to 

measure. To gain meaningful insights into taxpayer behavior, the 

Committee strongly supports the work of the National Research 

Program. 

Operating Plan and Notification.—In addition to the normal operating plan requirements detailed in the introduction in this report, the Committee directs the IRS to include details on any 

planned reorganization, job reductions or increases to offices or activities within the agency, and modifications to any service or enforcement activity. The Committee also directs the IRS to obtain 

and include comments of the IRS Oversight Board as part of its operating plan submission to the Committee. Further, the IRS should 
26 

promptly notify the Committee and the IRS Oversight Board of any 

substantial changes to these plans. 

The Committee remains concerned about any efforts to reduce 

specific taxpayer services, including face-to-face services. Therefore, 

the Committee directs that if the IRS proposes reductions in taxpayer services, such reductions must be consistent with the budget 

justification, operating plan, and Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint, 

and the IRS must demonstrate that such reductions will not result 

in a decline in voluntary compliance. Where such reductions involve a reduction in face-to-face service, the IRS must demonstrate 

that the proposed reductions do not adversely impact compliance by 

taxpayers who are dependent on such services, by showing, 

through such means as a successful pilot program, survey, or other 

empirical study, that there is an effective and viable service alternative available. 

IRS Staffing Plans.—The Committee continues to support adequate staffing levels for effective tax administration and supports 

the staffing plans for the IRS facilities in the communities of Martinsburg and Beckley, West Virginia. Therefore, the Committee 

urges the IRS, within the constraints of the fiscal year 2011 funding levels, to make no staffing reductions at the Martinsburg National Computing Center and the programmed level at the Finance 

Center in Beckley, West Virginia. Further, the Committee directs 

the IRS to provide an annual report to the Committee on its efforts 

to protect and increase staffing levels at the Martinsburg and 

Beckley IRS facilities. 

Taxpayer Services in Alaska and Hawaii.—Given the remote distance of Alaska and Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and the difficulty experienced by Alaska and Hawaii taxpayers in receiving 

needed tax assistance by the national toll-free line, it is imperative 

that the Taxpayer Advocate Service Centers in these States are 

fully staffed and capable of resolving taxpayer problems of the most 

complex nature. The Committee directs the IRS to continue to staff 

each Taxpayer Advocate Service Center in each of these States 

with a Collection Technical Advisor and an Examination Technical 

Advisor in addition to the current complement of office staff. Staffing should be increased if, as the result of the IRS Restructuring 

and Reform Act of 1998, subsequent legislation, or other factors, 

the volume of cases or their complexity increases. 

TAXPAYER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $2,278,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,321,975,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,331,468,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Taxpayer Services appropriation provides for taxpayer services, including forms and publications; processing tax returns and 

related documents; filing and account services; taxpayer advocacy 

services; and assisting taxpayers to understand their tax obligations, correctly file their returns, and pay taxes due in a timely 

manner. 
27 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,331,468,000 for Taxpayer Services, which is $52,638,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, 

and $9,493,000 above the budget request. Bill language is included 

providing not less than $6,100,000 for the tax counseling for the elderly program, not less than $10,000,000 for low-income taxpayer 

clinic [LITC] grants, not less than $14,000,000, to be available for 

2 years, for a community volunteer income tax assistance [VITA] 

matching grant program for tax return preparation assistance and 

$212,888,178 for the Taxpayer Advocate Service. 

The Committee supports the program increases of $45,900,000, 

comprised of the planned $25,000,000 initiative to improve 

www.IRS.gov and the planned $20,900,000 initiaitve to raise the 

level of service on IRS toll-free telephones. The Committee does not 

support decreasing funding that would roll back services to low income taxpayers served by the VITA and LITC grant programs or 

the activities of the Taxpayer Advocate Service to assist taxpayers 

in resolving tax filing and compliance issues. 

The Committee strongly believes that ‘‘Service ∂ Enforcement = 

Compliance’’ and that, as outlined in the IRS Strategic Plan 2009– 

2013, the IRS must improve service to make voluntary compliance 

easier. 

The Committee recognizes the significant service challenges the 

IRS faces as a result of new tax law provisions designed to assist 

taxpayers in difficult economic times. These provisions required 

rapid implementation, including a series of first-time home-buyers 

tax credits, Making Work Pay credits, and a recovery rebate credit 

relating to the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. As a result, telephone call volume to the IRS remained high, and the level of service on the IRS’ toll-free telephone lines in fiscal year 2009 was 70 

percent. This service level was a significant improvement over the 

previous year’s 53 percent, but far below the annual levels achieved 

during fiscal years 2003 through 2007, when service levels ranged 

between 82 and 87 percent. The Committee notes that the IRS 

launched several efforts to help increase the telephone service levels for the 2010 filing season, including increasing the number of 

assistors available during the fiscal year, establishing six applications to handle Recovery Act call volume, and developing a Webbased application for taxpayers who needed confirmation of their 

prior year adjusted gross income or personal identification number. 

The Committee acknowledges the tremendous resource challenges facing the IRS in sustaining efficient and effective core taxpayer service delivery in the face of expanded new responsibilities 

for administering an increasing number of social benefit programs. 

The Committee appreciates the concerns detailed in the June 2010 

report to Congress of the National Taxpayer Advocate and reiterates the Committee’s long-held belief that reliable investments in 

pre-filing taxpayer assistance programs as well as outreach and 

education initiatives that decipher complex rules and complicated 

material will help drive tax compliance. 

Impact on IRS of Healthcare Implementation.—As a prime example of the expanding tasks tied to legislative enactments, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) in-
28 

cludes several provisions that could significantly impact the IRS 

over the course of the next several years. IRS’s new responsibilities 

include implementing a Medicare payroll tax on investment income, collecting an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans, and delivering hundreds of billions in subsidies for low-income Americans 

to buy insurance. 

The IRS potentially faces the challenge of responding by shifting 

resources and altering established plans. The IRS may need to recruit new and different professional skill sets to match the nature 

of the work. According to the Congressional Budget Office [CBO], 

costs to the IRS of implementing the eligibility determination, documentation, and verification processes for premium and cost-sharing credits could total between $5,000,000,000 and $10,000,000,000 

over 10 years. 

The Committee strongly urges the administration, the Secretary 

of the Treasury, and the IRS Commissioner to evaluate the impact 

of healthcare mandates on the IRS’s overall mission and take all 

appropriate actions to prevent any decline in the quality and effectiveness of service or taxpayer perception. The Committee directs 

the IRS to specifically identify in its fiscal year 2012 budget submission and operating plan any proposed increases in spending to 

be designated to implement the healthcare mandates, as well as 

any proposed changes in spending or prioritization in other mission-critical IRS programs as a result of the healthcare responsibilities. 

Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint.—In response to the Committee’s 

directive in the fiscal year 2006 Treasury Appropriations Act, the 

IRS, in consultation with the IRS Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, developed a ‘‘Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint’’ to institute a 5-year strategic plan for taxpayer services. The 

Committee expects the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint to be an integral and guiding component of delivering services. The Committee supports ongoing efforts to conduct research on taxpayer 

needs and taxpayer service performance. 

The Committee directs the IRS, the IRS Oversight Board, and 

the National Taxpayer Advocate to submit to Congress annual updates to the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint identifying any changes 

to its strategic plan for taxpayer service, including the results of 

any new research and relevant findings, and any open issues requiring additional research. 

E-Filing.—The Committee is heartened by the IRS’s improved 

performance in increasing the number of tax filers who submit 

their returns electronically and without additional cost. Electronic 

filing benefits taxpayers and promotes effective tax administration 

because it decreases processing errors, expedites processing and 

payment of refunds, and allows the IRS to efficiently maintain upto-date records. A total of 144 million individual tax returns were 

filed electronically during the 2009 filing season, representing more 

than 66 percent of all returns. The Committee directs the IRS, in 

consultation with stakeholders, including the National Taxpayer 

Advocate, to implement a strategy to achieve an 80 percent e-file 

goal. 

The Committee believes that the IRS will deliver better taxpayer 

service, achieve improved compliance, and reduce the tax gap if 
29 

taxpayer behavior is better understood and applied research is integrated into the development of taxpayer service and enforcement 

initiatives. Toward that end, the Committee supports the work of 

the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS Office of Research to 

examine factors that influence taxpayer compliance behavior, including how and the extent to which various factors influence such 

behavior, and how the establishment of a cognitive learning and 

applied research laboratory might facilitate continued evaluation. 

Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance.—The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance [VITA] program is an important aspect of IRS 

efforts to provide income tax preparation assistance programs for 

low-income taxpayers. The Committee provides that, within funds 

provided, $14,000,000 shall be available for 2 years for exclusive 

use as part of continuing a matching grant program established 

and administered by the IRS, in consultation with the Taxpayer 

Advocate Service, for not for profit organizations which provide volunteer income tax return preparation services for lower income individual taxpayers. 

The Committee notes that in 2009, 111 organizations were 

awarded VITA grants, representing more than 350 unique local 

partnerships and coalitions. The IRS estimates that more than 

2,500 VITA sites will benefit from this initiative, including 522 new 

locations. The Committee recognizes that the applications for these 

grants far exceed the available resources. 

This program shall provide direct funds to enable VITA programs 

to extend services to underserved populations and hardest-to-reach 

areas, both urban and nonurban, as well as to increase the capacity 

to file returns electronically, heighten quality control, enhance 

training of volunteers, and significantly improve the accuracy rate 

of returns prepared by VITA sites. The Committee reinforces its expectation that the IRS should employ an equitable selection methodology which takes into account geographic diversity, and include 

an evaluation component to measure the overall effectiveness of the 

program and the results achieved. The Committee strongly urges 

the IRS to make every effort to expand the quantity and funding 

level of VITA grants focused on serving persons with disabilities 

proportional to the growing disability population requiring tax assistance. 

The Committee understands that entities that are currently increasing their outreach efforts to better serve the needs of the disability population have experienced difficulty in applying for Federal grant assistance due to a lack of resources at the local level 

needed to complete the application. The Committee urges the IRS 

to allow national coalitions responsible for the coordination of local 

community partnerships focused specifically on the expanded provision of tax services for individuals with disabilities to compete in 

future VITA community matching grant processes. 

The IRS is not permitted to treat any in-kind contributions from 

the IRS as counting toward the $14,000,000 appropriation nor shall 

the IRS reduce any current contributions toward tax return preparation services. 

Oversight of First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit.—Congress has 

enacted a series of legislative provisions that have enabled firsttime homebuyers to claim a refundable credit on their 2008, 2009, 
30 

or 2010 individual Federal tax returns. According to the IRS, 1.8 

million taxpayers received $12,600,000 in homebuyer credits 

through the end of February 2010. The Committee acknowledges 

that the IRS has taken steps, including installing filters to intercept fraud, to improve its oversight of the program, since a TIGTA 

report issued in September 2009 identified deficiencies. However, a 

new TIGTA report issued in June 2010 found a significant and disturbing level of fraudulent and erroneous payments in the FirstTime Homebuyer Credit Program. Specifically, TIGTA estimates 

that 14,132 individuals received erroneous credits totaling at least 

$26,700,000. These erroneous credits included taxpayers receiving 

credits purchased prior to the dates allowed by law; prisoners, including some serving life sentences, receiving credits for homes 

purchased at a time when they were incarcerated; and taxpayers 

receiving credits for homes that were also used by other taxpayers 

to claim the credit. The Committee directs the IRS to intensify its 

scrutiny of questionable claims for this credit to reduce the incidence of fraud and erroneous payments under this beneficial program. 

ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,504,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 5,797,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,682,880,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination of 

tax returns, both domestic and international; the administrative 

and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt status; 

examining tax returns of exempt organizations; enforcing statutes 

relating to detection and investigation of criminal violations of the 

internal revenue laws; identifying underreporting of tax obligations; securing unfiled tax returns; and collecting unpaid accounts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $5,682,880,000 for enforcement activities for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $178,880,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $114,520,000 below the budget 

request. Bill language is included to transfer not less than 

$60,257,000 to the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement 

[ICDE] program and to transfer up to $10,000,000 from the Enforcement account to the Operations Support account to support 

the ICDE program. 

The Committee supports the use and prioritization of enforcement resources to address business and individual international 

tax compliance by building upon steady multi-year investments in 

initiatives and activities to reduce offshore tax evasion, increasing 

coverage of the most strategically important international issues, 

including complex enterprise structures and transactions, and promoting compliance in high-wealth individuals and large enterprises, including those with international components, operated by 

businesses and investors through multiple interrelated financial 
31 

and tax entities. The Committee further endorses proposals to reduce the reporting compliance tax gap through increased examinations of business and high-income individual returns, increased 

coverage of the Automated Underreporter [AUR] Program, and increased audits involving flow-through entities. 

The IRS has projected a substantial return on investment of 9.3 

to 1 to be realized over the next 3 years from enforcement initiatives proposed for fiscal year 2011. The Committee shares the concerns outlined by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] that 

the IRS needs to be prepared to monitor, document, and report on 

the extent to which the projected revenue forecasts actually yield 

the intended results. The Committee strongly believes that evaluating what occurs as a result of these targeted investments would 

be a helpful indicator of success and useful in making future 

spending decisions and resource allocation plans. The Committee 

directs the IRS to provide the Committees on Appropriations with 

detailed information about the actual costs, revenues, and return 

on investment after the first and successive years of the implementation of the new enforcement initiatives. 

National Research Program.—As noted previously, the Committee strongly supports the work of the National Research Program [NRP] to increase understanding of the tax gap. The Committee acknowledges that the IRS and others have expressed concerns with the certainty of the overall tax gap estimate in part because some aspects of the estimate rely on data from the 1970s and 

1980s and in other areas, no estimates are available. The Committee agrees with GAO, TIGTA, the National Taxpayer Advocate, 

and the IRS Oversight Board, which have all recommended greater 

and more frequent data collection and studies of the tax gap including the portion of the tax gap attibutable to international transactions. 

Misclassification of Contractors.—The Committee continues to be 

highly concerned with the misclassification of workers as independent contractors rather than as employees. This 

misclassification leads to the underreporting and underpayment of 

employment and payroll taxes by employers and individuals, which 

accounts for a substantial portion of the gross tax gap. The Committee notes that a TIGTA report issued in 2009 recommended that 

IRS develop an agency-wide employment tax program to specifically address the issue of worker misclassification to improve coordination among the business divisions, improve compliance, and 

reduce the tax gap. The Committee is encouraged by IRS actions 

to develop such a plan and a worker classification team to assist 

external stakeholders. TIGTA further recommended a formal research effort to study worker classification and other employment 

tax issues, including the safe harbor provision. The Committee understands that IRS has begun the random sampling selection to 

undertake such a study. The Committee looks forward to the findings once the 3 years of examinations are complete. 

The Committee is concerned that staffing within the IRS’s SS– 

8 program, responsible for making determinations as to a worker’s 

Federal employment tax status, has not kept pace with the record 

and sustained SS–8 filings during the past three filing seasons. 

The Committee believes that the IRS SS–8 program is critical to 
32 

ensuring that workers are classified correctly, identifying leads for 

employment tax exams and criminal investigations, and combating 

the underreporting of employment taxes that contributes significantly to the tax gap. The Committee believes it is crucial, given 

the growing workload, that the IRS maintain sufficient staffing at 

SS–8 processing locations. Prior to making any staffing reductions 

at the SS–8 processing locations, the Committee directs the IRS to 

provide a report to the Committee that details the past 5 years of 

staffing levels and employee productivity, SS–8 receipt volumes, 

and rationale for the proposed workforce changes. 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,083,884,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,108,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,088,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Operations Support appropriation provides for overall planning and direction of the IRS including shared service support related to facilities services, rent payments, printing, postage, and security; other support functions that are considered overhead but essential to the successful operation of IRS programs including resources for headquarters management activities, including IRSwide support for strategic planning, communications and liaison, finance, human resources, EEO and diversity; research and statistics 

of income; and necessary expenses for information systems and 

telecommunication support, including developmental information 

systems and operational information systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,088,000,000 for Operations Sup- port for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $4,116,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and $20,000,000 below the budget request. 

Bill language is included allowing up to $75,000,000 of these funds 

to remain available until September 30, 2012, for information technology support and not to exceed $1,000,000 to remain available 

until September 30, 2013, for research; not less than $2,000,000 for 

the Internal Revenue Oversight Board; and $25,000 for official reception and representation expenses. 

Information Technology [IT] Management and Oversight.—The 

IRS has made significant strides in improving the management 

and oversight of its business systems modernization [BSM] program. The IRS needs to vigilantly address major systemic problems 

with its non-BSM portfolio of information technology projects. 

TIGTA has identified problems in several areas of IT management 

and oversight including, but not limited to, such areas as classification of investment projects, oversight and governance structure, 

risk management, contingency planning, and contractor performance and accountability. 

The Committee expects the IRS to monitor its entire non-BSM IT 

portfolio (regardless of tier classification) and make any changes as 

necessary to ensure that each project has (1) been properly classified for investment decision and management purposes, (2) the appropriate governance structure in place (such as an executive steer-
33 

ing committee), (3) a risk management plan, (4) a contingency plan 

in case of breakdowns or failures in scheduled deliverables, (5) adequate provisions in the contracts to ensure penalties and repayment to the agency if performance is not met, (6) adequate contractor staffing and management in place to fulfill the contract 

terms and deliverables, and (7) been certified by the head of the 

relevant IRS business unit that the project is deemed necessary for 

its operations and meets its requirements. 

The Committee directs the administration and the IRS to include 

within the fiscal year 2012 budget request a proposed long-term 

multiyear funding strategy within the Operations Support account 

to upgrade and modernize the aging legacy IRS information technology infrastructure. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $263,897,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 386,908,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 386,908,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Business Systems Modernization account provides resources 

for revamping business practices and acquiring new technology. 

The IRS has undertaken a multi-year, multi-billion dollar effort to 

migrate from its antiquated legacy system to bring the IRS tax administration system to a level of public and private sector best 

practices. The IRS is using a formal methodology to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its portfolio of business systems modernization investments. This methodology is designed to enforce a 

documented, repeatable, and measurable process for managing investments throughout their life cycle. The process is reviewed by 

the Government Accountability Office on a regular basis as part of 

the submission requirements for expenditure plans to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan 

approval process prior to the use of appropriated funds continues 

for fiscal year 2011. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $386,908,000 for Business Systems 

Modernization [BSM] for fiscal year 2011. This amount is 

$123,011,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. The Committee continues to believe that 

BSM is the IRS’s highest management and administrative priority. 

As one of the Federal Government’s largest, most visible, and sensitive modernization efforts, managing the risks inherent in BSM 

will require vigilant management attention for several years. To 

the IRS’s credit, the program has made steady progress over the 

past few years. The replacement of the aging, vintage 1969 individual master file with the new customer account data engine will 

permit daily, rather than weekly, updating of individual tax accounts. With this relational database as its centerpiece, systems 

modernization by the IRS promotes enhanced customer service, 

more expeditious refund processing, and better administration of 

the tax system. 
34 

The Committee underscores the critical importance of the continued migration from the aging tax administration system to a sophisticated relational platform, and understands that the requested 

funding increase for Business Systems Modernization [BSM] is a 

top national priority. Completion of the core taxpayer account database is the cornerstone of modernization and a foundational prerequisite upon which the success of other major initiatives depends. 

It will fundamentally transform the IRS’s relationship with its accounts, and promote opportunities for both taxpayer service delivery and enforcement. 

The Committee recognizes that the BSM program is presently at 

a critical juncture in its evolution, and recommends full funding of 

$152,119,000 for CADE 2 to allow the IRS to complete the new taxpayer account database for the 2012 filing season. CADE 2 will feature a daily processing cycle that will generate more timely, accurate, and complete data resulting in more rapid direct deposit of refunds for electronic filers, faster account adjustments, and expedited resolution of taxpayer account issues and transactions. The 

Committee’s recommended funding will also support investments of 

$40,000,000 for Current CADE, $39,100,000 for Modernized E-file, 

$38,500,000 for Core Infrastructure, $37,000,000 for Architecture, 

Integration, and Management, $10,000,000 as Management Reserve, and $70,189,000 for labor expenses in conjunction with Business Systems Modernization. 

The Committee acknowledges that the IRS has made progress in 

addressing information security risks confronting the IRS modernization environment, but that weaknesses continue to place IRS 

systems at risk. The Committee expects the IRS to continue its efforts to fully address its information security weaknesses, including 

promptly instituting corrective action in response to recommendations of GAO and TIGTA in this area. 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $15,512,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 18,987,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,987,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides operating funds to administer the 

advance payment feature of a refundable trade adjustment assistance health insurance tax credit program to assist dislocated workers with their health insurance premiums. The tax credit program 

was enacted by the Trade Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–210) and 

became effective in August 2003. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $18,987,000 for the 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration in fiscal year 2011. 

This amount is $3,475,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 

and the same as the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

The Committee has included five administrative provisions carried in prior appropriations acts as follows: 
35 

Section 101 continues a provision allowing the IRS to transfer up 

to 5 percent of any appropriation made available to the agency in 

fiscal year 2011 to any other IRS account, with the exception of the 

Enforcement account, which is limited to 3 percent. The IRS is directed to follow the Committee’s reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this report. 

Section 102 continues a provision maintaining a training program in taxpayers’ rights and cross-cultural relations. 

Section 103 continues a provision requiring the IRS to institute 

and enforce policies and procedures, which will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information. 

Section 104 continues a provision directing that funds shall be 

available for improved facilities and increased staffing to support 

a 1–800 help line service for taxpayers. 

Section 105 continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds 

in this act to enter into, renew, extend, administer, implement, enforce, provide oversight of, or make any payment related to any 

qualified tax collection contract. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

The Committee includes 13 administrative provisions carried 

over from prior appropriations acts. The administrative provisions 

are as follows: 

Section 107 authorizes certain basic services within the Treasury 

Department in fiscal year 2011, including purchase of uniforms; 

maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign countries; and contracts 

with the Department of State for health and medical services to 

employees and their dependents serving in foreign countries. 

Section 108 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Special Inspector 

General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public 

Debt appropriations under certain circumstances. 

Section 109 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration under certain circumstances. 

Section 110 requires that the purchase of law enforcement vehicles be consistent with departmental vehicle management principles. 

Section 111 prohibits the Department of the Treasury and the 

Bureau of Engraving and Printing from redesigning the $1 Federal 

Reserve Note. 

Section 112 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer 

funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management Service, 

to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover the costs of debt 

collection. Such amounts shall be reimbursed to the Salaries and 

Expenses account from debt collections received in the Debt Collection Fund. 

Section 113 extends for 1 year the authority to conduct a personnel management demonstration project. 

Section 114 requires prior approval for the construction and operation of a museum by the United States Mint. 
36 

Section 115 prohibits the merger of the United States Mint and 

the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without prior approval of 

the committees of jurisdiction. 

Section 116 authorizes the Department’s intelligence activities. 

Section 117 permits the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to use $5,000 from the Industrial Revolving Fund for reception and representation expenses. 

Section 118 requires prior approval for certain spending from the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 

Section 119 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to develop an 

annual Capital Investment Plan. 
(37) 

TITLE II 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS 

APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $450,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 450,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the compensation of the President, including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 

compensation of the President, including an expense allowance of 

$50,000. This is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. The expense account is for official 

use as authorized by title 3, United States Code and is not considered taxable to the President. The bill specifies that any unused 

amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C. 

1552. 

THE WHITE HOUSE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $59,143,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 59,859,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,859,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ account of The White House provides staff assistance and administrative services for the direct 

support of the President. The office also serves as the President’s 

representative before the media. In accordance with 3 U.S.C. 105, 

the office also supports and assists the activities of the spouse of 

the President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,859,000 for 

The White House, Salaries and Expenses. The recommendation is 

$716,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is equal 

to the budget request. 

Of the total funding, the Committee recommends $1,400,000 for 

the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Committee directs the administration to continue to coordinate a Government-wide effort to 
38 

develop and implement a domestic AIDS strategy, including the development of targets for improved prevention and treatment outcomes. 

The Committee expects officials employed in whole or in part by 

the Executive Office of the President, and designated by the President to coordinate policy agendas across executive departments and 

agencies, to keep Congress fully and currently informed of such activities. The Committee directs each official designated by the 

President to serve in a position not recognized by statute and who 

is responsible for interagency development or coordination of any 

rule, regulation, or policy to submit a semiannual report describing 

the activities of the official and the office of such official, including 

a detailed explanation of the development or issuance of any rule, 

regulation, directive or policy on which that official or the office of 

such official participated or assisted. The first such report shall be 

submitted not later than March 31, 2011. 

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $13,838,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 14,006,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,006,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds provide for the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, 

refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, heating, and lighting 

of the White House and the official and ceremonial functions of the 

President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,006,000 for 

the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee recommendation is $168,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and is equal to the budget request. The bill also continues certain restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive 

Residence. 

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $2,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,005,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,005,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account funds the repair, alteration, and improvement of 

the Executive Residence at the White House. A separate account 

was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track expenditures for the capital improvement projects at the Executive Residence at the White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,005,000 for 

White House Repair and Restoration, equal to the budget request 

and $495,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 
39 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,403,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,403,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national economy 

and its various segments, advises the President on economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth and stability, 

appraises economic programs and policies of the Federal Government, and assists in the preparation of the annual Economic Report of the President to Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,403,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This 

amount is equal to the budget request and is $203,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL AND HOMELAND SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $12,231,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 14,134,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,134,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Security Council advises the President in integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies related to national 

security and the Homeland Security Council advises the President 

in coordinating homeland security-related policies across the Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,134,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council and the 

Homeland Security Council. This amount is equal to the budget request and $1,903,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The budget requests that funding for the Homeland Security 

Council, previously funded within The White House Office account, 

be combined with funding for the National Security Council. The 

Committee does not oppose the proposed reorganization and recommends funding for the Homeland Security Council together with 

the National Security Council within a new account titled ‘‘National Security Council and Homeland Security Council.’’ 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $115,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 115,280,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 115,280,000 
40 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Administration’s mission is to provide high-quality, 

cost-effective administrative services to the Executive Office of the 

President. These services, defined by Executive Order 12028 of 

1977, include financial, personnel, library and records services, information management systems support, and general office services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $115,280,000 for 

the Office of Administration for fiscal year 2011, equal to both the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $12,777,000 to stabilize and modernize the information technology infrastructure 

within the Executive Office of the President. This funding supports 

the continuation of a major initiative that will refresh the aging information technology infrastructure, strengthen disaster recovery 

capabilities, and expand the capabilities of the Executive Office of 

the President to electronically communicate with citizens and provide information to the public. 

The Committee directs the Office of Administration to place a top 

priority on the implementation of comprehensive policies and procedures for the preservation of all records, including electronic 

records such as e-mails, videos, and social networking communication, consistent with the requirements of the Presidential Records 

Act, the Federal Records Act, and other pertinent laws. The Office 

of Administration shall work closely with the National Archives 

and Records Administration [NARA] to ensure the full and complete maintenance and formatting of electronic records that will 

eventually be turned over to NARA. The Committee expects the Office of Administration to keep the Committee fully apprised of 

funding needs related to record preservation and retention. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $92,863,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 92,863,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 94,863,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Management and Budget [OMB] assists the President in the discharge of his budgetary, management, and other executive responsibilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $94,863,000 for the Office of Management and Budget which is $2,000,000 above 

both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request. 

The recommended increase above the budget request is provided 

to maintain and enhance the career civil service workforce at OMB 

and to make critical investments in modernizing the Federal Government’s core budgeting system. 
41 

The Committee relies on all entities receiving Federal funds, including OMB, to provide detailed information about budget requests and activities conducted using previously appropriated 

funds. The Committee expects OMB to provide timely and complete 

responses to the Committee to all requests for information, including requests related to the budget request for OMB and the Executive Office of the President. 

The Committee directs OMB to submit a quarterly personnel 

census to the Committee specifying the number of full-time and 

part-time career staff and the number of full-time and part-time 

non-career Presidential appointees. The personnel census shall be 

arrayed by specific program activity and include specific detail for 

each OMB-wide support office, the number of Federal agency 

detailees, and the number of contractor staff. 

The Committee directs OMB to submit a written report to the 

Committee within 120 days of enactment specifying a plan to modernize the Federal Government’s core budgeting system. This system is used Government-wide by all Federal agencies for documenting and estimating budget activities, ensuring data integrity 

with other financial and accounting systems, and transmitting a 

detailed budget request to the Congress. The report shall specify a 

timeline and a detailed budget estimate for designing and implementing the modernized system as well as a description of enhanced capabilities. 

Pursuant to the presidential memorandum regarding disposal of 

unneeded Federal real estate, the Committee directs that OMB 

summarize the results, by agency, of the real property cost savings 

and innovation plans in a report due to the Committee not later 

than 45 days after enactment of this act. As these agency plans 

were due to OMB by July 23, 2010, any updated information related to this effort should be included in the report. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE MANAGEMENT COUNCILS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Government-wide Management Councils provide forums for 

improving government performance by facilitating experience exchange and identification of best practices among leaders in Federal agencies. Interagency groups funded under this account include the President’s Management Council for overall management 

improvement initiatives, the Chief Financial Officers Council for financial management initiatives, the Chief Information Officers 

Council for information technology initiatives, the Chief Human 

Capital Officers Council for human capital initiatives, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council for procurement initiatives, and the Performance Improvement Council for performance improvement initiatives. Funding is derived via transfer from the head of each executive department and agency. 
42 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Government-wide 

Management Councils which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $3,000,000 below the budget request. Funding for 

these activities was provided for in fiscal year 2010 in section 723 

of Public Law 111–117. The Committee directs the Executive Office 

of the President to continue to include a budgetary justification for 

each council in the annual budget request and to clearly note in the 

budget justification any items requested in the budget for Government-wide initiatives led or coordinated through the councils (for 

example, the Financial Innovation and Transformation project proposed for fiscal year 2011 through the Department of the Treasury). 

The Committee supports the activities of the Government-wide 

Management Councils and recognizes that regular communication 

among agency leaders can lead to improved performance. The Committee does not recommend requested funding of $3,000,000 for 

pilot programs to be initiated through the councils in fiscal year 

2011. The Committee will evaluate specific proposals for pilot programs in the future but cannot make recommendations on funding 

without specific budgetary justification. 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $29,575,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 26,196,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], established 

by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and reauthorized by Public 

Law 109–469, is charged with developing policies, objectives, and 

priorities for the National Drug Control Program. In addition, 

ONDCP administers the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, the Drug-Free Communities Program, and several other related initiatives. 

This account provides funding for personnel compensation, travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for general policy 

research to support the formulation of the National Drug Control 

Strategy. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,000,000 for 

ONDCP’s salaries and expenses. This amount is $575,000 below 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $2,804,000 above the budget 

request. The funding level is provided to accommodate staffing 

hired during fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee has received ONDCP’s report about steps taken 

during the past year to address the recommendations of the study 

conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration 

[NAPA]. Some positive steps have been taken; however, room for 
43 

improvement still exists. Among other recommendations named in 

the NAPA report, the Committee remains particularly interested in 

fostering openness and participation by staff at ONDCP, ensuring 

that qualified individuals hold leadership positions, and reducing 

the number of political positions at ONDCP. The Committee applauds efforts by top leadership to listen to stakeholders and applauds efforts with interagency working groups and their task 

forces. The Committee directs ONDCP to provide an updated report by May 13, 2011 on further actions and improvements taken. 

The Committee is aware that the administration’s new drug 

strategy places an increased emphasis on demand reduction; however, this commitment is not reflected within program staffing allocations. The Office of Supply Reduction remains more than three 

times the size of the Office of Demand Reduction. The Committee 

is concerned that positive efforts undertaken by the Deputy Director of ONDCP may cease with his impending departure and urges 

ONDCP to ensure that Office of Demand Reduction staff—both current and new—have expertise in prevention and making comprehensive community action a focal point. 

The Committee recognizes efforts by ONDCP to improve the 

quality of some reports required by Congress; however, several reports remain late, such as the staffing and Counterdrug Technology 

Assessment Center reports. In some cases, a lengthy clearance 

process delays submission of information required by Congress in 

a timely manner. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] was established by the Counter-Narcotics Technology Act of 1990 (Public 

Law 101–510) and reauthorized in 1998 (Public Law 105–277) to 

serve as the central counterdrug technology research and development organization for the United States Government. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided no funding for this program, consistent with the budget request. 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $239,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 209,950,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 239,000,000 
44 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program 

was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 

100–690) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s reauthorization (Public Law 109–469) to provide assistance to Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement entities operating in those areas 

most adversely affected by drug trafficking. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $239,000,000 for 

the HIDTA program, the same as the fiscal year 2010 level and 

$29,050,000 above the budget request. The Committee expects that 

the fiscal year 2010 program adjustment be added to the baseline 

operating budget for each HIDTA. The Committee directs that 

funding shall be provided for the existing HIDTAs at no less than 

the fiscal year 2010 level. 

ONDCP is directed to consult with the HIDTAs in advance of deciding programmatic spending allocations for discretionary (supplemental) funding. 

The Committee recommendation specifies that up to $2,700,000 

may be used for auditing services and associated activities, and up 

to $500,000 shall be used to ensure the continued operation and 

maintenance of the Performance Management System. 

The Committee directs that the HIDTA funds be transferred to 

the appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously and includes 

provisions in the bill to help prevent delay. 

The Committee recognizes the National HIDTA Assistance Center for providing programmatic support to the HIDTA program to 

include training, financial management/audit review, and other essential services. 

The Committee retains a provision allowing unexpended funds 

obligated prior to 2 years ago for programs addressing the treatment or prevention of drug use to be used for other approved 

HIDTA activities. 

The HIDTA funds should not be used to supplant existing support for ongoing Federal, State, or local drug control operations 

normally funded out of the operating budgets of each agency. 

ONDCP is directed to withhold all HIDTA funds from a State until 

such time as a State or locality has met its financial obligation. 

The Committee is concerned about the delay that has occurred 

with discretionary (supplemental) funding. Previous annual bill 

language directed that this funding be allocated not later than 120 

days after enactment, and this language has been softened since 

timely transactions have been occurring. However, for fiscal year 

2010, the HIDTAs have not received all of their discretionary funding (which is added to the budget request by Congress). Distribution of these funds is overdue, and the Committee reminds the Executive Office of the President that this is not acceptable and that 

the clearance process needs to be expedited. 
45 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $154,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 165,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 175,825,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–690), and the 

Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act (Public 

Law 109–469) established this account to be administered by the 

Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The funds 

appropriated to the program support high-priority drug control programs and may be transferred to drug control agencies. 

This account includes the following programs: National Youth 

Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Drug-Free Communities Support Program, National Drug Court Institute, U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] membership dues, National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, and Performance Measures Development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $175,825,000 for 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $21,425,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,525,000 above the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides the following funding levels: 

Amount 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ........................................................................................................ $66,500,000 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ........................................................................................................... 95,000,000 

National Community Anti-Drug Coalition training ..................................................................................... 2,000,000 

National Drug Court Institute .............................................................................................................................. 1,000,000 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency ...................................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] ....................................................................................................................... 1,900,000 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ..................................................................................................... 1,187,500 

Performance Measures Development ................................................................................................................... 237,500 

National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign.—Since its initial 

funding in fiscal year 1998, the Media Campaign has been viewed 

at times positively and negatively. It has received mostly negative 

reviews when analyzed by independent entities and GAO, and its 

results have not been—and perhaps cannot be—proven. As a result, funding has decreased over time. However, the Committee believes that it is important to maintain anti-drug messaging to the 

Nation’s youth. The Committee is aware of ONDCP’s new approach 

of emphasizing ads toward a subset of the target audience; customizing messages at the local level; using digital media, and using 

culturally sensitive advertising. The Committee continues to be 

supportive of continued ads aimed at methamphetamine abuse. 

The Committee provides $66,500,000 for the Media Campaign, 

which should include methamphetamine prevention ads. The Committee directs that no more than 10 percent of the funding provided for the Media Campaign be used for administrative costs. 
46 

Drug-free Communities Support Program.—ONDCP directs the 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in partnership 

with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. DFCSP provides dollar for dollar matching grants of up to 

$125,000 to local coalitions that mobilize their communities to prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, illicit drug, and inhalant abuse. Such 

grants support coalitions of youth; parents; media; law enforcement; school officials; faith-based organizations; fraternal organizations; State, local, and tribal government agencies; healthcare professionals; and other community representatives. The DFCSP enables these coalitions to strengthen their coordination and prevention efforts, encourage citizen participation in substance abuse reduction efforts, and disseminate information about effective programs. The Committee provides $95,000,000 for the continuation of 

the DFCSP. 

The Committee includes a provision in the bill directing ONDCP to provide $2,000,000 of DFCSP funds for training and related purposes as authorized by section 4 of Public Law 107–82, as amended 

by Public Law 109–469. 

National Drug Court Institute.—The National Drug Court Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by promoting and disseminating education, research, and scholarship concerning drug court programs and providing a comprehensive drug 

court training series for practitioners. Drug courts provide an effective means to fight drug-related crime through the cooperative efforts of State and local law enforcement, the judicial system, and 

the public health treatment network. The Committee provides 

$1,000,000 for the National Drug Court Institute. 

United States Anti-doping Agency.—The United States AntiDoping Agency [USADA] is the independent anti-doping agency for 

Olympic sports in the United States, and is responsible for managing the testing and adjudication process for U.S. Olympic, Pan 

Am and Paralympic athletes. As a nonprofit corporation under the 

leadership of an independent Board of Directors, USADA has the 

authority to set forth guiding principles in anti-doping policy and 

to enforce any doping violations. In addition to managing collection 

and testing procedures, USADA is also responsible for enhancing 

research efforts and promoting educational programs to inform athletes of the rules governing the use of performance enhancing substances, as well as the ethics of doping and its harmful health effects. The Committee provides $10,000,000 for USADA. 

World Anti-doping Agency.—ONDCP represents the United 

States in the World Anti-doping Agency [WADA], which promotes 

and coordinates international activities against doping in all forms 

of sports. The Committee provides $1,900,000 for membership dues 

to the WADA. 

National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws.—The National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws [NAMSDL] is a national organization that drafts, researches, and analyzes model drug and alcohol 

laws and related State statutes, provides access to a national network of drug and alcohol experts, and facilitates working relationships among State and community leaders and drug and alcohol 

professionals. In doing so, NAMSDL encourages States to adopt 

and implement laws, policies, and regulations to reduce drug traf-
47 

ficking, drug use, and their related consequences. The Committee 

provides $1,187,500 to NAMSDL and directs ONDCP to provide the 

entire amount directly to NAMSDL within 30 days after enactment 

of this act. 

National Drug Control Performance Measures Development.— Performance Measures funding is used to conduct evaluation research for assessing the effectiveness of the National Drug Control 

Strategy. The Committee provides $237,500 for this program. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or defense. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is equal to the 

amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and the same as the budget request. 

PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $37,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation (Partnership Fund) is a new program initiated in fiscal year 2010. The 

Committee understands that the Partnership Fund will support 

pilot programs designed to reduce errors and improve efficiency 

and service of Federal programs administered by States. The Partnership Fund pilot programs will focus on coordinating State-administered Federal programs both within States and between State 

and Federal officials and on technology solutions that may serve as 

best practices in the future. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] chairs an interagency council consisting 

of representatives of appropriate Federal agencies, States, and 

other stakeholders. The council analyzes and will select pilot programs for funding, develop strategies and goals for the overall program as well as for each pilot program, and develop methodologies 

for assessing the performance of the overall program and the pilot 

programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend additional funding for the 

Partnership Fund in fiscal year 2011, consistent with the budget 

request. Funds provided in fiscal year 2010 will be sufficient to continue the initiative during fiscal year 2011. The Committee reminds the interagency council of the semiannual progress reports 
48 

that are required to be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. 

The Committee is pleased with the proposed initiative to improve 

the operations of State-administered Federal programs. Efficiencies 

can be gained by better coordinating Federal programs, and technology may play a significant role in such improvements. 

The Committee notes that OMB does not administer or execute 

Federal programs. While the Committee expects OMB to continue 

to play a coordinating role in designing pilot programs, developing 

performance measures, and allocating funds, the Committee directs 

that the interagency council be the exclusive decisionmaking body 

for such activities. As Chair of the Interagency Council, the Committee directs the Director of OMB to seek consensus and input to 

the maximum extent possible from council members and participating Federal and State agencies. 

INTEGRATED, EFFICIENT, AND EFFECTIVE USES OF INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information 

Technology [IEEUIT] program is a new program recommended by 

the President in fiscal year 2011. The Committee understands that 

the IEEUIT will be used as a central Government fund to establish 

common hosting for centralized IT services in order to create a set 

of common platforms for universal tasks, potentially including citizen engagement capabilities, collaboration capabilities, and accountability tracking. The goal of the IEEUIT is to centralize key 

information technology services for Government agencies, saving 

taxpayer dollars in the future that would otherwise be spent on duplicative and inefficient information technology services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 for 

the IEEUIT. The IEEUIT is a new program and was not funded 

in fiscal year 2010. Although the recommended funding is 

$10,000,000 below the budget request, the Committee believes that 

the recommended amount represents sufficient resources to initiate 

the IEEUIT program in fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee is pleased with the proposed initiative and welcomes the comprehensive, innovative approach to modernizing and 

streamlining common information technology services within the 

Federal Government. The Committee reminds the Executive Office 

of the President, however, that the Committee expects to be regularly apprised of how Government-wide efforts under the IEEUIT 

affect agency-specific projects and missions on a case-by-case basis. 

The Committee directs that the IEEUIT shall not be a substitute 

for the Committee’s routine consideration of agency needs in accordance with the regular budget process. Finally, the Committee 
49 

directs the Executive Office of the President to notify the Committee immediately upon any change in an agency spending plan 

pursuant to the IEEUIT or any other effort to modernize, streamline, or improve Federal information technology projects. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,604,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,657,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,657,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for staff and expenses to enable the 

Vice President to provide assistance to the President in connection 

with the performance of executive duties and responsibilities. The 

Vice President also has a staff funded by the Senate to assist him 

in the performance of his legislative duties. These funds also support the official activities of the spouse of the Vice President. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,657,000 for 

special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as the 

budget request and $53,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 

OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $330,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 335,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 335,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account supports the care and operation of the Vice President’s residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory. These 

funds specifically support equipment, furnishings, dining facilities, 

and services required to perform and discharge the Vice President’s 

official duties, functions, and obligations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $335,000 for the 

official residence of the Vice President. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $5,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE

PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

Section 201 continues a provision that provides flexibility in the 

use of funds in accounts under the Executive Office of the President. 

Section 202 requires a detailed financial plan by the Director of 

ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2011. 
50 

Section 203 allows for the transfer of up to 2 percent among programs within ONDCP. 

Section 204 establishes reprogramming requirements for 

ONDCP. 
(51) 

TITLE III 

THE JUDICIARY 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Established under Article III of the Constitution, the judicial 

branch of Government is a separate but equal branch. The Federal 

judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United States Courts of 

Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims, and several other entities 

and programs. The organization of the judiciary, the district and 

circuit boundaries, the places of holding court, and the number of 

Federal judges are legislated by the Congress and signed into law 

by the President. 

The Committee’s recommended funding levels support the Federal judiciary’s role of providing equal justice under the law and include sufficient funds to support this critical mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of judges and support staff and the operation and security of our Nation’s courts. 

The judicial branch is subject to the same funding constraints 

facing the executive and legislative branches. It is imperative that 

the Federal judiciary devote its resources primarily to the retention 

of staff. Further, it is also important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other expenses. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $74,034,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 77,758,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 77,758,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United States, 

one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United States. 

The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the Federal court 

system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,758,000 for 

the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of operating 

the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building and grounds. 

The recommendation is $3,724,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

The Committee has encountered difficulties securing information 

relating to budgetary matters. On several occasions, responses re-
52 

lating to how funds had been spent were incomplete or 

unaddressed. 

Specifically, for the past several years, the Committee has di- rected the Court to report on its $122,300,000 construction and 

modernization plan. While summaries have been provided, the 

level of detail and specificity the Committee needs to accurately assess the progress of the modernization project and make determinations regarding the resources needed to complete the project 

has not been forthcoming. Court officials have recently indicated 

that security improvements are part of the modernization project; 

however, the reports have not included sufficient detail for the 

Committee to review how the resources have been allocated between security improvements and other aspects of the project. 

Questions from the Committee for specific data regarding these expenditures have not been addressed. Without more information, the 

Committee’s ability to assess the project management, and track 

and document prior spending is hampered. In order to gain a better 

budgetary understanding of ongoing projects, directive language 

has been included under the ‘‘Care of Buildings and Grounds’’ account. 

The Committee is charged with funding and overseeing agencies 

and entities under its jurisdiction and must ensure that scarce resources are being utilized in the most cost-efficient manner. The 

Committee cannot allocate resources prudently without receiving 

detailed justifications for requests and plans for expenditures from 

any agency or entity requesting resources. As a result, certain fiscal year 2011 funding will be available only upon receipt of a detailed report as required under the ‘‘Care of Buildings and 

Grounds’’ account. 

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $14,525,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 14,788,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,788,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Care of the Building and Grounds, for expenditure by the Architect of the Capitol, provides for the structural and mechanical care 

of the United States Supreme Court Building and Grounds, including maintenance and operation of mechanical, electrical, and electronic equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,788,000 for 

personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court building 

and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of the Capitol. 

The recommendation is $263,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is aware that numerous major capital improvement projects have been ongoing at the Court, but has not been 

presented with a clear understanding of the details of the projects 

and their budgets. The Court is directed to provide to the Committee a detailed report not later than 90 days after enactment of 

this act, on each major capital project, including descriptions; 
53 

timelines; milestones; and funding committed, obligated, and expended, as well as any unobligated balances. The report should include the complete modernization project and also address any additional capital enhancement projects planned for the future. The 

report shall be updated and provided to the Committee on June 15, 

2011, and again on September 30, 2011. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $32,560,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 35,859,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 33,920,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was 

established on October 1, 1982 under Article III of the Constitution. The court was formed by the merger of the United States 

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of 

the United States Court of Claims. The court consists of 12 judges 

who are appointed by the President, with the advice and consent 

of the Senate. Judges are appointed to the court under Article III 

of the Constitution of the United States. 

The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a variety of 

subject matter, including international trade, Government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from the United States 

Government, Federal personnel, and veterans’ benefits. Appeals to 

the court come from all Federal district courts, the United States 

Court of Federal Claims, the United States Court of International 

Trade, and the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. The court 

also takes appeals of certain administrative agencies’ decisions, including the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract 

Appeals, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the 

Trademark Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United 

States International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of 

the United States Congress, and the Government Accountability 

Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewable by the court. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,920,000. 

The recommendation is $1,360,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level, and $1,939,000 below the budget request. The Committee 

is aware that the Court hired staff during fiscal year 2010 without 

approval or funding provided by the Committee, therefore, the 

Committee has not included funding to support such staff. The 

funds provided equal the adjustments to base needed to maintain 

current services, with the exception of the annualization of the new 

fiscal year 2010 positions. 
54 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $21,350,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 22,268,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,268,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Court of International Trade, located in New 

York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions brought against the 

United States, its agencies and officers, and certain civil actions 

brought by the United States, arising out of import transactions 

and the administration and enforcement of the Federal customs 

and international trade laws. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,268,000. 

The recommendation is $918,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL

SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,011,018,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 5,309,781,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,240,051,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide total 

funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating costs of appellate, 

district, and bankruptcy courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and 

probation and pretrial services offices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,240,051,000 

for salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $229,033,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and $69,730,000 below the 

budget request. 

This funding level incorporates the Judiciary’s re-estimates and 

funds requested adjustments to base as well as requested increases 

with the exception of the cost-of-living adjustment for judges and 

the telecommunications infrastructure increase. 

In addition, the Committee includes an appropriation of 

$40,000,000 for workload requirements resulting from increased 

immigration and other law enforcement initiatives on the Southwest border. These additional resources are needed to address the 

projected growth in criminal caseload associated with additional 

ICE, FBI, DEA, and ATF agents and Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The 
55 

funds will be available to the Judicial Conference of the United 

States for additional Magistrate Judges, probation and pretrial 

services officers, clerk’s office staff, fees of jurors, attorneys for indigent defendants, court security and related expenses. With these 

funds, as caseload grows, the Judicial Conference will be able to 

apply resources in a timely fashion to address the additional workload needs of the courts. Without these funds, a bottleneck in the 

judicial system will occur because the courts will lack the resources 

necessary to process the additional criminal cases brought by the 

Department of Justice. 

Capital Security Program.—A major effort of the Judiciary over 

the past several years has been revising and strengthening its 

long-range planning process for facility needs. Following Judicial 

Conference adoption of an unprecedented cost containment strategy 

in 2004, a national moratorium on courthouse construction was imposed. Thirty-five courthouse construction projects that had not yet 

received appropriated funding for site, design, or construction were 

subject to the moratorium. These courthouses, and others in their 

respective districts/circuits, have been re-evaluated by the Judiciary using a new asset management planning [AMP] methodology. 

The AMP focuses on cost, and places a greater emphasis on space 

availability in an existing facility rather than on security or structural condition when determining whether to recommend a new 

courthouse or a major renovation of an existing facility. 

Recognizing the impact of the Judiciary’s rental expenses on its 

ability to maintain support of critical court requirements, the Committee supports the work of the Judiciary in revising its long-range 

planning process for facility needs. Budgetary realities, as well as 

new space design criteria for courtroom sharing, will result in 

fewer new courthouses recommended by the Judicial Conference for 

funding in the future. To date, 146 courthouses within 28 districts 

and 2 circuits have been assessed by the Judiciary to measure existing conditions, and operational and security deficiencies against 

current space and security criteria. Using the new methodology, existing buildings will not be replaced with modern courthouses 

based on security deficiencies alone. 

However, the Committee believes that security deficiencies in existing courthouses still must be addressed which can be accomplished in most instances with considerably less funding than 

would be required for a new facility. Therefore, the Committee has 

included $35,000,000 within the General Services Administration’s 

Federal Buildings Fund to establish a new Special Emphasis Program—the Judiciary Capital Security Program—which provides 

funding to address security deficiencies in existing buildings where 

physical, interior alterations are viable. While limited due to fiscal 

constraints, this funding will allow the program to begin its work. 

The Judiciary and the GSA shall work collaboratively to assess the 

building conditions, viability of long-term use, and structural capacity for these stand-alone architectural solutions. Such solutions 

may include: building additional corridors; adding or reconfiguring 

elevators; building visual barriers; moving air-intakes; and enlarging security screening areas. To date, the Judiciary’s recent AMP 

analysis has identified as many as 45 buildings which could benefit 
56 

from this initiative to improve the physical security in existing 

courthouses. 

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $5,428,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,785,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,785,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Enacted by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 

(Public Law 99–660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is 

a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a perceived crisis in 

vaccine tort liability claims that threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines nationwide. The statute’s primary intention is the creation of a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism 

that ensures a no-fault compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by certain covered vaccines. This program protects 

the availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a substantial number of claims from the tort arena. 

Not only did this act create a special fund to pay judgments 

awarded under the act, but it also created the Office of Special 

Masters within the United States Court of Federal Claims to hear 

vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates that up to eight special 

masters may be appointed for this purpose. The special masters expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary for vaccine injury cases 

from a special fund set up under the Vaccine Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,785,000. The recommendation is $643,000 below the fiscal year 2010 funding 

level and consistent with the budget request. 

DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $977,748,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,081,195,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,072,253,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel 

guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18 

U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who 

cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint counsel 

from Federal public and community defender organizations or from 

a panel of private attorneys established by the court. The Defender 

Services program helps to maintain public confidence in the Nation’s commitment to equal justice under the law and ensures the 

successful operation of the constitutionally based adversary system 

of justice by which Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed 

rights are enforced. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,072,253,000. 

The recommendation is $94,505,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
57 

funding level and $8,942,000 below the budget request. Due to limited resources as well as the large increase provided last year, no 

increase in the panel attorney noncapital rate is provided. 

FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $61,861,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 64,108,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,590,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances of 

grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and land 

commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily upon the 

volume and the length of jury trials demanded by parties to both 

civil and criminal actions and the number of grand juries being 

convened by the courts at the request of the United States Attorneys. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,590,000. 

The recommendation is $6,271,000 below the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the judiciary’s re-estimate of fiscal 

year 2010 requirements. 

COURT SECURITY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $452,607,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 495,038,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 495,038,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983 and 

funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of protective 

guard services, and the procurement, installation, and maintenance 

of security systems and equipment for United States courthouses 

and other facilities housing Federal court operations, including 

building access control, inspection of mail and packages, directed 

security patrols, perimeter security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other similar activities as authorized by section 

1010 of the Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public 

Law 100–702). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,038,000. 

The recommendation is $42,431,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $83,075,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 87,255,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 87,255,000 
58 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts was 

created in 1939 by an act of Congress. It serves the Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies as well as applicable Federal 

statutes and regulations. The AO is the focal point for communication and coordination within the Federal judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, and the public on behalf of the judiciary. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $87,255,000. 

This recommendation is $4,180,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $27,328,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 28,694,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,694,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC, improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court administration through education for judges and staff, and research, 

evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts and the Judicial 

Conference. The Center’s responsibilities include educating judges 

and other judicial branch personnel about legal developments and 

efficient litigation management and court administration. Additionally, the Center also analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of 

the methods of best practice. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,694,000. 

The recommendation is $1,366,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS

PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $82,374,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 90,361,400 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,361,400 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated future benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate 
59 

judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children of 

deceased judicial officers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,361,400 for 

payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund and the Claims 

Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is $7,987,400 

above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the 

budget request. 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $16,837,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 17,595,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,595,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Sentencing Commission establishes, reviews, 

and revises sentencing guidelines, policies, and practices for the 

Federal criminal justice system. The Commission is also required 

to monitor the operation of the guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the Congress. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,595,000. 

The recommendation is $758,000 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and consistent with the budget request. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

The Committee recommends the following administrative provisions for the judiciary. 

Section 301 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the employment of experts and consultative services. 

Section 302 allows the judiciary, subject to the Committee’s reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5 percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the amount that may be 

transferred into any one appropriation. 

Section 303 limits official reception and representation expenses 

incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United States to no 

more than $11,000. 

Section 304 requires the Administrative Office to submit an annual financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of enactment 

of this act. 

Section 305 grants the judicial branch the same tenant alteration 

authorities as the executive branch. 

Section 306 provides continued authority for a court security 

pilot program. 
(60) 

TITLE IV 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL PAYMENTS

FEDERAL FUNDS

A total of $738,999,000 in Federal funds are estimated to be 

available to the District of Columbia government, the District of 

Columbia Courts, the District of Columbia Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and other D.C. entities. This is 

$13,130,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$9,326,000 above the budget request. A total of $2,611,497,000 in 

Federal funds will be received by the District government from the 

various Federal grant programs, including Federal reimbursements 

from such programs as Medicaid and Medicare. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $35,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 35,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,100,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Resident Tuition Support program was created by the District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (Public Law 106–98), 

expanded through the District of Columbia College Access Improvement Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–157), and amended and reauthorized through Public Law 110–97. This program provides eligible college-bound District residents the opportunity to expand their 

higher education choices. 

Under the program, financial assistance is available to qualified 

District residents who attend public colleges outside of the District 

of Columbia, private postsecondary institutions in the District of 

Columbia, Maryland, or Virginia, or any historically black college 

or university. The private-school tuition grants are restricted to 

nonprofit institutions. Students who attend public schools receive 

assistance equal to the difference between the tuition paid by residents of the State in which the institution is located and the tuition charged to nonresident students, with an annual limit of 

$10,000 and a lifetime limit of $50,000. Private-school students receive a $2,500 maximum annual grant, with a lifetime limit of 

$12,500. 

Since its inception a decade ago, the program has disbursed more than $235,432,140 through December 31, 2009 for the benefit of 

more than 16,081 District of Columbia residents, with grants averaging $6,587 per year. Sixty-five percent of the program grantees 

are the first in their families to attend college. Program participants have attended 300 colleges and universities in 49 States. 
61 

This has brought an infusion of the District’s students as well as 

Federal dollars to State university systems nationwide. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $35,100,000 

for the resident tuition support [DC TAG] program, the same as 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee understands that the program will have 

$15,497,003 in carryforward funds available in fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee urges the Office of the State Superintendent of 

Education to continue its efforts to improve the student retention, 

persistence, and college graduation rate of program participants. 

The Committee acknowledges the challenges facing the students 

who do enroll in college to reach graduation. Data reveal that 

among program grantees, many students interrupt their enrollment or drop out entirely on their path to a degree, and just 41 

percent graduate from college in 6 years. The Committee directs 

the State Superintendent to provide annual updates to the Committee of its efforts, including research findings, to enhance the retention, persistence, and graduation rates, including early awareness and readiness initiatives to promote academic college preparation, guidance, and other support mechanisms and partnerships. 

The Committee expects the program to work to improve its ability 

to meet its premise of a full return on investment wherein every 

program participant earns a college degree. 

Because program costs have the potential of growing beyond a 

level for which increased Federal funding may be available and 

sustainable, the Committee directs the Mayor and the Office of the 

State Superintendent of Education to continue the use of effective 

cost containment measures and regularly report to Congress on the 

effects of these efforts. The Committee further directs the District 

to fully explore non-Federal sources of additional funds to augment 

the Federal investment to meet program needs. As specified in 

Public Law 106–98 which established the program, the Committee 

directs the Mayor to address any insufficiency in funding through 

ratable reductions and other adjustments or prioritization considerations based on the income and need of eligible students. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY COSTS

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Due to the fact that the District of Columbia is the seat of the 

Federal Government and headquarters of many international organizations, District police, fire, and emergency personnel have had 

to provide security for a number of events. As the need for the District of Columbia to provide security increases, overtime costs for 

personnel escalate and divert local police from neighborhood patrols. The complexity and costs associated with these events, including unique needs for crowd control, surveillance, and protection 

against unusual threats, are high and growing, and demand effec-
62 

tive and efficient coordinated operations. The President has supported reimbursing the District for these costs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $15,000,000, 

for the District of Columbia for the costs of providing public safety 

at events related to the presence of the national capital in the District of Columbia, for the costs of providing support requested by 

the United States Secret Service Division in carrying out their protective duties under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for the costs of providing support to respond to immediate and specific terrorist threats or attacks in the District of Columbia or surrounding jurisdictions. This is the same as the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

In addition, the District may use any funds remaining from prior 

year appropriations under this heading. The District may use the 

payment to cover the costs of Executive transportation support including motorcades and helicopter landings. The Committee directs 

the District of Columbia to submit a detailed budget justification 

with its funding request for fiscal year 2012. The Committee further directs the District of Columbia to submit, within 60 days of 

the end of fiscal year 2011, a report to the House and the Senate 

Committees on Appropriations detailing the purposes and amounts 

expended using the funds, particularly noting any deviation from 

the original proposed spending. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $261,180,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 247,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 258,351,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–33, title XI), the Federal 

Government is required to finance the District of Columbia Courts. 

This Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts funds the 

operations of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Superior 

Court, the Court System, and the Capital Improvement Program. 

Capital improvements include a complete restoration of the historic 

Old Courthouse, as well as design and renovation work on the H. 

Carl Moultrie I Courthouse and several other buildings as part of 

a master plan for Judiciary Square. By law, the annual budget includes estimates of the expenditures for the operations of the 

Courts prepared by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration as well as the President’s recommendation for funding the 

Courts’ operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment to the District of 

Columbia Courts of $258,351,000, which is $2,829,000 below the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,951,000 above the President’s budget request. This amount includes $12,998,000 for the 

Court of Appeals, $110,149,000 for the Superior Court, $65,554,000 
63 

for the Court System, and $69,650,000 for capital improvements to 

courthouse facilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the District of Columbia 

Court System is $301,000 above the President’s recommended 

funding of $65,253,000, and will permit the Court System to pursue 

priority initiative to maintain a strong judiciary and workforce 

through enhanced recruitment, productivity, training, and staff development improvements. 

The Committee recommendation for capital improvements provides $10,650,000 above the President’s recommendation of 

$59,000,000 to support continued implementation of the Facilities 

Master Plan, particularly renovation of space in the Moultrie 

Courthouse for the Court Reporting and Recording Division and 

completion of the security perimeter to ensure public safety in the 

Historic Courthouse and other newly renovated court buildings in 

Judiciary Square. 

The Committee supports the Courts’ request to maintain the current level of funds available for its official reception and representation purposes. These resources enable the Courts to meet various 

community outreach responsibilities including supporting legal 

education in the District of Columbia as the home of six law 

schools; work with the D.C. Bar committees; and host the significant number of international guests who visit the D.C. Courts to 

learn about legal systems in democratic societies. The Committee 

acknowledges that the current amount of the Courts’ reception and 

representation funds is commensurate with small Federal agencies 

and considerably less than the comparative representation funds 

available to other District officials. 

DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $55,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 55,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The District of Columbia Courts appoint and compensate attorneys to represent persons who are financially unable to obtain such 

representation. The Defender Services programs provide counsel 

for indigent persons who are charged with criminal offenses, for 

family proceedings involving child abuse, neglect, and termination 

of parental rights, and for guardianship proceedings for protection 

of mentally incapacitated individuals and minors whose parents 

are deceased. 

In addition to legal representation, these programs provide indigent persons with services such as transcripts of court proceedings, 

expert witness testimony, foreign and sign language interpretation, 

and investigations and genetic testing. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $55,000,000 

for Defender Services in the District of Columbia Courts. This is 

the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the 

budget request. 
64 

To promote access to justice and ensure that high-quality legal 

representation remains available to the indigent in the District of 

Columbia Courts, in fiscal year 2008, Congress financed an hourly 

rate increase for attorneys to $80 per hour and in fiscal year 2009, 

legislation was enacted to increase the hourly rate to $90, to be 

phased in. Increased funding provided in fiscal year 2010 permitted 

the adjusted compensation rate to be fully instituted. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER

SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $212,408,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 217,783,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 217,783,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] 

for the District of Columbia is an independent Federal agency created by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–33, title XI). CSOSA acquired the operational responsibilities for the former District agencies in charge of probation and parole, and houses the Pretrial 

Services Agency within its framework. The mission of CSOSA is to 

increase public safety, prevent crime, reduce recidivism, and support the fair administration of justice in close collaboration with 

the community. The CSOSA appropriation supports the Community Supervision Program which monitors or supervises approximately 16,000 offenders on a daily basis and the Pretrial Services 

Agency which monitors approximately 5,309 defendants at any 

given time and in fiscal year 2009 placed more than 1,884 defendants into substance abuse treatment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $217,783,000, 

which is $5,375,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. Of this amount, $61,311,000 is 

designated for the Pretrial Services Agency and $156,472,000 is 

designated for the Community Supervision Program. The Committee notes that $1,000,000 of the resources recommended for the 

Pretrial Services Agency will support planning, design, and relocation of the Pretrial Services Agency Forensic Toxicology and Drug 

Testing Laboratory. 

The Committee is supportive of CSOSA’s efforts to successfully 

return ex-offenders to their communities. For a number of years, 

CSOSA has worked with grassroots, nonprofit providers of transitional housing, including faith-based organizations, that offer counseling, mentoring, and life skills training to men and women returning home from prison. The Committee notes that this is a 

model program for the Nation. 

The Committee is encouraged that the Pretrial Services Agency 

reduced caseloads in the general supervision unit from 82 per officer in fiscal year 2008 to 76 to per officer in fiscal year 2009. The 

Committee is concerned that even with the proposed budget increase, funding for CSOSA for offender contract treatment, including substance abuse, halfway-back residential sanctions, mental 
65 

health and sex offender assessments, and transitional housing is 

constrained. 

The Committee commends the collaborative efforts of the Community Supervision Program to partner with the District of Columbia Government, the United States Parole Commission, and the 

Bureau of Prisons to implement the Secure Residential Treatment 

Program pilot. This program aims to provide a secure, residential 

substance abuse treatment intervention/sanction alternative to 

high-risk, chronic substance abusing and criminally involved male 

D.C. code offenders in lieu of revoking them to Bureau of Prisons 

custody. The Committee encourages CSOSA to keep the Committee 

regularly informed of how well this program is meeting its goals of 

increasing offenders’ chances of successful community reintegration 

and breaking the cycle of recidivism. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $37,316,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 40,690,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,690,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Defender Service [PDS] for the District of Columbia, 

an independent organization established by a District of Columbia 

statute (16 D.C. Code 2–1601–1608), has a distinct mission to provide and promote quality legal representation services within the 

District of Columbia justice system. PDS provides legal representation to indigent adults and children facing loss of liberty and provides support in the form of training, consultation, and legal reference services to members of the local bar appointed as counsel 

in criminal, juvenile, and mental health cases involving indigent 

individuals. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment to the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia of $40,690,000, which 

is $3,374,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. The increased funding will support continued progress on a new case management system as well as address 

inflationary increases in compensation and fixed costs. Furthermore, the recommended funding includes $1,500,000 as a nonrecurring increase for the costs associated with the acquisition, installation, and implementation of a state-of-the-art telephone system to replace the deteriorating and unreliable 11-year-old system. 

The Committee provides authority in section 818 of the bill for 

the PDS to obtain professional liability insurance for its attorneys, 

staff, and board members. The Committee understands that the 

cost for such coverage can be met within the funding provided. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND

SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 25,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000 
66 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Approximately one-third of the District is served by a combined 

sewer system, constructed by the Federal Government in 1890, in 

which both sanitary waste and storm water flow through the same 

pipes. When the collection system or the Blue Plains treatment 

plant reach capacity, typically during periods of heavy rainfall, the 

system is designed to overflow the excess water. This mixture of 

sewage and storm water runoff is discharged to the Anacostia and 

Potomac Rivers, Rock Creek, and tributary waters between 60 and 

75 times each year. Under a judicial consent decree, the Water and 

Sewer Authority is undertaking a 20-year, $2,200,000,000 sewer 

construction program to reduce combined sewer overflows [CSO]. 

The program includes deep underground storage tunnels, side tunnels to reduce flooding, pump station rehabilitation, and the elimination of over a dozen CSO outfalls along the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek. When completed in 2025, this project 

is expected to vastly improve water quality and significantly reduce 

debris in our Nation’s capital waterways as well as improve the 

health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $25,000,000, 

to be matched by at least $25,000,000 provided by the Water and 

Sewer Authority, to continue implementation of the Long-Term 

Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan. This is an increase of 

$5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING

COUNCIL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $2,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District of Columbia [CJCC] is the primary forum in which District of Columbia 

criminal justice agencies can identify and address interagency coordination issues. Its mission is to address coordination difficulties 

among District of Columbia criminal justice agencies and address 

criminal justice issues, such as illegal drugs, juvenile justice, halfway houses, information technology, and identification of arrestees. 

The CJCC was originally established pursuant to a memorandum 

of agreement in May 1998 and operates as an independent working 

group to foster cooperation among the more than a dozen Federal 

and local governmental agencies which have law enforcement responsibility in our Nation’s capital. As part of a local enactment in 

August 2001, the CJCC was established as an independent agency 

within the District of Columbia. 

The CJCC maintains the Justice Integrated Information System 

[JUSTIS] using technology that allows for the seamless sharing of 

information at critical decision points throughout the justice system. JUSTIS connects Federal agencies, the District government, 
67 

and court information systems, so that criminal activity can be easily monitored across an array of participating agencies. Agencies 

currently using JUSTIS include the Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. Department of Corrections, D.C. Superior Court, the 

U.S. Park Police, the U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Pretrial Services Agency, CSOSA, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, 

and the D.C. and Maryland Public Defenders Service. No other system provides this range of access to Federal and local information 

in the District. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,800,000 to 

the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council [CJCC]. This is 

$200,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. 

Among the array of activities that the recommended Federal payment will support during fiscal year 2011 are enhancing the 

JUSTIS information system’s report development, review, and approval capabilities; supporting the GunStat initiative; improved 

sharing of information on mental health and substance abuse to redirect persons to necessary support services; supporting record 

management, court-based release, court processing and papering 

reforms; developing clear business processes to help reduce the 

number of outstanding warrants; and providing a comprehensive 

approach to truancy prevention. 

The Committee directs the CJCC to submit annual performance 

measures in an annual report to accompany the fiscal year 2012 

budget justification, which should also describe progress made on 

individual CJCC initiatives. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure provides 

support to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and Superior 

Court through reviewing and investigating allegations of judicial 

misconduct. The Judicial Nomination Commission recommends 

candidates to the President of the United States for nomination to 

judicial vacancies in these courts. In accordance with the National 

Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 

1997 (Public Law 105–33), the Federal Government is responsible 

for financing of the District of Columbia Courts, including the operations of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Superior Court, 

the Court System, and the Capital Improvement Program. Although independent of the Courts by design, these two Commissions provide important functions within the judicial branch of 

local government in the District of Columbia. 
68 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $500,000 as a Federal payment for the judicial commissions, of which $295,000 is designated for the Judicial Nomination Commission and $205,000 is designated for the 

Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. This amount is 

the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the 

budget request. The Committee continues to support the rationale 

of recognizing these commissions as local judicial branch agencies 

for which Federal support for the operations is necessary. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,850,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,000,000 to 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. 

This is $850,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

$1,000,000 above the budget request. These funds are for health, 

education, environmental, social service, and economic development 

initiatives in the District of Columbia. The Committee directs that 

of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be transferred to the Children’s 

National Medical Center [CNMC] in Washington, DC. 

The Committee expects the funds to be a Federal contribution toward meeting the growing demand for cardiac critical care. The 

current complement of 45 critical care beds, including 13 cardiac 

intensive care beds, is no longer sufficient to meet demands. Over 

the past year, critical care capacity, including cardiac, has consistently exceeded 100 percent capacity, well beyond occupancy levels 

to support planning levels to support contingency requirements. To 

address the growing demand for critical intensive care services, the 

Children’s National Medical Center plans to renovate an unoccupied unit of the third floor of the main hospital. The space will be 

transformed into a new 26–28 bed Cardiac Intensive Care Unit 

[CICU]. Once this CICU is relocated, the Pediatric Intensive Care 

[PICU] will increase beds to build to a 35 bed unit. 

The Committee is supportive of the CNMC and the critical services it provides to the District of Columbia’s children and families. 

Founded in 1870 as a small community hospital to treat children 

orphaned by the Civil War, CNMC has grown into an internationally recognized team of more than 5,000 pediatric healthcare professionals serving children regionally, nationally, and internationally. 

As the single largest provider of pediatric services in the District 

of Columbia, CNMC touches the lives of more than 600,000 children annually. From serving as the medical home for the District’s 

children in foster care through its DC KIDS program to employing 

all the nurses in over 160 District public and public charter 

schools, CNMC is an integral part of the fabric of the District of 

Columbia. 
69 

The Committee directs CNMC as a grantee of funding under this 

account to submit a detailed budget and a comprehensive description of the activities to be carried out with the funds no later than 

March 1, 2011 to the Chief Financial Officer and the Committees 

on Appropriations. The Committee further directs that any funds 

made available to the grantee under this account must be spent 

primarily in the District of Columbia to benefit District of Columbia residents. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $75,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 52,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Committee continues its commitment to improving educational opportunities for the children of the District of Columbia. 

For the past 8 fiscal years, Congress has supported a three-sector 

funding arrangement to provide Federal resources for the District 

of Columbia Public Schools, public charter schools, and for a scholarship program for low-income students to attend private schools. 

The Committee is encouraged by the progress to date to implement 

the Mayor’s initiative to chart a new management course for the 

District’s troubled public school system in response to Public Law 

110–33, which vested authority over the school superintendent, operating budget, and capital program in the Mayor beginning in 

2007. 

The Committee acknowledges the daunting challenges this undertaking presents, given that District of Columbia public school 

students chronically performed well below national averages in 

reading and mathematics. The Committee commends the progress 

that has been made over the past 3 years under the leadership of 

the Chancellor to streamline bureaucracy, recruit new principals, 

expand course offerings available to students, and raise math and 

reading test scores. The Committee is further encouraged by the 

ratification of an innovative teacher compensation system that has 

the potential to attract and retain excellent teachers in District 

public schools. 

Public charter schools in the District of Columbia have grown 

considerably since the first two opened in 1996 and served 160 students. Today, there are 57 tuition-free, autonomous public charter 

schools on 99 campuses operating in the District, enrolling approximately 28,000 students, over 38 percent of all District of Columbia 

public school students. The District of Columbia School Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 104–134), one of the strongest charter school 

laws in the Nation, guarantees charter school autonomy from the 

District of Columbia Public Schools and from the District government and mandates uniform per student funding of all public 

school students, both traditional and charter. 

Congress established the private school scholarship (voucher) 

program as a 5-year pilot in 2003. The intent of this program is 

to help increase the District of Columbia’s capacity to provide parents, particularly low-income parents whose children attend lowperforming schools, more options for quality education. In school 
70 

year 2009–2010, 1,319 students participated in the program and 

were enrolled at 45 nonpublic schools. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $52,400,000, which is $23,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. These funds are allocated as follows: $23,000,000 for the District of Columbia Public Schools to improve public school education; $20,000,000 to expand quality charter schools; and $9,400,000 to the Secretary of Education for opportunity scholarships for low-income students in the District of Columbia. 

District of Columbia Public Schools 

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $23,000,000 

as a contribution to the aggressive overhaul underway within the 

District of Columbia Public Schools. These Federal resources are 

designed to support and build upon initiatives supported in prior 

fiscal years. In addition, the Committee recommends an additional 

one-time payment of $20,000,000 as set forth under the heading 

‘‘Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform’’ within this 

title, for a combined total funding level of $43,000,000 for public 

school improvement. 

For fiscal year 2011, the Committee expects that, of the total 

Federal funds made available, $31,800,000 be devoted to investments in human capital, specifically the master educators and IMPACT educator effectiveness assessment system for teachers, new 

teacher induction and mentoring, innovative compensation structures to attract and retain high performing educators, school-based 

incentives to recognize team-driven high achievement, and fellowship programs to attract high achievers in urban education innovation; $4,750,000 be designated to build effective and innovative 

schools through expansion of the comprehensive staffing model instituted in school year 2008–2009 to staff schools with social workers, counselors, psychologists, literacy professional developers, 

mathematics coaches, and other integrated services providers to 

improve the academic and socio-emotional outcomes for students; 

make further investments in early childhood education by creating 

more pre-school and pre-kindergarten classrooms to serve more 

students; grow the initial cohort of partnership schools to help turn 

around secondary schools that demonstrate a substantial need for 

outside management and resources; and support continued activities in conjunction with the Capital Gains joint venture with Harvard University EdLabs; $5,250,000 be invested to empower 

schools to make data-driven decisions, specifically to expand the 

benchmark assessment system to diagnose extent of student mastery of subjects, to augment instruction through individualized secondary reading and mathematics interventions and elementary literacy assessment and interventions, and school-based data capacity 

building through district-wide implementation of protocols under 

the achievement network model; $700,000 be used to address 

alarmingly low graduation rates by expanding the successful City 

Year Whole School Whole Child Program; and $500,000 be used for 

engaging the community to increase student achievement through 
71 

various programs including school scorecards, a Parent Academy, 

and a Parent Assistant data portal for online access to student information. 

The Committee directs the District of Columbia Public Schools to 

submit a detailed spending plan outlining specific activities no 

later than 60 days after enactment of this act and that this spending plan should contain a particular emphasis on the recruitment 

and retention of a high-quality teacher and principal workforce in 

District public schools. 

The District has 11,000 special needs students for whom the District must provide or secure educational services. District taxpayers 

currently spend $200,000,000 each year on private school tuition 

and transportation costs for more than 2,300 of these special needs 

students, one-fifth of all special needs students, that the public 

schools are unable to serve. The District of Columbia is required 

to comply with a Federal court-ordered consent decree entered in 

2006 to settle a 9-year class action lawsuit brought by parents of 

special needs children. Under the judicial consent decree, the District is required to reduce its backlog of cases on placement assessments for individual special needs students, fix its long-broken 

data management system that makes it difficult for parents to access their children’s files, and hire more special needs staff. As part 

of the increased Federal funds provided for the District of Columbia Public Schools for fiscal year 2011 in this bill, the Committee 

expects the District to make substantial progress in achieving compliance with the consent decree, eliminating inadequacies in treatment and support for special needs students, and establishing more 

inclusive learning environments for these students within the District of Columbia Public Schools system. 

District of Columbia Public Charter Schools 

With respect to the recommended Federal payment of $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, the Committee directs the District 

of Columbia Public Charter School Board to submit to Congress, 

through the Office of the State Superintendent of Education 

[OSSE], a detailed spending plan outlining specific activities no 

later than 60 days after enactment of this act. This spending plan 

should particularly emphasize enhancing the academic quality of 

existing charter schools, expanding the capacity of high-performing 

charter schools, and instituting a robust performance management 

system to help identify low-performing schools and close them. The 

Committee expects that funding provided for charter schools will be 

used in accordance with the plan submitted. 

The Committee is encouraged by the work being done by the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board to enforce a high 

standard of academic quality for all District charter schools. Assessments indicate that students enrolled in District of Columbia 

middle and high public charter schools with a majority of economically-disadvantaged students are nearly twice as likely to be proficient in reading and math as their peers in the District’s traditional public schools. The high school graduation rate for D.C. public charter schools is 24 percentage points higher than at regular 

D.C. public schools and 8 percentage points higher than the U.S. 

national average. Despite these noted successes, the Committee 
72 

recognizes that the test scores of some of the charter schools are 

unacceptably low and calls on the District of Columbia Public 

Charter School Board to demand improvement on a timely basis, 

reform, or close these failing charter schools. As nationally recognized model of school accountability, the D.C. Public Charter 

School Board rejects two public charter school applications for 

every one it accepts. The Board monitors public charter schools to 

guarantee academic achievement, managerial competence, and financial health. The Board conducts a high stakes review of each 

school every 5 years. The Committee urges the Board’s continued 

vigilance and prompt consideration of charter revocation for those 

schools determined to be underperforming academically. 

Results of a national study conducted by Ball State University 

released in May 2010 found that charter schools in the District of 

Columbia received 41 percent less funding than the District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS]. According to the findings, focused 

on the 2006–2007 school year, charter schools received $17,525 per 

pupil compared to $29,808 per pupil for DCPS, a difference of 

$12,283 per pupil. District public charter schools educated 25.6 percent of the District’s students during the period studied, but the 

charter schools received only 16.8 percent of the total education 

funding. 

Over the years, public charter schools have moved into and revitalized former DCPS school buildings that otherwise would have 

been developed into condominiums or used for other commercial 

purposes. These buildings, including several historic structures, 

often long-abandoned and severely blighting neighborhoods, have 

been converted to public charter schools. 

The Committee further notes that the public charter schools have 

been permitted to enter into negotiations to acquire only a handful 

of the school buildings declared surplus by the Mayor and Chancellor. It is evident to the Committee that the District of Columbia 

continues its long-standing practice of ignoring the public charter 

schools’ right of first offer on surplus school buildings as outlined 

in the District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 

104–134). The Committee notes that this right applies to all school 

buildings no longer needed by DCPS, including ones in which the 

District of Columbia government would rather locate government 

agencies or use for economic development or other purposes. The 

Committee directs the Mayor of the District of Columbia to submit 

to the Committees on Appropriations, as part of the fiscal year 

2012 Federal payment budget justification materials, a detailed fiscal year 2012–2016 public education facilities plan that will ensure 

public charter school access to surplus or underutilized DCPS 

space. 

Finally, the Committee reminds the government of the District 

of Columbia that students in public charter schools are to have access to the same publicly funded services that are offered to students in traditional public schools. These include school nurses, 

School Resource Officers, crossing guards, and mental health and 

other wrap-around services. 
73 

Opportunity Scholarship Program 

The Committee supports the budget request and recommends a 

Federal payment of $9,400,000 for the District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program. This will allow private school vouchers 

for those students currently enrolled in the program. Based on current program participation rates, historic attrition rates (averaging 

17 percent since 2005–2006), and the amount of available program 

funding carried forward from prior fiscal years (including the 

$12,200,000 provided for school year 2010–2011 in the fiscal 2010 

enacted bill), it is expected that the funds recommended for fiscal 

year 2011 will be the final installment of Federal funding to support this program. Any funds in this account not used in the 2010– 

2011 school year will be available for future years to provide scholarships to the current cohort of students, until such time as all the 

remaining students graduate from high school. 

The Committee believes that any school enrolling a scholarship 

participant under the Opportunity Scholarship Program should satisfy certain minimum reasonable expectations as an educational 

setting. Therefore, the Committee continues to expressly provide 

that none of the funds provided for opportunity scholarships shall 

be used by an eligible student to enroll in any participating school 

under the D.C. School Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (Public Law 

108–199) unless (1) the participating school has and maintains a 

valid certificate of occupancy issued by the District of Columbia; (2) 

the core subject matter teachers of the eligible students hold 4-year 

bachelor’s degrees; and (3) schools enrolling scholarship students 

are in compliance with the accreditation and other standards prescribed for purposes of the District of Columbia compulsory school 

attendance laws. The Committee directs that the Secretary of Education ensure that site inspections of participating schools are conducted at least twice annually. 

In 2009, the Department of Education concluded a 5-year evaluation of the program, including a 3-year analysis that measured impacts on student academic achievement. The first 2 years of impact 

data showed that students offered a scholarship made no significant gains overall on either reading or math achievement compared 

to students not offered a scholarship. The third-year analysis 

showed that students offered a scholarship continued to make no 

significant gains in math, but certain subgroups of students performed at statistically higher levels in reading, equivalent to about 

three additional months of instruction. Evaluators issued an assessment in June 2010 that indicated that after 4 years, overall 

reading and math scores were not significantly different for scholarship students than the control group. There was no significant 

impact for students who came from schools classified as ‘‘in need 

of improvement,’’ male students, and students who entered with 

low levels of academic performance. Parents reported higher levels 

of satisfaction with voucher schools, but students did not rate their 

schools any higher in quality or safety than their peers in public 

schools. The findings noted that voucher students were more likely 

to graduate. 
74 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO JUMP START PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

With the enactment of Public Law 110–33, providing the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia with authority over and accountability 

for the budget and administrative functions of the District of Columbia school system, the District of Columbia has launched an aggressive and comprehensive reform of its severely challenged public 

school system. Under the direction of the Chancellor of the District 

of Columbia Public Schools, a multitude of critical initiatives are 

underway. A one-time Federal contribution to support those efforts 

will support the recruitment and training of principals and other 

school leaders; the development of optimal school programs; and 

the enhancement of the District’s data reporting capabilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $20,000,000 to 

jump start public school reform in the District of Columbia during 

fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of $20,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. This 

payment is in addition to funds provided for public school reform 

under the ‘‘Federal Payment for School Improvement’’ account 

within this title. The funds will augment the resources devoted to 

a wide variety of reforms, including the aggressive recruitment and 

retention of high performance teachers, principals, and administrators through assessment systems and programs that incentivize 

quality teaching. The funds will also be devoted to measures to 

build effective and innovative schools, empower schools to make 

data-driven decisions, increase student achievement and college attendance, and enable schools to better engage with parents and the 

broader community. 

The Committee directs the District to submit, within 60 days of 

enactment, a comprehensive spending plan to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate detailing how the funding provided will be allocated and explaining 

what performance measures will be used to evaluate the success of 

the outcomes from these enhanced Federal investments. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CONSOLIDATED LABORATORY FACILITY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $15,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The District’s forensics laboratory capacity has not kept pace 

with the innovations in the field and is therefore unable to meet 

the demands of the current workload. As a result, the District is 

forced to seek help from the FBI crime laboratory in Quantico, Virginia and other Federal agencies. Because the FBI has its own 
75 

workload capacity, it strictly limits the evidence it will process for 

the District in violent crime cases. 

The lack of capacity and outmoded technology have led to many 

so-called ‘‘cold’’ or unsolved crime cases in the District. The District 

of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department [MPD] has a backlog 

of thousands of sexual assault and homicide cases, and the volume 

continues to grow. Approximately 30 percent of the FBI’s DNA 

analysis is casework from MPD. Further, the Drug Enforcement 

Agency performs all of MPD’s drug analysis on controlled dangerous substances, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives has tested approximately 100 arson cases on behalf 

of the District. 

Construction is underway to build a new comprehensive laboratory, housing both anti-terrorism and criminal forensic components 

under one roof. This facility, scheduled for completion and occupancy in 2012, will not only allow the District to more effectively 

and efficiently process crime cases, but it will be an essential element in processing evidence associated with potential bioterrorism 

attacks. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee supports the budget request that recommends no 

additional Federal payment for the costs associated with completing the construction of a new comprehensive laboratory facility 

in the District of Columbia. The Committee notes that in the period 

spanning fiscal years 2006–2010, Congress provided over 

$58,000,000 in Federal matching payments to augment local investments and that the Federal payment in fiscal year 2010 was 

the final payment for this project. When completed, the facility will 

provide services to all agencies within the borders of the District. 

United States Capitol Police, United States Park Police, and the 

United States Secret Service all submit evidence to the District’s 

Firearms Unit, which will be housed in the consolidated lab. The 

public health lab portion of the facility will allow the District to 

join the national Laboratory Response Network. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE D.C. NATIONAL GUARD

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $375,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,375,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal 2011 budget request seeks a Federal payment of 

$2,000,000 for the D.C. National Guard’s D.C. Government Operations. The D.C. National Guard is a Federal, rather than a local, 

entity and responds to orders of the President of the United States 

who is the Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. National Guard pursuant to law [District of Columbia Official Code § 49–409 and Executive Order No. 11485 (October 1, 1969)]. Unlike a governor of a 

State, the Mayor is not authorized to deploy the National Guard 

under any circumstances. The District of Columbia National Guard 

is specifically trained to support law enforcement during critical 

missions, such as demonstrations, Presidential inaugurations and 

funerals, and emergency services for weather-related contingencies. 
76 

The D.C. Air Guard patrols the skies over the District on roundthe-clock alert. However, residency restrictions preclude a significant number of Guard members from eligibility for tuition assistance programs, which has severely hampered recruitment and retention efforts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,375,000 for the D.C. National Guard. Of this amount, $375,000 is designated 

for the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District of Columbia 

National Guard Retention and College Access Program, a tuition 

assistance program for nonresident District of Columbia National 

Guard members, and $1,000,000 is a Federal contribution to offset 

local funds used to support the Guard’s Joint Force Headquarters 

and operational support staff and the ChalleNGe remedial at-risk 

youth program that targets unemployed, drug-free, and law-free 

high-school dropouts to instill values, skills, education, and self-discipline necessary to succeed as adults. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under the Housing First Initiative, the District of Columbia has 

begun to transform the delivery of homeless services from an approach that simply meets the survival needs of individuals with 

blankets and shelter to a system designed to move chronically 

homeless individuals to permanent supportive housing with tightly 

linked support services. In fiscal year 2010, Congress provided a 

Federal payment of $17,000,000 to help boost the local intensive 

case management and scattered-site housing program through support for the costs of rent, utilities, and case management. For fiscal 

year 2011, a Federal payment of $10,000,000 was requested to help 

respond to the particularly acute incidence of homelessness among 

veterans. The resources requested would support the development 

of two centrally located, site-based properties, yielding at least 120 

homes for chronically homeless clients. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $10,000,000 to 

support the development of two centrally located site-based permanent supportive housing initiatives in the District of Columbia. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RECONNECTING DISCONNECTED YOUTH

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

For fiscal year 2010, Congress provided a one-time Federal payment of $4,000,000 to support a local initiative designed to significantly reduce the number of young people in the District of Colum-
77 

bia who are currently not connected to positive work or school activities or who are at risk of becoming disconnected from these critical influences. The District of Columbia proposed to use the Federal funds to support a local investment in new neighborhood-based 

service coalitions to expand opportunities to youth and families by 

engaging community-based organizations in the neighborhoods 

where the youths reside and building the capacity of neighborhoods 

to serve their residents. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The fiscal year 2011 budget did not request and the Committee 

does not recommend a Federal payment to the District of Columbia 

for reconnecting disconnected youth. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. ELIZABETHS

HOSPITAL CAMPUS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

St. Elizabeths, established by Congress in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane and officially renamed as St. Elizabeths Hospital in 1916, is presently divided into two campuses. The 

West Campus, owned by the Federal Government and under the 

custody and control of the General Services Administration, will be 

the new headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security. 

The East Campus, owned by the District of Columbia, is still in use 

as a mental health facility. The fiscal year 2011 budget request 

seeks a new Federal payment of $2,000,000 to support various redevelopment planning activities on the East Campus to stimulate 

economic and community revitalization in tandem with the transformation of the West campus property. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee supports the proposed request and recommends a Federal payment of $2,000,000 to the District of Columbia for the 

St. Elizabeths Hospital East Campus redevelopment planning. The 

Committee directs the District of Columbia to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a detailed spending plan for the use of 

the funds not later than 45 days after enactment of the fiscal year 

2011 appropriation. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR HIV/AIDS PREVENTION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The District of Columbia is facing a daunting HIV epidemic. 

Based on the national HIV/AIDS case based reporting system, the 

District currently has the highest AIDS rate in the country, nearly 

twice as high as New York City and five times as high as Detroit. 

Estimates based on surveillance numbers suggest that between 3 
78 

and 5 percent of the adult residents in the District are currently 

living with HIV or AIDS, and HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of 

premature mortality in the city. The fiscal year 2011 budget request seeks a new Federal payment to bolster existing prevention, 

care, and support services on a city-wide basis to reduce the incidence of HIV and AIDS in the District of Columbia. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $3,000,000 to 

support and scale-up community-level prevention interventions and 

services, partner services to identify those at highest risk of recent 

infection, reestablish care, treatment, and prevention for those who 

have fallen out of care, and provide housing supports for persons 

living with AIDS. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

The Committee recommends a total of $10,306,904,000 for the 

operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in the 

fiscal year 2011 budget submitted to the Congress by the government of the District of Columbia on July 1, 2010. Of the total, 

$5,788,584,000 is from local funds, $2,611,497,000 is from Federal 

grant funds, $1,899,946,000 is from other funds, and $6,877,000 is 

from private funds. The Committee further recommends an additional $167,175,000 in appropriated Federal payments as set forth 

under this title. The Committee directs that any changes to the financial plan as submitted by the District must follow the reprogramming guidelines. 
(79) 

TITLE V 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 3,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,200,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administrative Conference of the United States [ACUS] is a 

newly reauthorized independent agency and advisory committee 

that was created to study administrative processes in order to recommend improvements to Congress and agencies. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for ACUS, equal to the 

budget request and $1,700,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level. The Committee is pleased that ACUS utilized carryover 

funds to begin its operations in fiscal year 2010. The Committee expects to be regularly apprised of ACUS activities and looks forward 

to reviewing a comprehensive Congressional Justification for the 

fiscal year 2012 budget concurrent with the President’s budget submission. 

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $750,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 750,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation is an independent agency established by Congress in 1992 (Public Law 102– 

281) to encourage and support research, study, and labor designed 

to produce new discoveries in all fields of endeavor for the benefit 

of mankind. Its mission is accomplished through the sponsorship of 

national competitions designed to promote innovation in the fields 

of homeland security, life sciences, and education. Through its 

Frontiers of Discovery—Work in Progress and Discover the Future 

programs, the agency recognizes cutting edge innovations of worthy 

American scientists, student inventors, and exemplary teachers 

who inspire despite especially challenging educational environments or personal physical disabilities. 
80 

The Committee acknowledges that initial funding for the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation was derived from the sale 

of three denominations of specially minted coins sold by the United 

States Mint from August 1992 through June 1993. Revenues from 

the coin sales surcharges were deposited in the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Fund at the Department of the Treasury, and made 

available to the Foundation. To address the fact that the coin sales 

revenues had been depleted, Congress authorized funding for the 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $750,000 for the 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation. This is the same as 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $750,000 above the budget 

request. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $168,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 261,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 286,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a). 

The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 

U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage trading in gold 

and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading industry. It established a 

comprehensive regulatory structure to oversee the volatile futures 

trading complex. 

The CFTC is the sole Federal regulator responsible for overseeing the futures markets by encouraging competitiveness and efficiency, ensuring market integrity, and protecting market participants against manipulation, abusive trading practices, fraud, and 

other unscrupulous activities. Effective oversight by the CFTC enables the markets to better serve their designated functions of providing a price discovery mechanism and a means to offset price 

risk. 

Programs in support of the overall mission include market surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and contract 

markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal counsel; 

agency direction; and administrative support services. CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC and in regional offices located in Chicago, New York City, and Kansas City. 

The enacted 2008 farm bill (Public Law 110–246) reauthorized 

the CFTC and made several amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act to (1) clarify the CFTC’s jurisdiction over retail financial contracts based on foreign currencies; (2) make the CFTC’s 
81 

anti-fraud authority applicable to certain off-exchange or over-thecounter derivatives contracts; (3) increase civil monetary and criminal penalties for violations; (4) permit cross-margining of accounts 

in security futures and options; and (5) establish CFTC regulation 

over certain exchange-like trading facilities that are currently exempt from most regulation. 

Under the recently-enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203), the CFTC faces the 

daunting task of regulating the $300 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market. New mandates for the CFTC include reviewing 

all swaps to determine whether the swap is exempt from the mandatory clearance requirement; requiring real-time reporting for all 

swaps; adopting rules for imposing capital and margin requirements on all non-cleared swaps; exercising dual regulatory authority, in conjunction with the SEC, over mixed swaps; promulgating 

rules defining the universe of swaps that can be executed on a 

swap execution facility; and exercising backstop enforcement authority if prudential regulators do not act after notification of a 

perceived violation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $286,000,000 for 

the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is $117,200,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $25,000,000 above the 

total budget request which included $216,000,000 in base funding, 

plus $45,000,000 in contingent funding tied to enactment of financial regulatory reform. The Committee supports the need for significantly increased resources for the CFTC to ensure appropriate 

oversight of the futures markets, which are expanding steadily in 

volume and new users, and rapidly evolving in their complexity 

and diversity. 

Additional authorities provided through enactment of the 2008 

farm bill (Public Law 110–246), coupled with escalating public concern about record energy and agricultural commodity prices, and 

compounded by a growing influx of financial funds into the futures 

markets, make the CFTC’s staffing situation unsustainable. These 

combined factors underscore the importance of the Committee’s recommended funding increase. Moreover, the CFTC faces an exponential increase in its regulatory and surveillance workload under 

the Wall Street financial regulatory reform law (Public Law 111– 

203). This comprehensive enactment extends CFTC’s authority to 

over-the-counter derivatives markets. The Committee directs the 

CFTC to submit, within 30 days of enactment, a detailed spending 

plan for the allocation of the funds made available, including staffing projections and planned investments in information technology. 

The Committee further emphasizes the need for CFTC to make 

mission-critical investments in technology to sort through the millions of pieces of information generated daily by markets, much of 

it electronic. Proper oversight of markets requires transparency. 

The backbone of the CFTC’s market surveillance program is the 

large trader reporting system. The amount and detail of trade data 

collected and analyzed at the CFTC is unprecedented among regulatory financial agencies. 
82 

The Committee is pleased that the CFTC is taking steps to improve the transparency of market data to better inform market participants and the public. 

At the Committee’s direction, the GAO reviewed and assessed 

the joint report issued in October 2009 by the CFTC and the Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] on harmonization of their 

regulatory approaches. The Committee urges the CFTC, in collaboration with the SEC, to heed the recommendation of the GAO that 

the agencies take steps to establish, with associated timeframes, 

clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and requirements for 

reporting and evaluating progress toward these goals. The Committee underscores that the joint report issued in October 2009 did 

not address the issue of gaps in the agencies’ authorities to oversee 

over-the-counter derivatives, which were the subject of congressional deliberation at the time. With the enactment of Public Law 

111–203, it is all the more critical to identify these gaps and ensure 

optimum harmonization in executing the respective oversight responsibilities of each agency with respect to over-the-counter derivative products. The Committee expects the CFTC and the SEC to 

limit, to the greatest extent possible, inconsistent regulation of 

similar products and entities that could lead to opportunities for 

regulatory arbitrage. The Committee continues to support the use 

of funds to support the Joint SEC–CFTC Advisory Committee. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $118,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 118,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 118,600,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC] is an independent regulatory agency that was established on May 14, 1973, 

and is responsible for protecting the public against unreasonable 

risks of injury from consumer products; assisting consumers to 

evaluate the comparative safety of consumer products; developing 

uniform safety standards for consumer products and minimizing 

conflicting State and local regulations; and promoting research and 

investigation into the causes and prevention of product-related 

deaths, illnesses, and injuries. 

In carrying out its mandate, the CPSC establishes mandatory 

product safety standards, where appropriate, to reduce the unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from consumer products; helps 

industry develop voluntary safety standards; bans unsafe products 

if it finds that a safety standard is not feasible; monitors recalls of 

defective products; informs and educates consumers about product 

hazards; conducts research and develops test methods; collects and 

publishes injury and hazard data, and promotes uniform product 

regulations by governmental units. 

On August 14, 2008, Congress reauthorized the Commission by 

enacting the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

[CPSIA] (Public Law 110–314). CPSIA represents the most substantial change in the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s au-
83 

thorities since the creation of the Commission. Among other things, 

it enhances the Commission’s recall authority, streamlines the 

rulemaking process, provides for the creation of a new searchable 

database of consumer product complaints, and requires product certification. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $118,600,000 for the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, which is $400,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee reminds the Consumer Product Safety Commission that hiring—particularly in the two areas of Compliance and 

Field Operations, and Hazard Identification and Reduction—remains a priority and that increased funding has been provided over 

the past several years for this purpose. CPSC should ensure that 

this funding is being spent as directed and that hiring goals are 

met. 

An August 2009 GAO report (GAO–09–803), issued in response 

to a mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008, raised concerns about and made recommendations to 

strengthen CPSC’s ability to target unsafe consumer products. The 

Commission’s ability to conduct market surveillance and target unsafe products is a critical factor in its decisions about whether to 

recall consumer products. In carrying out this important activity, 

CPSC must rely on a relatively small number of compliance officers 

and investigators, as well as work with its counterparts in other 

countries. The effectiveness of CPSC’s field structure and approach 

to market surveillance has important implications for its ability to 

ensure the safety of consumer products. To further strengthen 

CPSC’s ability to target unsafe consumer products, the Committee 

directs GAO to conduct a follow-up report within 270 days of enactment of this act. 

The Committee is appreciative of the monthly drywall reports 

provided by the Commission during the past year and for fiscal 

year 2011 requires that these reports be provided on a quarterly 

basis instead, although the Commission should update the Committee of notable developments immediately, should they occur outside the quarterly reporting schedule. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $17,959,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 16,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Election Assistance Commission [EAC] was created by the 

Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA] (Public Law 107–252). 

Under HAVA, the EAC’s role is to promulgate voluntary State 

guidelines for election systems, develop a national certification program for voting equipment, and provide related guidance. The EAC 
84 

is also charged with awarding grants to improve election administration and to enhance election equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $16,800,000 for EAC’s administrative 

expenses, which is $1,159,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee bill 

requires that $3,250,000 of these funds be transferred to the National Institute for Standards and Technology for technical assistance related to the development of voluntary State voting systems 

guidelines. 

The Committee directs the Commission to keep the Committee 

informed of new hires and significant staffing changes, as well as 

any other major developments. The Commission is reminded of the 

requirements of section 608 particularly with regard to the baseline 

report and reorganizations. 

ELECTION REFORM PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $75,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides funding for grant programs authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Public Law 107–252) 

and for related grant programs to improve the administration of 

elections. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee has provided no funding for this program, consistent with the budget request. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $335,794,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 352,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 355,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is charged with 

regulating interstate and international communications by radio, 

television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC is also charged with 

promoting the safety of life and property through wire and radio 

communications. The mandate of the FCC under the Communications Act is to make available to all people of the United States a 

rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service. The FCC performs five major functions to fulfill 

this charge: (1) spectrum allocation; (2) creating rules to promote 

fair competition and protect consumers where required by market 

conditions; (3) authorization of service; (4) enhancing public safety 

and homeland security; and (5) enforcement. 
85 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $355,500,000 for the 

salaries and expenses of the Federal Communications Commission 

[FCC], of which $355,500,000 is to be derived from the collection 

of fees. The recommendation is $19,706,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and $3,000,000 above the budget request. Funds 

recommended above the request are provided for the FCC Office of 

Inspector General. 

Broadcast Television Standards.—The Committee continues to be 

concerned about the declining standards of broadcast television and 

the impact this decline is having on America’s children. In broadcast television, sexual content, foul language, and violence have 

greatly increased over the past decade. The Committee directs 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. 

The Committee has included language (sec. 501) to extend FCC’s 

exemption from the Anti-deficiency Act [ADA] until December 31, 

2011. 

The Committee has included language (sec. 502) that prohibits 

the FCC from enacting certain recommendations regarding universal service that were made to it by the Joint Board of FCC 

members and State utility commissioners. The recommendation 

would limit universal support to one line. This would be harmful 

to small businesses, especially in rural areas, which need a second 

line for a fax or for other business purposes. 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ($37,942,000) 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... (47,916,000) 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (47,916,000) 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] Office of Inspector General [OIG] conducts audits, investigations, and other reviews to assist and augment the FDIC’s contribution to the stability of, and public confidence in, the Nation’s financial system. A 

separate appropriation more effectively ensures the OIG’s independence consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978 and 

other legislation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $47,916,000 for the FDIC inspector 

general, the same as the budget request and $9,974,000 more than 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Funds are to be derived by 

transfer from the Deposit Insurance Fund and the Federal Savings 

and Loan Insurance Corporation [FSLIC] resolution fund. Recommended funding represents a 26 percent increase to the fiscal 

year 2010 level in order to support increased workload, including 

Material Loss Reviews of certain bank failures, oversight of the 
86 

FDIC’s increase in resolution and receivership activity, and oversight of new FDIC activities initiated in response to the financial 

crisis. 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $66,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 68,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Election Commission [FEC] was created through the 

1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 

(Public Law 93–443). Consistent with its duty of executing our Nation’s Federal campaign finance laws, and in pursuit of its mission 

of maintaining public faith in the integrity of the Federal campaign 

finance system, FEC conducts three major regulatory programs: (1) 

providing public disclosure of funds raised and spent to influence 

Federal elections; (2) enforcing compliance with restrictions on contributions and expenditures made to influence Federal elections; 

and (3) administering public financing of Presidential campaigns. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $70,800,000 for the Federal Election 

Commission, $2,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$4,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee recommends the increase in funding over the budget request 

to enable the FEC to maintain current staffing levels and services, 

enhance public access to electronic records, and address increased 

workload demands. 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $24,773,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 26,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 26,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] is an independent 

administrative Federal agency created by title VII of the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–454) with a mission to 

carry out five statutory responsibilities in relation to the Federal 

workforce: (1) determining the appropriateness of units for labor organization representation; (2) resolving complaints of unfair labor 

practices; (3) adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator’s awards; (4) adjudicating legal issues relating to the duty to bargain; and (5) resolving impasses during negotiations. 

The FLRA’s authority is divided by law and by delegation among 

a three-member authority and an Office of General Counsel, appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation; and 

the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which consists of seven parttime members appointed by the President. 
87 

In addition, the FLRA is engaged in case-related interventions, 

training and facilitation of labor-management partnerships, and resolving disputes. FLRA promotes labor-management cooperation by 

providing training and assistance to labor organizations and agencies on resolving disputes, facilitates the creation of partnerships, 

and trains the parties on rights and responsibilities under the Federal Labor Relations Management statute. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,000,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $1,227,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 

The Committee supports the efforts of the FLRA in reducing the 

caseload backlog and is pleased with the planned movement toward 

electronic filing of public records. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $291,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 314,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 314,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Trade Commission [FTC] administers a variety of 

Federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. Activities in the 

antitrust area include detection and elimination of illegal collusion, 

anticompetitive mergers, unlawful single-firm conduct, and injurious vertical agreements. The FTC regulates advertising practices, 

service industry practices, marketing practices, and credit practices 

as it addresses fraud and other consumer concerns. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $314,000,000. The recommendation is $22,300,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and is equal to the budget request. 

Of the amounts provided, $96,000,000 is derived from Hart-ScottRodino pre-merger filing fees and $21,000,000 is derived from DoNot-Call fees. The total amount of direct appropriations for this account is therefore $197,000,000. The Committee notes that this 

change reflects a net decrease in estimated offsetting fee collection 

receipts since last year. 

The Committee continues to place a high priority on the FTC’s 

mission to protect consumers and preserve competition in the marketplace. The Committee is pleased that the FTC has effectively 

utilized resources provided in previous fiscal years to investigate 

fraud and misleading practices related to mortgage lending and 

other financial services, identity theft, data security, and 

healthcare and to preserve competition in the marketplace through 

education and enforcement of Federal laws related to anticompetitive practices. Over the past 3 years, the FTC saved consumers 

more than $1.4 billion in economic injury by stopping illegal practices in the marketplace, and, in 2009 alone, the FTC took action 
88 

against mergers likely to harm competition in markets with a total 

of $22.3 billion in sales. The Committee directs the FTC to robustly 

continue such activities and has approved the following significant 

program increases in accordance with the budget request: 

Protect Consumers: ∂$3,544,000/∂23 FTE.—Recommended 

funding will support FTC activities in the areas of financial practices, fraud targeting vulnerable Americans, including false employment schemes, privacy and data security, health fraud advertising, mobile marketing and new media, advertising to children, 

and international consumer protection. 

Maintain Competition: ∂$2,620,000/∂17 FTE.—Recommended 

funding will support the increased workload generated by the growing complexity of merger transactions and an active merger enforcement agenda, with a continued focus on anticompetitive mergers and practices in the pharmaceutical, healthcare, energy, and 

technology markets and protecting consumers from anticompetitive 

price increases. 

The Committee makes the following findings: 

Do-Not-Call Initiative.—The recommendation includes 

$21,000,000 for the FTC Do-Not-Call initiative and implementation 

of the Telemarketing Sales Rule [TSR], of which the entire amount 

is to be derived from the collection of fees. The Do-Not-Call initiative was launched pursuant to the FTC’s amended TSR to establish 

a national database of telephone numbers of consumers who choose 

not to receive telephone solicitations from telemarketers. The DoNot-Call initiative has received broad support from, and will provide significant benefits to, consumers from all corners of the 

United States. 

Gas and Diesel Prices.—The Committee continues to be concerned with the potential for market manipulation and anticompetitive behavior in the oil and natural gas industries. The FTC 

is encouraged to continue its investigations and other activities related to these concerns. The Committee directs the FTC to keep the 

Committee apprised of findings made regarding fuel prices, as well 

as other planned activities and investigations regarding the oil and 

gas industries. 

Child Protection.—In September 2000, the FTC released a report 

entitled: ‘‘Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review 

of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, 

Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries.’’ The report was 

highly critical of the entertainment industry and its persistent and 

calculated marketing of violent games, movies, and music to children. In response to this report, the entertainment industry has 

promised to impose tougher regulations on itself and to voluntarily 

comply with the report’s recommendation. The FTC should continue with, and expand upon, its efforts in this area. The Committee directs the Commission to continue to engage in consumer 

research and workshops, underage shopper-retail compliance surveys, and marketing data collection and analysis. 
89 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The General Services Administration [GSA] was established by 

the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Public Law 81–152) when Congress mandated the consolidation of the 

Federal Government’s real property and administrative services. 

GSA is organized into the Public Buildings Service, the Federal Acquisition Service, the Office of Government-wide Policy, and the Office of Citizen Services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Los Angeles Courthouse.—The Committee is pleased that GSA 

and the courts are working toward a reasonable solution for completion of the new courthouse in Los Angeles, California. Designated as the judiciary’s top priority and a judicial emergency in 

2000, the Los Angeles courthouse project remains the judiciary’s 

highest construction priority. The project scope has now been reduced, resulting in a lower cost facility than previously estimated. 

Lease-construct Report.—The Committee eagerly awaits receipt of 

the joint report by the General Services Administration and the judiciary identifying the circumstances under which it is appropriate 

to provide court facilities using a lease-construct strategy. 

Use of Stairs.—Obesity levels have been increasing at alarming 

rates, with one-third of the population obese, and another one-third 

overweight and at risk of obesity. Lifestyle activities, such as choosing stairs over elevators, are increasingly being urged by public 

health experts to address this problem. These experts point to 

mounting evidence that small amounts of exercise accumulated 

throughout the day can provide significant health benefits. Research has found that men who climbed at least 20 floors per week 

had about a 20 percent lower risk of stroke and of death from all 

causes during the study period. Benefits for women are also likely 

to be significant. Even two flights of stairs climbed per day can 

lead to 6 pounds of weight loss over 1 year. Studies in shopping 

centers and train stations have shown that poster-prompts, placed 

between adjacent escalators and stairs, can significantly increase 

stair use. Such interventions have typically resulted in a 15 percent increase in the use of stairs. Encouraging employees to take 

the stairs is becoming a popular strategy at worksite wellness programs around the country. The Committee believes that the Federal Government should be a leader in encouraging workplace 

wellness. In addition, lessening the use of elevators by all will 

speed their movement for those who depend on them. 

The Committee believes that GSA has made progress since the 

first effort to promote the use of stairs was initiated in the fiscal 

year 2006 appropriation bill; however, further effort is needed. The 

Committee directs that GSA include in future GSA-owned and 

leased buildings, signage displayed next to all banks of elevators or 

on elevator doors in GSA buildings, at the entrance to all nonemergency use public stairwells, and at the base of escalators, indicating the location of and encouraging use of the stairs; and that 

design of new buildings promote the use of stairs. The Committee 

recommends that GSA aim to achieve the above-mentioned direc-
90 

tive by September 30, 2011. In order to ascertain precisely how 

much progress has been made and how much remains, GSA is directed to provide quarterly reports on the percentage of Federal 

buildings with such signage as well as on actions undertaken with 

regard to the design of new facilities, with a view to increasing the 

likely use of stairs. 

Federal Security Space Assessment.—As New Orleans continues 

to struggle to come back from the devastating hurricane and flood 

events of 5 years ago, Federal agencies currently housed in New 

Orleans as well as Federal agencies that may need to be housed 

in New Orleans in the near future are confronted with the need to 

locate in buildings that meet the various current security requirements of the Federal Government. The commercial office building 

market continues to struggle economically, many existing office 

buildings housing Federal agencies may not be economically viable 

candidates for security upgrades, and sites for new buildings in secure areas may also be limited. The Committee directs GSA to report within 120 days after enactment of this act the locations within the greater New Orleans metropolitan area that have space 

available, either in an existing office building or a site for the location of an office building, that are compliant with the latest Federal 

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection standards, applicable hurricane 

protections and USDA ISC security level guidelines as of September 30, 2010. This audit will assist in understanding the options available for locating Federal agencies in secure facilities in 

the greater New Orleans area. 

Federal Space Management.—The Committee is aware that Executive Order 12072 requires an agency to give first consideration to 

the centralized community business areas of cities when choosing 

office locations. The Committee is further aware of the possible relocation of Federal Government offices outside of the central business district in Rockford, Illinois, specifically, the Internal Revenue 

Service and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The Committee is troubled by these developments and is aware of ample office space in 

downtown Rockford, including the Stanley J. Roszkowski United 

States Courthouse. The Committee expects the agency to fully comply with Executive Order 12072 and directs GSA to work with the 

city of Rockford to retain Federal Government offices in the central 

business district. 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND—LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF

REVENUE

Limitation on availability of revenue: 

Limitation on availability, 2010 .................................................... $8,543,585,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 ....................... 9,153,663,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,158,563,000 

The Federal Buildings Fund program consists of the following activities financed from rent charges: 

Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.—Space is acquired 

through the construction or purchase of facilities and prospectuslevel extensions to existing buildings. All costs directly attributable 

to site acquisition, construction, and the full range of design and 

construction services, and management and inspection of construction projects are funded under this activity. 
91 

Repairs and Alterations.—Repairs and alterations of public buildings as well as associated design and construction services are 

funded under this activity. Protection of the Government’s investment, health and safety of building occupants, transfer of agencies 

from leased space, and cost effectiveness are the principal criteria 

used in establishing priorities. Primary consideration is given to repairs to prevent deterioration and damage to buildings, their support systems, and operating equipment. This activity also provides 

for conversion of existing facilities and non-prospectus extensions. 

Installment Acquisition Payments.—Payments are made for liabilities incurred under purchase contract authority and lease purchase arrangements. The periodic payments cover principal, interest, and other requirements on the debt incurred for construction 

of Federal buildings. 

Rental of Space.—Space is acquired through the leasing of buildings including space occupied by Federal agencies in U.S. Postal 

Service facilities. GSA provided 183 million square feet of rental 

space in fiscal year 2009. GSA expects to provide 194 million 

square feet of rental space in fiscal year 2010 and 197 million in 

fiscal year 2011. 

Building Operations.—Services are provided for Governmentowned and leased facilities, including cleaning, utilities and fuel, 

maintenance, miscellaneous services (such as moving, evaluation of 

new materials and equipment, and field supervision), and general 

management and administration of all real property related programs including salaries and benefits paid from the Federal Buildings Fund. 

Other Programs.—When requested by Federal agencies, the Public Buildings Service provides building services, such as tenant alterations, cleaning and other operations, and protection services 

which are in excess of those services provided under the commercial rental charge. For presentation purposes, the balances of the 

Unconditional Gifts of Real, Personal, or Other Property Trust 

Fund have been combined with the Federal Buildings Fund. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitation on availability, 2010 ........................................................... $894,037,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 676,362,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 768,362,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The construction and acquisition fund shall be available for site, 

design, construction, management, and inspection costs for the construction of new Federal facilities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $768,362,000 for construction and acquisitionof facilities in fiscal year 2011. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION 

State Description Amount 

CA Calexico, Calexico West, Land Port of Entry ...................................................................................... $84,359,000 

CA Los Angeles, United States Courthouse ............................................................................................. 92,000,000 
92 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION—Continued 

State Description Amount 

CO Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation ................................................................................. 7,957,000 

DC Washington, St. Elizabeths DHS Consolidation and Development ..................................................... 267,675,000

DC Washington, St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure .................................................................. 99,281,000 

DC Washington, St. Elizabeths Historic Preservation Mitigation ............................................................. 4,990,000 

DC Washington, St. Elizabeths Highway Interchange .............................................................................. 8,350,000 

ME Calais, Ferry Point Land Port of Entry ............................................................................................... 1,552,000 

MD White Oak, Food and Drug Administration Consolidation .................................................................. 173,773,000 

MI Detroit, P.V. McNamara Federal Building FBI Garage ....................................................................... 3,658,000 

WV Martinsburg, IRS Annex ...................................................................................................................... 24,767,000 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2010 ........................................................... $413,776,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 703,467,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 716,367,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Under this activity, the General Services Administration [GSA] 

executes its responsibility for repairs and alterations [R&A] of both 

Government-owned and leased facilities under the control of GSA. 

The primary goal of this activity is to provide commercially equivalent space to tenant agencies. Safety, quality, and operating efficiency of facilities are given primary consideration in carrying out 

this responsibility. 

R&A workload requirements originate with scheduled onsite inspections of buildings by qualified regional engineers and building 

managers. The work identified through these inspections is programmed in order of priority into the Inventory Reporting Information System and incorporated into a 5-year plan for accomplishment, based upon funding availability, urgency, and the volume of 

R&A work that GSA has the capability to execute annually. Since 

fiscal year 1995, design and construction services activities associated with repair and alteration projects have been funded in this 

account. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $716,367,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2011. The Committee includes 

funding for four special emphasis programs. 

The Committee has included $35,000,000 for a new judiciary capital security special emphasis program. This program is dedicated 

to improving physical security in buildings occupied by the judiciary in lieu of construction of brand new facilities, thereby providing 

cost savings and expedited delivery. Project priorities would be established collaboratively by the judiciary and the GSA. Security 

planning is a critical part of new courthouse design in order to 

minimize risks and provide secure buildings for the public who 

have business with the courts and the Government staff who work 

there. The judiciary has relied on major building projects to address these needs, and in the past 20 years, replacement courthouses have been built to modern security standards at locations 

where security and operational conditions were at their worst. 

However, with many aging buildings and competing real property 
93 

needs, the GSA’s Federal Buildings Fund has been constrained and 

the courts continue to operate in buildings with unsafe and often 

high-risk conditions. Funding provided through the judiciary capital security program will address the security deficiencies in existing buildings where physical, interior alterations are viable. The judiciary and the GSA will work collaboratively to assess the building 

conditions, viability of long-term use, and structural capacity for 

these stand-alone architectural solutions. Such solutions could include: constructing additional corridors, adding or reconfiguring 

elevators, building visual barriers, moving air-intakes, and enlarging security screening areas. To date, the judiciary’s recent AMP 

analysis has identified as many as 45 buildings that could benefit 

from this initiative to improve the physical security in existing 

courthouses. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS 

State Description Amount 

CA Los Angeles, Federal Building/Parking Garage .................................................................................. $51,217,000 

CA Richmond, Frank Hagel Federal Building ........................................................................................... 113,620,000 

CA San Diego, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse and Federal Building ............................ 22,336,000 

CA Van Nuys, James C. Corman Federal Building .................................................................................. 11,039,000 

DC Washington, E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse ........................................................... 22,900,000 

DC Washington, West Wing Design Phase II ........................................................................................... 6,245,000 

IN Indianapolis, Major General Emmett J. Bean Federal Center ............................................................ 65,813,000 

NY New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse ......................................................... 28,000,000 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2010 ........................................................... $140,525,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 135,540,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 135,540,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 enable GSA to enter 

into contractual arrangements for the construction of a backlog of 

approved but unfunded projects. This activity provides for the payment of interest to the Federal Financing Bank related to facilities 

acquired pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (40 

U.S.C. 592). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $135,540,000 for installment acquisition payments. This amount is $4,985,000 below 

the fiscal year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2010 ........................................................... $4,804,871,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 5,291,946,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,216,946,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

GSA is responsible for leasing general purpose space and land incident thereto for Federal agencies, except in cases where GSA has 

delegated its leasing authority. GSA’s policy is to lease privately 
94 

owned buildings and land only when: (1) Federal space needs cannot be otherwise accommodated satisfactorily in existing Government-owned or leased space; (2) leasing proves to be more efficient 

than the construction or alteration of a Federal building; (3) construction or alteration is not warranted because requirements in 

the community are insufficient or are indefinite in scope or duration; or (4) completion of a new Federal building within a reasonable time cannot be assured. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,216,946,000 for 

rental of space. The Committee recommendation is $412,075,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is $75,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2010 ........................................................... $2,290,376,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011 .............................. 2,346,348,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,321,348,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This activity provides for the operation of all Government-owned 

facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and building services in 

GSA-leased space where the terms of the lease do not require the 

lessor to furnish such services. Services included in building operations are cleaning, protection, maintenance, payments for utilities 

and fuel, grounds maintenance, and elevator operations. Other related supporting services include various real property management and staff support activities such as space acquisition and assignment; the moving of Federal agencies as a result of space alterations in order to provide better space utilization in existing buildings; onsite inspection of building services and operations accomplished by private contractors; and various highly specialized contract administration support functions. 

The space, operations, and services referred to above are furnished by GSA to its tenant agencies in return for payment of rent. 

Due to considerations unique to their operation, GSA also provides 

varying levels of above-standard services in agency headquarters 

facilities, including those occupied by the Executive Office of the 

President, such as the east and west wings of the White House. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $2,321,348,000 for 

building operations. This amount is $30,972,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and $25,000,000 below the budget request. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $59,665,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 85,121,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 77,621,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government-wide Policy, working cooperatively 

with other agencies, provides the leadership needed to develop and 
95 

evaluate the implementation of policies associated with real and 

personal property, vehicles, aircraft, information technology, transportation and travel management, and development of procurement 

policies and regulations, as well as improvement of the acquisition 

workforce. These policies are designed to achieve the most cost-effective solutions for the delivery of those administrative services. 

The Office of Government-wide Policy also includes the Office of 

Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, which provides building standards, practices, and a certification system to ensure that 

all Federal facilities (buildings and work places) are designed and 

managed in a sustainable manner. 

The policy support activities funded within this office include the 

Federal Procurement Data Center, Regulatory Information Service 

Center, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,621,000 for 

Government-wide Policy. This amount is $17,956,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $7,500,000 below the budget request. 

High-performance Green Buildings.—The Committee remains 

supportive of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings but notes the slow rate of spending by this office. Since the 

office has yet to spend half of the funding appropriated in fiscal 

year 2010, the Committee provides $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 

and makes the funding available for 1 year rather than until expended. 

The Committee directs GSA to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a detailed expenditure plan for this Office within 30 

days of enactment of this act. The plan should describe the budget, 

timeline, objectives, and benefits of the Office. The Committee further directs GSA to provide quarterly reports on the obligation of 

these funds. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $72,881,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 72,203,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,203,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Operating Expenses supports a variety of operational activities 

which are not feasible or appropriate for a user fee arrangement. 

Major programs include the personal property utilization and donation activities of the Federal Acquisition Service; the real property 

utilization and disposal activities of the Federal Acquisition Service; the activities of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; and 

Management and Administration activities including support of 

Government-wide emergency response and recovery activities, and 

top-level agency-wide management, administration, and communications activities. 
96 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,203,000 for 

Operating Expenses. This amount is $678,000 below the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $59,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 62,905,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 61,025,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and investigative 

functions to identify and correct management and administrative 

deficiencies within the General Services Administration [GSA], including conditions for existing or potential instances of fraud, 

waste, and mismanagement. This audit function provides internal 

audit and contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and 

evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test internal 

control systems, and develop information to improve operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The investigative function 

provides for the detection and investigation of improper and illegal 

activities involving GSA programs, personnel, and operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,025,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $2,025,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $1,880,000 below the budget 

request. 

Of the requested increases, funding is provided for the IT 

workflow management tool and the IT server system replacement. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $34,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 35,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program supports interagency ‘‘electronic government’’ or ‘‘egov’’ initiatives and projects that use the Internet or other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses, and government 

agencies with simpler and more timely access to Federal information, benefits, services, and business opportunities. The program 

would also further the administration’s implementation of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act [GPEA] of 1998, which calls 

upon agencies to provide the public with optional use and acceptance of electronic information, services, and signatures, when practicable. 
97 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 for 

the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is $14,000,000 

below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $15,000,000 below the 

budget request. 

The Committee is supportive of the concepts contemplated in the 

e-gov account for fiscal year 2011, namely, moving agencies to 

cloud-computing through pilots and development of shared services, 

improving Federal IT efficiency and effectiveness through an efficient Federal workforce, and improving Government-public interactions through improving transparency and participation. However, due to funding constraints as well as lack of detail and clearly 

defined information regarding spending requests, the Committee 

reduces funding for E-Gov programs for fiscal year 2011. 

The Committee is concerned that the electronic government initiative does not provide sufficient guidance regarding consolidation 

of Federal agency data centers into data facilities with multiple 

Federal tenants. GSA is directed to report to the Committee within 

120 days after enactment of this act on the feasibility of consolidating Federal agency data centers into existing Governmentowned/Government-operated facilities with multiple Federal tenants. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $3,756,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 3,907,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,907,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for an annual pension and compensation for office staffs and related expenses for former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and 

George W. Bush, and for the franking privileges for the widows of 

former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,907,000 for allowances and office 

staff for former Presidents, $151,000 above the fiscal year 2010 

funding level and the same as the budget request. 

Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee’s recommendation for fiscal year 2011 funding: 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Carter G.H. Bush Clinton G.W. Bush Widows Total 

Personnel Compensation .................................... 96 96 96 150 ................ 438 

Personnel Benefits .............................................. 2 64 104 102 ................ 272 

Benefits for Former Presidents (pensions) ........ 201 201 212 212 ................ 826 

Travel .................................................................. 2 56 5 60 ................ 123 

Rental Payments to GSA .................................... 107 198 586 399 ................ 1,290 

Communications: 

Telephone ................................................... 10 17 7 85 ................ 119 

Postage ...................................................... 15 13 14 20 14 76 

Printing ............................................................... 5 14 18 26 ................ 63 
98 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS— 

Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Carter G.H. Bush Clinton G.W. Bush Widows Total 

Other Services .................................................... 68 103 31 170 ................ 372 

Supplies .............................................................. 5 15 2 40 ................ 62 

Equipment .......................................................... 7 63 36 160 ................ 266 

Total Obligations ................................... 518 840 1,111 1,424 14 3,907 

FEDERAL ACQUISITION WORKFORCE INITIATIVES FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... $24,900,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides support for inter-agency initiatives 

and projects that will improve: (1) the ability of civilian agencies 

to assess the capacity and capability of the acquisition workforce 

necessary to develop and appropriately manage acquisitions; (2) the 

capacity, capability, and effectiveness of the civilian agency acquisition workforce to improve acquisition management; and (3) agencies’ abilities to achieve the optimal mix of public and private sector resources to support agency operations. The activities supported 

through this fund are intended to foster and promote the development of the acquisition workforce and support the responsibilities 

provided for in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for the new Federal Acquisition Workforce Initiatives Fund. This amount is $17,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $7,900,000 below the 

budget request. While the Committee recognizes the important 

goals of the initiative, due to funding constraints and a lack of detail and clearly defined information regarding spending requests, 

the Committee recommends a funding level lower than the request. 

The Committee notes its strong support for completion of the contractor database. 

FEDERAL CITIZEN SERVICES FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $36,515,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 36,825,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,825,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Citizen Services Fund provides for the salaries and 

expenses of the Office of Citizen Services [OCS]. OCS provides citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media with access 

points to easily obtain Government information and services via 

the Internet, e-mail, print, and telephone. 

OCS provides information and services to the public primarily 

through USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov, the official Web portal of 

the U.S. Government. OCS also operates pueblo.gsa.gov, 
99 

consumeraction.gov and consumidor.gov, webcontent.gov, and 

kids.gov Web sites. OCS provides direct telephone (1–800–FED– 

INFO), e-mail and online assistance to citizens through the National Contact Center, and offers comprehensive and cost-effective 

contact center solutions to customer Federal agencies through the 

USA Contact program. OCS also coordinates the publication and 

distribution of information through the Government Printing Office’s Public Documents Distribution Center in Pueblo, Colorado. 

OCS supports effective Government by training Web and contact 

center managers across the Federal Government through Web 

Manager University, and provides development and facilitation 

services to Federal agencies and initiatives to enhance their delivery of citizen services. OCS brings Federal, State, territorial, local 

and tribal governments together to improve services to citizens 

through sharing of best practices, and serves as a point of contact 

to other nations to share experiences in delivering citizen services 

and to bring new solutions to the U.S. Government. 

The Federal Citizen Services [FCS] Fund is financed through annual appropriations to pay for the salaries and expenses of OCS 

staff. Reimbursements from Federal agencies pay for the direct 

costs of information services OCS provides on their behalf. The 

FCS Fund also receives funding from user fees for publications ordered by the public, payments from private entities for services 

rendered, and gifts from the public. All income is available without 

regard to fiscal year limitations, but is subject to an annual aggregate expenditure limit as set forth in appropriation acts. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $36,825,000 for the Federal Services 

Center, an increase of $310,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. 

The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 

Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, user 

fees from the public, and other income. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Section 510 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of passenger motor vehicles. 

Section 511 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the Federal 

buildings fund to meet program requirements. 

Section 512 requires that the fiscal year 2012 budget request 

meet certain standards. 

Section 513 provides that no funds may be used to increase the 

amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning services, security enhancements, or any other service usually provided, to any 

agency which does not pay the requested rate. 

Section 514 continues the provision that permits GSA to pay 

small claims less than $250,000 made against the Government. 

Section 515 provides that certain lease agreements must conform 

to an approved prospectus. 

Section 516 authorizes GSA to allow volunteer and other nongovernmental organizations supporting the National Response 

Framework, under Emergency Support Function [ESF] #6—Mass 
100 

Care, Housing, and Human Services, access to GSA Sources of Supply. 

Section 517 clarifies the authorized purposes of the Acquisition 

Workforce Training Fund. 

Section 518 provides for a land conveyance in San Joaquin County, California. 

Section 519 provides the same reprogramming authority for construction and repair projects in the Federal Buildings Fund funded 

through Public Law 111–5 as is provided for Federal Buildings 

Fund construction and repair projects funded in the annual appropriations bill. 

HARRY S TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $660,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 950,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation is an independent 

agency established by Congress in 1975 (Public Law 93–642) to encourage exceptional college students to pursue careers in public 

service through the Truman Scholarship program. The Truman 

Scholarship is a merit-based award available to college juniors who 

plan to pursue careers in Government or elsewhere in public service. Truman Scholars receive up to $30,000 for graduate or professional school, participate in leadership development activities, and 

have special opportunities for internships and employment with 

the Federal Government. 

The Foundation Trust Fund was established with a one-time 

$30,000 appropriation in 1976. The authorizing legislation directed 

that this endowment be invested solely in U.S. Treasury Securities, 

the interest from which has funded the Foundation’s operating 

budget. With the decline in interest rates, the Foundation has experienced a significant decline in Federal financial support. From 

fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2010, despite having cut expenditures 

by 27 percent, annual trust fund revenue has declined 40 percent. 

The Foundation anticipates a budget deficit of $950,000 without 

the requested appropriations. Estimated trust fund revenue for fiscal year 2011 will be 48 percent below the fiscal year 2002 level. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000 for the 

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation. This amount is $290,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $950,000 above the 

budget request. The appropriation is provided to offset the decline 

in trust fund revenues, to increase direct financial support to scholars, to ensure compliance with Government audit reporting requirements, and to invest in technology and financial development 

activities. 
101 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $40,339,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 41,621,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,621,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB] was established by 

the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB is an independent 

quasi-judicial agency manifested to protect Federal merit systems 

against partisan political and other prohibited personnel practices 

and to ensure adequate protection for employees against abuses by 

agency management. 

MSPB assists Federal agencies in running a merit-based civil 

service system. This is accomplished on a case-by-case basis 

through hearing and deciding employee appeals and on a systemic 

basis by reviewing significant actions and regulations of the Office 

of Personnel Management [OPM] and conducting studies of the 

civil service and other merit systems. The intended results of 

MSPB’s efforts are to assure that personnel actions taken against 

employees are processed within the law and that actions taken by 

OPM and other agencies support and enhance Federal merit principles. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,621,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board. This is an increase of 

$1,282,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. The Committee makes available not more 

than $2,579,000 for adjudicating retirement appeals through an appropriation from the trust fund consistent with past practice. 

MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. UDALL FOUNDATION

MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. UDALL TRUST FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $2,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart 

L. Udall Trust Fund is invested in Treasury securities with maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund. Interest earnings from the 

investments are used to carry out the activities of the Morris K. 

Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation. The Foundation awards 

scholarships, fellowships, and grants, and funds activities of the 

Udall Center. 

The Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation also supports training programs for professionals in health care policy and 

public policy, such as the Native Nations Institute [NNI]. NNI, 
102 

based at the University of Arizona, provides Native Americans with 

leadership and management training, and analyzes policies relevant to tribes. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 

the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Trust Fund. This amount 

is $500,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $800,000 

above the budget request. The Committee includes language to 

allow up to 60 percent of the appropriation to be used for the expenses of the Native Nations Institute. 

ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $3,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 3,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,800,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is a 

Federal program established by Public Law 105–156 to assist parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and public lands 

conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K. Udall and Stewart 

L. Udall Foundation and serves as an impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional expertise, services, and resources to 

all parties involved in such disputes. The Institute helps parties determine whether collaborative problem solving is appropriate for 

specific environmental conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties together for discussion, and whether a third-party facilitator or 

mediator might be helpful in assisting the parties in their efforts 

to reach consensus or to resolve the conflict. In addition, the Institute maintains a roster of qualified facilitators and mediators with 

substantial experience in environmental conflict resolution and can 

help parties in selecting an appropriate neutral professional. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,800,000 for 

the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This amount is equal 

to both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request. 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is 

the national recordkeeper, managing the Government’s archives 

and records, and operating the Presidential libraries. NARA is an 

independent agency created by statute in 1934 and tasked with the 

unique mission to identify, access, protect, preserve, and make 

available for use the important documents and records of all three 

branches of the Federal Government. NARA administers the Information Security Oversight Office, is the publisher of the Federal 

Register, and makes grants for historical documentation through 

the National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

[NHPRC]. In addition, NARA is charged with additional responsibilities including mediating Freedom of Information Act disputes 

and coordinating controlled unclassified information. 
103 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $339,770,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 348,689,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 348,689,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for basic operations dealing with management of the Federal Government’s archives and records, operation 

of Presidential libraries, review for declassification of classified security information, and other duties. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $348,689,000 for operating expenses 

of the National Archives and Records Administration for fiscal year 

2011. This amount is $8,919,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes requested funds to establish and staff the National Declassification Center in accordance 

with Executive Order 13526, including the hiring of contract support to design and develop an integrated interagency information 

technology declassification system, support a Holdings Protect 

Team to bolster security, expand the duties of the Controlled Unclassified Information [CUI] Office to manage the CUI framework, 

and expand the archival staff to build a cadre of new technology 

savvy archivists to handle the influx of new records which need to 

be processed, preserved and stored, and store newly accessioned civilian official personnel files transferred to NARA’s custody. 

The Office of Government Information Services [OGIS] was created within the National Archives and Records Administration 

under the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] 

enacted as part of OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 

110–175). OGIS began operations in September 2009 and provides 

services to mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and Federal 

agencies; reviews policies and procedures of administrative agencies under FOIA; reviews agency compliance with FOIA; and recommends policy changes to the Congress and President to improve 

the administration of FOIA. The Committee believes that OGIS requires a dependable sustainable budget, and recommends that not 

less than $3,000,000 be available for OGIS for fiscal year 2011. The 

Committee urges that the budget request for fiscal year 2012 specifically address the resource needs of OGIS. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $4,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 4,250,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,250,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The mission of the Office of Inspector General [OIG] is to ensure 

that NARA safeguards and preserves the records of our Government while providing the American people with access to the essential documentation of their rights and the actions of their Government. The OIG accomplishes this by combating fraud, waste, and 
104 

abuse through high-quality objective audits and investigations covering all aspects of agency operations at 44 facilities nationwide. 

The OIG also serves as an independent, internal advocate for the 

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of NARA and its operations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $4,250,000 for the Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is $150,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee supports a distinct account for the OIG in order to clearly 

identify the resources necessary to staff and operate the expanding 

mission-critical oversight and accountability functions performed by 

the OIG to ensure responsible NARA stewardship over public 

records. The Committee acknowledges that as the missions of 

NARA expand, including the establishment of the George W. Bush 

Presidential Library, the implementation of the Office Government 

Information Services, and the start-up of the Controlled Unclassified Information Office, the OIG’s audit and investigative responsibilities grow. The increased funds will support an additional auditor to help increase audit coverage. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $85,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 85,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Since 2001, NARA has been developing an Electronic Records Archives [ERA] that will permit management of records electronically 

and ensure the preservation of and access to Government electronic 

records. With the rapid changes in technology today, the formats 

in which records are stored become obsolete within a few years, 

making records inaccessible even if they are preserved intact with 

the most modern technology. ERA will preserve electronic records 

generated in a manner that enables requesters to access them on 

computer systems now and in the future. ERA will include a base 

system for Federal records and a separate system for Presidential 

records. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $72,000,000 for the ERA project. 

This amount is $13,500,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and the budget request. The bill includes a provision requiring NARA to submit a spending plan for these funds. 

The Committee expects that the expenditure plan submitted for 

fiscal year 2011 shall specifically identify and clearly explain the 

outcomes that NARA expects from the funding made available, particularly the extent to which completed system increments include 

all or only partial planned functionality. 

The Committee strongly supports the ERA program at NARA 

and believes that providing reliable access to electronic records far 

into the future, regardless of changes in technology, is of utmost 

importance. 
105 

The Committee has previously expressed its concern that 

NARA’s expenditure plan submissions have not clearly identified 

the specific functions to be delivered through specific spending. 

This has hampered the Committee’s ability to assess the extent of 

progress on ERA that should be expected as a result of the spending. In its review of NARA’s fiscal year 2010 expenditure plan for 

ERA, GAO noted that NARA had not detailed what capabilities 

will be delivered by the final two ERA phases, or increments. 

It is imperative that NARA provide clear and specific descriptions of the particular outcomes NARA expects to realize as a result of the expenditure of funds, including what progress, added capability, and developmental milestones along the path to achieving 

full operating capability will be accomplished with the investment 

of funds. It is particularly important that such functionality be described from the point-of-view of the users of the system, describing 

what additional capabilities will be available to the user as a result 

of specific investments. 

At the urging of the Committee and GAO, NARA recently updated its ERA requirements document. The Committee expects 

that NARA manage the ERA requirements using a disciplined 

process that results in requirements being kept current as well as 

traceable throughout the life cycle of this project. 

The Committee remains concerned that NARA lacks a contingency plan for the ERA system in the event of a failure or disruption, and a fully functional backup and restore process for ERA, a 

key component for ensuring system availability. The Committee directs NARA devote resources to establish a robust online backup 

and restoration service and ensure that adequate capabilities are 

in place for managing restricted information. 

The Committee commends NARA’s leadership in its issuance of 

a mandatory records management self-assessment to 245 Federal 

cabinet-level agencies, components, and independent agencies. The 

Committee shares the Archivist’s concern outlined in the April 

2010 report that 79 percent of agencies are at either a high or moderate risk of improper disposition of records, and that Federal 

agencies are falling short in carrying out their records management 

responsibilities, particularly regarding the exponential use and 

growth of electronic records. The Committee urges NARA to work 

with Congress, OMB, and Federal agencies to address concerns 

identified and improve records management performance across 

the Federal Government. 

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $27,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 11,848,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 11,848,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This account provides for the repair, alteration, and improvement 

of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries nationwide, and provides adequate storage for holdings. It will better enable NARA to 

maintain its facilities in proper condition for public visitors, researchers, and NARA employees, and also maintain the structural 

integrity of the buildings. 
106 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $11,848,000 for the repairs and res- toration account. This amount is $15,652,000 below the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is pleased to support the request, which includes $6,848,000 for base requirements and $5,000,000 for the top priority project in the Capitol Improvements Plan, the National Archives Experience Phase II. 

The Committee supports removal of the restrictions on $3,198,000 provided under Public Law 109–115 and Public Law 

108–447 for the construction of a new regional archives and records 

facility in Anchorage, Alaska to fully fund base Repairs and Restoration requirements. 

The Committee appreciates NARA’s submission of an update of 

its comprehensive capital needs assessment for its entire infrastructure of Presidential libraries and records facilities, as part of 

the fiscal year 2011 budget submission and urges NARA to include 

an appropriate level of funding for repair of valuable historic Presidential libraries in the fiscal year 2012 budget request. 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish 

records that document American history. Administered within the 

National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps 

State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal records, 

helps publish the papers of major figures in American history, and 

helps archivists and records managers improve their techniques, 

training, and ability to serve a range of information users. Established in 1934 along with the National Archives, the NHPRC has 

funded over 4,600 projects connecting Americans with the primary 

source materials of our history, culture, and democracy. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. This amount 

is $3,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the NHPRC program and has 

provided funding to continue this important program. This program 

has played a central role in the preservation and dissemination of 

the Nation’s documentary heritage and has been successful in 

leveraging private sector contributions. 

The Committee notes that the funding provided will enable 

NARA, through the NHPRC, to undertake a variety of initiatives, 

including advancing archives preservation, access, and digitization 

projects within the interlocking repositories of historic records and 
107 

hidden collections; ensuring public access to some of the most important historical resources that are maintained outside of Federal 

repositories; and digitizing nationally significant historic records 

collections to facilitate round-the-clock Internet availability. 

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION

CENTRAL LIQUIDITY FACILITY

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit Union 

Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95–630). The CLF is a 

mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its member credit unions. 

The purpose of the CLF is to improve the general financial stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings, support consumer 

and mortgage lending, and provide basic financial resources to all 

segments of the economy. To become eligible for CLF services, credit unions invest in the capital stock of the CLF, and the facility 

uses the proceeds of such investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds for the CLF are stock subscriptions from 

credit unions and borrowings. 

The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount 

of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed capital 

stock and surplus. 

Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for funds 

attributable to emergency outflows from managerial difficulties or 

local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical changes in such areas as 

agriculture, education, and retail business. Loans can also be made 

to offset protracted credit problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends that lending through the CLF be 

limited to the maximum level provided for by section 307(a)(4)(A) 

of the Federal Credit Union Act. This limitation provides the 

NCUA maximum flexibility to assist with credit unions’ financial 

liquidity during the economic downturn. The Committee also recommends the budget request of limiting administrative expenses 

for the CLF to $1,250,000 in fiscal year 2011. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 

[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 
108 

‘‘low-income’’ credit unions in providing basic financial services to 

low-income communities. Low-interest loans and deposits are made 

available to assist these credit unions. Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although shorter repayment periods may 

be considered. Technical assistance grants [TAGs] are also available to low-income credit unions for improving operations as well 

as addressing safety and soundness issues. Credit unions use TAG 

funds for specific initiatives, including taxpayer assistance, financial education, home ownership initiatives, and training assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for technical assistance 

grants to community development credit unions. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request and $750,000 above the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. The Committee expects the CDRLF to continue 

making loans from available funds derived from repaid loans and 

interest earned on previous loans to designated credit unions. 

The Committee supports NCUA’s outreach efforts to underserved 

rural and urban communities across America through technical assistance grants provided within CDRLF. The Committee encourages NCUA to continue its efforts to provide financial education, 

particularly regarding consumer credit and home mortgages, and to 

provide alternatives to predatory lending services through targeted 

technical assistance grants and support. 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $14,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 14,227,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,227,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a separate agency within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95–521). OGE is charged by law to 

provide overall direction of executive branch policies designed to 

prevent conflicts of interest and ensure high ethical standards for 

executive branch employers. OGE carries out these responsibilities 

by promulgating and maintaining enforceable standards of ethical 

conduct for nearly 4 million civilian employees and uniformed service members in more than 130 executive branch agencies and the 

White House; overseeing a financial disclosure system that reaches 

25,000 public and nearly 300,000 confidential filers; providing direct education and training products to 5,600 ethics officials; conducting outreach to the general public, the private sector, and civil 

society; and sharing good practices with and providing technical assistance to State, local, and foreign governments and international 

organizations. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,227,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in fiscal 

year 2011. This amount is $227,000 above the fiscal year 2010 en-
109 

acted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee encourages OGE to keep the Committee regularly informed of any 

emerging needs resulting from enactment of any new legislation affecting ethics obligations of executive branch officials and employees. 

Funds provided will enable OGE to fulfill its lead role in 

strengthening ethical culture within the executive branch, preventing conflicts of interest, and promoting good governance. OGE 

has designed three budget priorities to support these goals. First, 

OGE is advancing initiatives to modernize Government ethics laws, 

regulations, and programs, including fully implementing Executive 

Order 13490 and enhancing oversight of contractor ethics. Second, 

OGE is harnessing technology to promote transparency, training, 

and oversight, including creating Ethics.gov as a clearinghouse for 

ethics documents and developing interactive Web-based training. 

Third, OGE is working to promote continuity and succession planning in ethics programs, including piloting an ethics official certification program. Experience has shown that public financial disclosure by nominees to Senate-confirmed Presidential appointments is 

a steady and uninterrupted process throughout an administration 

and that OGE’s transition workload responsibilities are ongoing. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $102,970,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 96,439,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 96,439,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] was established by 

Public Law 95–454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, enacted 

on October 13, 1978. OPM is responsible for management of Federal human resources policy and oversight of the merit civil service 

system. Although individual agencies are largely responsible for 

personnel operations, OPM provides a Government-wide framework 

for human resources policy, advises and assists agencies (often on 

a reimbursable basis) with workforce planning and personnel matters, and ensures that agency operations are consistent with requirements of law on issues such as veterans preference and merit 

system compliance. OPM oversees examination of applicants for 

employment in the competitive service; issues regulations and policies on recruitment, hiring, classification and pay, training, and 

other aspects of personnel management; and manages the process 

for personnel security and background checks for suitability and 

national security clearances. OPM is also responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits, and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees, retired Federal employees, and their families and survivors. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a general fund appropriation of 

$96,439,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel 
110 

Management. This amount is $6,531,000 below the fiscal year 2010 

level and the same as the budget request. 

The recommendation includes the requested funding for the Enterprise Human Resources Integration project, the Human Resources Line of Business project, and the workforce acquisition initiative. 

Retirement Systems Modernization.—Modernization of the retirement records of Federal employees remains a high priority for the 

Committee. The Committee understands that work planned for fiscal year 2011 includes: modernizing critical calculator and retirement systems; automating the manual paper-based retirement system through electronic data collection and applications; implementing automated tools to improve retirement case processing; 

and imaging incoming paper retirement records. The Committee 

believes that the continued involvement of GAO can be of assistance and asks that GAO continue to monitor and provide recommendations on OPM’s efforts toward developing and implementing this project. The Committee appreciates receiving OPM’s 

quarterly reports and notes the importance of receiving status update briefings from OPM as developments and milestones occur 

and future plans are determined. 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program and Nursing 

Shortage.—In April 2010, OPM provided a report to Congress on 

nursing faculty and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act [IPA] Mobility Program, along with findings and recommendations. The 

Committee is pleased with OPM’s initial efforts regarding the 

nurse and nurse faculty shortage, including the research conducted, the forum held, the recommendations provided, and the 

recognition that these efforts are a first step of a larger effort 

which OPM is leading. The Committee endorses the recommendations in the report and anticipates regular, 6-month updates on 

next steps, such as conducting additional forums, increasing program awareness, implementing efforts to use IPA to address the 

shortage, developing partnerships with accredited schools of nursing, and conducting outreach to academic institutions and key 

stakeholders on possible solutions, collecting and tracking data, as 

well as other specific recommendations outlined in the report. 

Inappropriate Use of Temporary Hiring Authority.—The Committee is aware that continuous and sustained inappropriate use of 

temporary hiring authority by Federal agencies occurs and that 

this remains unresolved. These problems date back to the early 

1990s and were reported on by the Office of Personnel Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board (‘‘Temporary Federal 

Employment: In Search of Flexibility and Fairness,’’ Sept. 1994) 

and again in 2002 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO– 

02–296). The Committee directs OPM to report on options and recommendations to remedy the inequity no later than 90 days after 

enactment of this act. Included in the report should be identification of agencies and types of positions where continuous and sustained inappropriate use of temporary hiring authority is occurring. 

Options to provide competitive status to employees performing regular and recurring work of a permanent nature under a series of 

temporary appointments should be explored and actions that can 
111 

be taken to ensure that Federal agencies use appropriate hiring authorities in the future should be outlined in the report. 

LIMITATION

(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $112,738,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 121,738,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 121,738,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

These funds will be transferred from the appropriate trust funds 

of the Office of Personnel Management to cover administrative expenses for the retirement and insurance programs, including the 

cost of automating the retirement recordkeeping systems. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation of $121,738,000, which 

is $9,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 level and the same as 

the budget request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $3,148,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 2,136,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,322,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Inspector General is charged with establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office of Personnel Management’s activities which prevent and detect fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency’s programs. Contract audits provide 

professional advice to agency contracting officials on accounting 

and financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and evaluate all facets of agency operations, including 

financial statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide 

detailed technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 

healthcare providers, and insurance subscribers. The investigative 

function provides for the detection and investigation of improper 

and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, and operations. 

Administrative sanctions debar from participation in the health insurance program those healthcare providers whose conduct may 

pose a threat to the financial integrity of the program itself or to 

the well-being of insurance program enrollees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,322,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in fiscal 

year 2011. This amount is $174,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 

enacted level and $1,186,000 more than the budget request. 
112 

(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2010 ..................................................................................... $21,215,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 20,428,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,888,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the 

trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General activities 

totaling $21,888,000 for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $673,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and $1,460,000 more than 

the budget request. Increased funding is provided to maintain staffing levels for oversight of Federal background investigations, to 

provide for pay and inflation increases, and to meet IG Reform Act 

mandates. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $9,814,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 10,467,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,467,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation covers the Government’s share of the cost of 

health insurance for annuitants covered by the Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Program and the Retired Federal Employees 

Health Benefits Act of 1960, as well as administrative expenses incurred by OPM for these programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$10,467,000,000 for Government payments for annuitants, employees health benefits. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEE LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $48,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 50,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Public Law 96–427, the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance 

Act of 1980, requires that all employees under the age of 65 who 

separate from the Federal Government for purposes of retirement 

on or after January 1, 1990, continue to make contributions toward 

their basic life insurance coverage after retirement until they reach 

the age of 65. These retirees will contribute two-thirds of the cost 

of the basic life insurance premium, identical to the amount contributed by active Federal employees for basic life insurance coverage. As with the active Federal employees, the Government is required to contribute one-third of the cost of the premium for retirees’ basic coverage. OPM, acting as the payroll office on behalf of 

Federal retirees, has requested, and the Committee has provided, 

the funding necessary to make the required Government contribu-
113 

tion associated with annuitants’ post-retirement life insurance coverage. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$50,000,000 for the Government payment for annuitants, employee 

life insurance. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $10,276,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 10,076,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,076,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The civil service retirement and disability fund was established 

in 1920 to administer the financing and payment of annuities to retired Federal employees and their survivors. The fund covers the 

operation of the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal 

Employees’ Retirement System. 

This appropriation provides for the Government’s share of retirement costs, transfers of interest on the unfunded liability and annuity disbursements attributable to military service, and survivor 

annuities to eligible former spouses of some annuitants who did not 

elect survivor coverage. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 

$10,076,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and disability fund. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $18,495,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 19,486,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 19,486,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel [OSC] was first established on 

January 1, 1979. From 1979 until 1989, it operated as an autonomous investigative and prosecutorial arm of the Merit Systems 

Protection Board [MSPB]. In 1989, Congress enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act (Public Law 101–12), which made OSC an 

independent agency within the executive branch. In 1994, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 

[USERRA] (Public Law 103–353) became law. It defined employment-related rights of persons in connection with military service, 

prohibited discrimination against them because of that service, and 

gave OSC new authority to pursue remedies for violations by Federal agencies. 

OSC investigates Federal employee and applicant allegations of 

prohibited personnel practices (including reprisal for whistleblowing) and other activities prohibited by civil service laws, and 
114 

when appropriate, prosecutes before the MSPB. OSC provides a secure channel for whistleblower disclosures by Federal employees 

and applicants, and may transmit whistleblower allegations to the 

agency head concerned and require an agency investigation. OSC 

also enforces the USERRA. OSC advises on and enforces the Hatch 

Act restrictions on political activities by Government employees. 

OSC is witnessing a continuing dramatic increase in its caseload. 

In fiscal year 2009, OSC’s intake of cases totaled 3,725 new matters. This was an increase of 19.5 percent over the number of cases 

received in fiscal year 2008. Of the new matters received by OSC 

in 2009, 66 percent of the cases were prohibited personnel practice 

complaints. OSC received 2,463 prohibited personnel practice complaints in 2009, an increase of nearly 18 percent over the number 

received in 2008. OSC also received 496 new Hatch Act complaints 

in 2009, which was an 11 percent increase from 2008. While caseloads are up in each OSC unit, the increase in Hatch Act cases is 

the most pronounced, given that the increased caseload in fiscal 

year 2009 follows a 58.2 percent increase from 2007 to 2008 in the 

number of Hatch Act complaints received. OSC issued 3,733 Hatch 

Act advisory opinions (including oral, e-mail, and written advisory 

opinions) to persons who sought advice in 2009. In addition, OSC’s 

Disclosure Unit’s whistleblower caseload increased to 724 cases in 

2009, up nearly 37 percent from 2008. Of these cases, the Disclosure Unit referred matters to agency heads for their review a total 

of 46 times. Finally, USERRA referral cases increased 173 percent 

over the 2008 figure, up to 41 cases, during 2009. The Veterans’ 

Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 requires action on these referrals within 60 days of receiving a case from the Department of 

Labor. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,486,000 for 

the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is $991,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee strongly urges the OSC to work with whistleblower advocacy organizations to promote the highest level of confidence in the Whistleblower Protection Act and the OSC. The 

Committee acknowledges that OSC continues to experience dramatic growth in its caseload, as a result of heightened awareness 

of the Hatch Act stemming from media focus on several high-profile 

cases, a more vigorous focus on complaints under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and actions 

under the Whistleblower Protection Act. The Committee encourages the OSC to continue progress made to improve its case processing efficiencies. 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $14,333,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 14,450,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,450,000 
115 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent agency 

that has exercised regulatory oversight over the United States 

Postal Service since its creation by the Postal Reorganization Act 

of 1970. For over three decades, that oversight consisted primarily 

of conducting public, on-the-record hearings concerning proposed 

rates, mail classification, and major service changes, and recommended decisions for action to the Postal Service Board of Governors. 

The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 

109–435) assigned significant new responsibilities to the Commission. These enhanced authorities include providing regulatory oversight of the pricing of Postal Service products and services, ensuring Postal Service transparency and accountability, consulting on 

delivery service standards and performance measures, consulting 

on international postal policies, preventing cross-subsidization or 

other anticompetitive postal practices, and serving as a forum to 

act on complaints with postal products and services. The Commission provides leadership and recommends policies that foster a robust and viable postal system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation, out of the Postal 

Fund, of $14,450,000 for the Postal Regulatory Commission. This 

amount is $117,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. The funds will support 75 FTEs 

and enable the Commission to meet its mission of ensuring transparency and accountability in postal operations, services, and finances. 

The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2011, the Commission 

will continue its work to evaluate and issue an advisory opinion on 

the Postal Service’s pending delivery frequency proposal, as well as 

complete work on the Postal Service’s exigent rate increase proposal. The Commission will also conduct routine financial reviews 

and special studies of the Postal Service reports on costs, revenues, 

rates and services to ensure the applicable methodologies as prescribed by regulations are in compliance. The funding provided will 

support an upgrade to the Commission’s Docket On-line system, 

which will replace the existing 12-year-old system and enable improved document management and better reporting options to support management oversight. The funding will allow the Commission to continue its efforts in promoting greater transparency and 

accountability for postal services around the globe. The funding 

also will enable the Commission to renegotiate its lease space. 

The Committee has significant concerns about the fiscal health 

of the Postal Service and questions whether the existing postal facility network is sustainable. The Committee directs the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than April 1, 2011, on the potential economic impacts if restrictions on the consolidation or closure of small rural 

and other small post offices were removed, including an assessment 

of the benefits and drawbacks of potential closures on access to 

services, the postal workforce, affected communities, and the fiscal 
116 

health of the Postal Service. The report should also include an assessment of how the Postal Service’s efforts to co-locate postal services in grocery stores and other existing retail locations enhances 

customer access, improves Postal Service revenue, and reduces facility costs. 

PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,683,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,500,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Recommended by the July 22, 2004 report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/11 

Commission), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 

[PCLOB] was originally established through the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458). 

The PCLOB was made a component of the White House Office 

within the Executive Office of the President. 

Under the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110–53), the PCLOB was reconstituted as an independent agency within the executive branch. The 

mission of the PCLOB is to (1) analyze and review actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from terrorism, ensuring 

that the need for such actions is balanced with the need to protect 

privacy and civil liberties; and (2) ensure that liberty concerns are 

appropriately considered in the development and implementation of 

laws, regulations, and policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against terrorism. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000 for 

the PCLOB. The Committee strongly supports the mission of the 

PCLOB. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level and $183,000 below the budget request. The Committee notes 

that the former Board ceased operations on January 30, 2008 with 

the intention that a new, more independent Board would be instituted in its place. The Committee is seriously concerned that now, 

30 months later, the new PCLOB has not yet been reconstituted 

and staffed as required by Public Law 110–53. The Committee 

urges the administration to nominate members to the PCLOB as 

expeditiously as possible. The Committee urges the PCLOB, once 

it is reconstituted, to promptly provide a detailed budget justification to the Committee. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,111,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,258,483,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,300,000,000 
117 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] is an independent agency responsible for administering many of the Nation’s 

laws regulating the areas of securities and finance. 

The mission of the SEC is to administer and enforce Federal securities laws in order to protect investors, maintain fair, honest, 

and efficient markets, and promote capital formation. This includes 

ensuring full disclosure of financial information, regulating the Nation’s securities markets, and preventing and policing fraud and 

malpractice in the securities and financial markets. The strength 

of the American economy and our Nation’s financial markets is dependent upon investors’ confidence in the financial disclosures and 

statements released by publicly traded companies. The SEC, as the 

investor’s advocate, oversees more than 35,000 registrants including 10,000 public companies, 7,800 mutual funds, 11,500 investment advisers, 600 transfer agents, and 5,400 broker dealers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total budget (obligational) authority of $1,300,000,000 for the salaries and expenses of the SEC, including $1,300,000,000 from new fee collections. This total funding 

level is $189,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, not 

including emergency funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32) and made available for 2 

years, and $41,517,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

directs the SEC to submit, within 30 days of enactment, a detailed 

spending plan for the allocation of these funds, including staffing 

projections and planned investments in information technology. 

With the markets experiencing a steady increase in the number 

of complex securities products and market participants and in light 

of problems plaguing the credit markets as a result of subprime 

lending, it is imperative that our Nation’s top securities regulator 

has the resources to effectively meet its mandate. 

The Committee’s recommended funding increase would allow the 

SEC to more aggressively police the securities markets through examinations and enforcement actions, strengthen SEC’s examination 

responsibilities, enhance risk-based oversight of the investment 

management industry, and expand inspections of credit rating 

agencies and permit SEC to conduct more comprehensive examinations, reach a broader universe of the entities it regulates, and improve its ability to uncover and prosecute fraud. 

The Committee strongly believes that fair and orderly markets 

are essential to restore public confidence in and bolster the integrity of our capital markets. The Committee emphasizes that with 

this significant recommended funding increase comes a concomitant responsibility on the part of the SEC to aggressively safeguard 

the investing public. The SEC must be vigilant in its enforcement 

of securities laws, and failures to properly investigate and take appropriate action will not be condoned. 

In addition, the recommended increase would support urgent, 

critical investments in information technology upgrades so that 

SEC staff are equipped with cutting edge automation support tools 

to enhance their ability to promptly handle tips, complaints, and 
118 

referrals as well as to better identify emerging risks using improved surveillance tools. The Committee expects the SEC to implement key controls to effectively safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of its financial and sensitive information 

and systems. 

The Committee recognizes that over the past year, with enhanced funding provided in fiscal year 2010, the SEC has addressed many agency shortcomings and has produced tangible results. The SEC has restructured its Enforcement Division and 

streamlined procedures; removed a layer of middle management by 

redeploying dozens of attorneys back to the front lines; hired a 

cadre of seasoned experts in the new Division of Risk, Strategy, 

and Financial Innovation to assess complex financial systems; 

added new measures to encourage corporate insiders to come forward with evidence of wrongdoing; sought more than twice the 

number of temporary restraining orders and asset freezes compared to the previous year; issued well over twice as many formal 

orders of investigation; obtained about $540,000,000 more in 

disgorgement orders and more than twice as much in penalty orders; filed nearly 10 percent more actions overall, including nearly 

twice as many involving Ponzi-like schemes; began revamp of technology to better consolidate and focus handling of voluminous tips 

and complaints; adopted new guidelines and protocols governing 

how tips should be handled; and began to improve its inspections 

program and place greater reliance on risk assessment. 

With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203), the SEC faces a 

significant increase in the scope of its responsibilities. Under the 

new law, the SEC is charged with bringing transparency and accountability to the derivatives market through co-regulation of the 

over-the-counter derivatives market, oversight of the mandatory 

derivatives clearance requirement, enforcement of data collection 

and publication requirements; and imposition of capital and margin 

requirements on swap dealers and major swap participants. In addition, the law requires hedge fund and private equity advisors to 

register with the SEC as investment advisers and provide information about their trades and portfolios to the SEC that will in turn 

use the data to assess systemic risk. Furthermore, the SEC is authorized to promulgate rules imposing a fiduciary duty on brokerdealers and investment advisers to protect retail customers; and 

granted enhanced authority to conduct investigations, impose liability on control persons, and assess penalties for violations of the 

securities laws. SEC may exercise broad authority to regulate credit ratings agencies. It is authorized to write rules allowing shareholders to nominate candidates for an issuer’s board of directors, 

and to have such candidates listed on the issuer’s own proxy materials. Most of the regulations, as well as mandated studies, must 

be issued under tight statutory deadlines. 

At the Committee’s direction, the GAO reviewed and assessed 

the joint report issued in October 2009 by the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] on harmonization of 

their regulatory approaches. The Committee urges the SEC, in collaboration with the CFTC, to heed the recommendation of the GAO 

that the agencies take steps to establish, with associated time-
119 

frames, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these goals. 

The Committee underscores that the joint report issued in October 

2009 did not address the issue of gaps in the agencies’ authorities 

to oversee over-the-counter derivatives, which were the subject of 

congressional deliberation at the time. With the enactment of Public Law 111–203, it is all the more critical to identify these gaps 

and ensure optimum harmonization in executing the respective 

oversight responsibilities of each agency with respect to over-thecounter derivative products. The Committee expects the SEC and 

the CFTC to limit, to the greatest extent possible, inconsistent regulation of similar products and entities that could lead to opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The Committee continues to support 

the use of funds to support the Joint SEC–CFTC Advisory Committee. 

The Committee remains concerned that American investors may 

be unwittingly investing in companies with ties to countries that 

sponsor terrorism or are linked to human rights violations. The 

Committee believes that a company’s association with sponsors of 

terrorism and human rights abuses, no matter how large or small, 

can have a materially adverse result on a public company’s operations, financial condition, earnings, and stock prices, all of which 

can negatively affect the value of an investment. In order to protect 

American investors’ savings and to disclose these business relationships to investors, an Office of Global Security Risk was established within the Division of Corporation Finance. The Committee 

notes that under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111–203), public companies will 

be required to provide disclosure to the SEC in matters involving 

conflict minerals, extractive industries, and mining safety matters. 

The Committee understands that the SEC will be implementing 

the requirements, as directed, in the coming months. The Committee expects the work of the Office to remain a high priority during fiscal year 2011 and directs the SEC to continue to submit 

quarterly reports on its activities. 

The Committee is concerned that current SEC regulations leave 

broad discretion to companies to decide if disclosure of their activities is required with respect to business interests in or with a state 

sponsor of terrorism. Companies are only required to make disclosures in cases where the companies judges the information is ‘‘material’’ to investors or is necessary to ensure a required statement 

is not misleading. In November 2007, the SEC issued a concept release seeking comment about whether to develop a new mechanism 

to facilitate greater access to companies’ disclosures concerning 

their business activities in or with state sponsors of terrorism. The 

comment period ended on January 22, 2008 and the SEC has taken 

no action since that time. The Committee believes that business 

conducted by a publicly traded company that could subject such 

company to sanctions should be considered material and disclosed. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the Commission to issue final 

rules that require each issuer to disclose activities that may subject 

it to sanctions under section 5 of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996. 

The Committee commends the SEC for issuing an interpretive 

release, as recommended by the Committee, which provides guid-
120 

ance to public companies regarding disclosure requirements with 

respect to climate change matters. 

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $24,275,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 25,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Selective Service System is an independent Federal agency, 

operating with permanent authorization under the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.). The agency is not part 

of the Department of Defense, but its basic mission is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed Forces adequate to ensure 

the security of the United States during a time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed Forces have relied on volunteers to 

fill military manpower requirements. However, the Selective Service System remains the primary vehicle by which personnel will be 

brought into the military if Congress and the President should authorize a return to the draft. 

In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law (Public 

Law 100–180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a post-mobilization 

healthcare personnel delivery system capable of providing the necessary critically skilled healthcare personnel to the Armed Forces 

in time of emergency. An automated system capable of handling 

mass registration and inductions is now complete, together with 

necessary draft legislation, a draft Presidential proclamation, prototype forms and letters, and other products. These products will 

be available should the need arise. The development of supplemental standby products, such as a compliance system for 

healthcare personnel, continues using very limited existing resources. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,400,000 for 

the Selective Service System. This amount is $1,125,000 above the 

fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee supports the additional resources devoted to upgrading the Service’s information technology systems. Modernization with security upgrades of the Registration, Compliance, and 

Verification information technology system will help improve business processes and national registration compliance statistics while 

sustaining an all-volunteer military recruiting effort. It will also 

ensure more accurate and expeditious processing of registrations, 

enable more secure storage of personally identifiable information, 

facilitate improved customer services through the Internet, and 

promote tighter internal controls. 
121 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010 1 ........................................................................... $1,089,016,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 994,187,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,102,986,000 

1 Includes $125,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–118), $60,000,000 provided in the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 

111–144), and $80,000,000 provided in the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

157). 

The Committee recommendation provides $1,102,986,000 for the 

Small Business Administration [SBA]. The recommendation is 

$13,970,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, which included funds provided in a series of extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is $108,799,000 above 

the budget request. Funding is distributed among the SBA appropriation accounts as described below. 

The Committee appreciates SBA’s timely responsiveness to multiple requests for information from the Committee, particularly related to small business lending programs. Additionally, the Committee expects that the operating plan for fiscal year 2011 and 

other required written reports will be submitted within the specified timeframe in the future. 

The Committee has been frustrated that recent SBA congressional justifications have been unnecessarily complicated. The 

Committee directs SBA to revise the format of the congressional 

justification for fiscal year 2012 so that the budget detail provided 

ties directly to enacted and requested appropriated amounts. 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $433,438,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 446,036,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 464,000,000 

The Committee recommendation provides $464,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the SBA. The recommendation is $30,562,000 

above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is $17,964,000 above 

the budget request. 

Non-credit Business Assistance Programs.—Within the amounts 

made available under this heading, the Committee recommendation provides $194,680,000 for the SBA non-credit business assistance programs. The recommendation is $20,931,000 above the 

budget request and $9,330,000 above the 2010 enacted level. 

The Committee recommendations for non-credit business assistance, by program, are displayed in the following table: 

NON-CREDIT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 enacted Fiscal year 2011 

budget estimate 

Committee recommendation 

Small Business Development Centers ....................................................... 113,000 113,000 117,500 

Drug-free Workplace Grants ...................................................................... 1,000 1,030 1,030 

SCORE ........................................................................................................ 7,000 7,000 7,750 

Women’s Business Centers ........................................................................ 14,000 14,000 15,000 

Women’s Business Council ........................................................................ 1,000 1,900 1,900 

Microloan Technical Assistance ................................................................. 22,000 10,000 22,000 

Veterans Programs ..................................................................................... 2,500 2,500 3,000 

PRIME ......................................................................................................... 8,000 3,469 8,000
122 

NON-CREDIT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2010 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2011 

budget estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Native American Outreach ......................................................................... 1,250 1,250 2,000 

7(j) Technical Assistance .......................................................................... 3,400 3,400 4,000 

HUBZone ..................................................................................................... 2,200 2,200 2,500 

Hispanic Business Centers ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000 

Entrepreneurial Development Initiative ..................................................... 10,000 11,000 9,000 

Emerging Leaders ...................................................................................... ........................ 3,000 ( 1 ) 

Total, Non-credit Business Assistance Programs ........................ 185,350 173,749 194,680 

1 Included in Entrepreneurial Development Initiative. 

The Committee directs that the amounts provided for SBA’s NonCredit Business Assistance Programs, as specified in the table 

above, shall be administered in the same manner as previous years 

and shall not be reduced, reallocated, or reprogrammed to provide 

additional funds for other programs, initiatives, or activities. 

The Committee continues to support the Small Business Development Center [SBDC] Program and recommends $117,500,000 for 

fiscal year 2011, an increase of $4,500,000 above both the budget 

request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The SBDC network—which encompasses over 900 service centers across the Nation—provides management and technical assistance to an estimated 1.2 million small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs each year. As the economy struggles, SBDCs have reported a significant increase in demand for their expertise as businesses seek guidance on how to weather the economic downturn 

and as newly unemployed Americans look for advice on starting a 

small business as a new career path. Providing support for SBDCs 

is more critical than ever as our economy works to recover and 

grow. In particular, the Committee urges SBA, in cooperation with 

alternative financial institutions and regional development agencies, to increase the focus of the SBDC program on providing technical and financial assistance to entrepreneurs investing in development and economic diversification in Appalachia. 

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a Hispanic Business 

Centers pilot program to provide financial assistance to educational 

institutions, nonprofit organizations, and State and local departments and agencies providing management and technical assistance to Hispanic small businesses. Hispanic-owned businesses are 

growing at a rapid rate. The United States Census Bureau reports 

that between 2002 and 2007, the total number of U.S. companies 

increased by 18 percent while the number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew by 41 percent. The recommended Hispanic Business 

Centers pilot program will demonstrate the potential to spur economic growth and job creation through Hispanic-owned small businesses by increasing access and availability of counseling and technical assistance. The Committee directs SBA to consider the Women’s Business Centers program as a model for the Hispanic Business Centers pilot program. 

The Committee recommends that up to $9,000,000 shall be available for the Entrepreneurial Development program administered 

by the SBA, including for the Emerging Leaders Initiative proposed 
123 

in the budget. That amount is $1,000,000 below the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level and $5,000,000 below the budget request. The 

Committee directs the SBA to allocate such funds to the maximum 

extent possible to its current partners—namely, SBDCs, Women’s 

Business Centers, the Service Corps of Retired Executives 

[SCORE], and Veterans Business Outreach Centers. These partners will provide an experienced infrastructure for meeting the 

goals of the Entrepreneurial Development initiative. The Committee notes that the amounts recommended for SBA’s Non-Credit 

Business Assistance Programs, as specified in the table above, shall 

be administered in the same manner as previous years and shall 

not be reduced, reallocated, or reprogrammed to provide additional 

funds for this or any other program. The Committee directs SBA 

to report to the Committee on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment on the strategies and goals of each initiative, methodologies for assessing the performance of each initiative and each individual project selected under each initiative, and methodologies 

planned for selection of individual projects and recipients. The 

Committee also directs SBA to provide to the Committee on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment an operating plan detailing 

funding planned for grants, contracts, and salaries and expenses of 

both current and new SBA employees, including travel expenses. 

Such plan shall individually address each proposed initiative. The 

Committee directs SBA to notify the Committee on Appropriations 

not less than 15 days prior to obligation of funds provided for the 

Entrepreneurial Development program. The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for grants to Microloan 

intermediaries under the Microloan program for marketing, management, and technical assistance provided to borrowers. An additional $4,000,000 is recommended under the heading ‘‘Business 

Loans Program Account’’ to support lending under the Microloan 

program. The Committee includes a provision that, for funding provided for fiscal year 2011, temporarily increases the maximum 

amount of grant funding eligibility for qualified Microloan intermediaries. This temporary condition will provide relief to Microloan 

intermediaries that are providing increased assistance to Microloan 

borrowers during the economic downturn. 

The Committee supports funding for veterans programs and veterans business outreach centers and provides $3,000,000 for veterans programs, an increase of $500,000 above both the budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to support additional 

grants to veterans business outreach centers. When determining 

the allocation of the additional funding, the Committee strongly encourages SBA to consider centers with significant experience in 

conducting outreach to veterans, including those previously receiving Federal funding. 

Operating Expenses.—Within the amounts made available under 

this heading, the Committee recommendation provides 

$269,320,000 for SBA’s operating expenses. The recommendation is 

$21,232,000 above the 2010 enacted level and is $2,967,000 below 

the budget request. The funding recommendations are made in accordance with the information included in the budget justification, 

with the following exceptions: $15,347,000 instead of $18,347,000 is 

provided to continue the modernization of SBA’s loan management 
124 

and accounting systems, an increase of $2,000,000 is provided for 

the Federal and State Technology Partnership Program, and a reduction of $1,967,000 is allocated for efficiency savings. 

Within the amounts recommended for SBA’s operating expenses, 

$15,347,000 is provided for the agency-wide effort to modernize 

SBA’s loan management and accounting systems. Current systems 

are outdated and limit capabilities, and new systems are needed to 

enhance the management of SBA’s $90,000,000,000 loan portfolio. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the risks inherent 

in such a relatively large acquisition, including risks related to contractor oversight. The Committee directs the agency to place a top 

priority on ensuring a successful acquisition of and transition to 

the new systems because the final product will have a long-term 

impact on SBA’s capabilities and effectiveness as an agency. SBA 

shall submit a quarterly written report to the Committee on Appropriations summarizing the agency’s progress regarding the modernization effort, including milestones planned and achieved and 

progress on cost and schedule. 

In light of the increased need to assist small businesses that 

have been affected by manufacturing closures across the country, 

the Committee directs SBA, in consultation with local district offices, to review vacant Regional Manager positions, especially positions which have remained vacant for several years, to ensure adequate services for small businesses. 

The Committee notes that the small business timber sale setaside program is designed to serve many small rural communities 

and small timber mills. The Committee directs the Administrator 

to coordinate with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and provide a written report to the Committee within 60 

days of enactment detailing SBA’s current and planned activities 

related to communication with timber businesses in small rural 

communities. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $16,300,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 18,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,000,000 

The Committee recommendation provides $18,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General. The recommendation is $1,700,000 above 

the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is the same as the budget 

request. 

The Committee directs the Inspector General to continue routine 

analysis and reporting on SBA’s modernization of its loan management and accounting systems, including acquisition, contractor 

oversight, implementation, and progress regarding budget and 

schedule. 

SURETY BOND GUARANTEES REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000, the same 

as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request. 
125 

BUSINESS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 1 ........................................................................... $501,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 326,151,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 356,386,000 

1 Includes $125,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111–118), $60,000,000 provided in the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 

111–144), and $80,000,000 provided in the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111– 

157). 

The Committee recommendation provides $356,386,000. The rec- ommendation is $144,614,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 

level, which included funds provided in a series of temporary extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and 

is $30,235,000 above the budget request. The recommendation provides $157,000,000 for administrative 

expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with SBA salaries and expenses to cover the common overhead expenses associated with the business loans programs. The recommendation provides $4,000,000 for the Microloan direct loan program. An additional amount of $22,000,000 is recommended under the heading ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ for technical 

assistance grants to Microlending intermediaries. The Committee 

directs SBA to continue to conduct outreach to existing financial 

entities that may be well-suited to participate in the Microloan program so that the program can grow and expand access to microcapital across the country. SBA shall submit a written report to the 

Committee on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment summarizing the agency’s plans for expanding the reach of the Microloan 

program. The recommendation provides $195,386,000 to subsidize the 7(a) 

guaranteed loan program. For a typical year, estimated fees collected from lenders and borrowers fully offset estimated Government payments on losses under the 7(a) program. However, the 

budget requests additional funding for fiscal year 2011 because fee 

collections are not expected to offset the cost to the Government for 

that year due to changes in assumptions related to the economic 

downturn. The recommended funding will allow SBA to continue 

operating the 7(a) program in fiscal year 2011. The Committee expects the program to return to typical operation when the economy 

recovers. This amount is $30,000,000 above the budget request for 

guaranteed loans because the budget request assumes the implementation of proposed legislation that has not yet been enacted. 

Data Collection on Small Business Lending.—The Committee is 

concerned that limited collection of timely, relevant data on small 

business lending has made it difficult to quantify the impact of the 

economic crisis, and the impact of various responses to the crisis, 

on small business access to credit. Sources of information are often 

limited to anecdotal evidence and survey data, particularly with regard to the demand for credit. Additionally, with regard to the supply of credit, the majority of current business lending data reflects 

bank inventory but not new loan originations. 

The need for timely, robust data to reflect both credit supply and 

demand has been widely noted, including in the May 2010 Congressional Oversight Panel report titled ‘‘The Small Business Credit 
126 

Crunch and the Impact of the TARP.’’ The Committee directs SBA, 

in coordination with the Federal Reserve, to submit a written report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment on the feasibility and benefits of enhanced data collection on small business 

lending, including but not limited to data on loan origination and 

loan size. 

DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $78,278,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 203,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 203,000,000 

The Committee provides $203,000,000 for the Disaster Loans program. The recommendation is $124,722,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. Any direct loan subsidies required in fiscal year 2011 will be derived from 

available unobligated balances. As always, SBA is urged to seek 

out emergency funding in the event of a disaster requiring loan assistance. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Section 520 continues a provision concerning transfer authority 

and availability of funds. 

Section 521 provides that all disaster loans issued in Alaska or 

North Dakota shall not be sold. 

Section 522 makes a technical correction to Public Law 111–8 

and Public Law 111–117. 

Section 523 makes an adjustment to the net worth threshold for 

the 8(a) business development program. Section 524 provides $60,600,000 for small business development 

and entrepreneurship initiatives, including programmatic and construction activities, to be awarded as follows: 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... 4 Ag Hawaii, Improved Food Security through Small Business Development, Haleiwa, HI ........... $300,000 

SBA ....... ACCION USA, Womens Link Program, for training and technical assistance for women-owned 

microenterprises, New York, NY.

125,000 

SBA ....... AccountAbility Minnesota for financial services assistance, St. Paul, MN .................................... 125,000 

SBA ....... Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Utilization of Seafood Processing Waste and Product 

Development, Naknek, AK.

299,000 

SBA ....... Anchorage Community Land Trust for a financial literacy and community development program, Anchorage, AK.200,000 

SBA ....... Ben Franklin Technology Partners, Manufacturing Pennsylvania’s Future commercialization initiative, PA.50,000 

SBA ....... Benedictine University, Small business training program, Lisle, IL .............................................. 250,000 

SBA ....... Big Sky Economic Development Authority for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund, Billings, MT.100,000 

SBA ....... Boise State University, Entrepreneurial Initiative, Boise, ID .......................................................... 150,000 

SBA ....... Bradley University, small business training program, Peoria, IL ................................................... 400,000 

SBA ....... California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Small Business Construction Initiative, 

Sacramento, CA.

500,000 

SBA ....... Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon Manufacturing Accelerator, Pittsburgh, PA ............ 100,000 

SBA ....... Case Western Reserve University, Northern Ohio Structural Laboratories: Advanced Instrumentation for Northeast Ohio’s Bio-imaging Cluster, Cleveland, OH.125,000 

SBA ....... Center for Rural Affairs, New Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Rural Nebraska, Lyons, NE ............. 100,000 

SBA ....... Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Nebraska Entrepreneur Initiative, Lincoln, NE ....................... 175,000 

SBA ....... Central Corridor’s Hmong Business Center, St. Paul, MN .............................................................. 150,000 

SBA ....... Chicago House and Social Service Agency, job training program, Chicago, IL ............................. 400,000 
127 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... City of Carson City, High Tech Business Collaborative, Carson City, NV ...................................... 400,000 

SBA ....... City of Chicago, workforce retraining program, Chicago, IL .......................................................... 450,000 

SBA ....... City of Denver, Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Sustainability Project, Denver, CO ........ 500,000 

SBA ....... City of Gallup, Kachina business incubator and redevelopment efforts, Gallup, NM ................... 100,000 

SBA ....... City of Port Huron Economic Redevelopment Initiative, Port Huron, MI ........................................ 100,000 

SBA ....... City of St. Cloud, Comprehensive Downtown Economic Development Plan and Program, St. 

Cloud, MN.

125,000 

SBA ....... Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Ft. Collins, CO ................. 200,000 

SBA ....... Dakota Rising Rural Entrepreneur Fellowship Program, South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Sioux 

Falls, SD.

250,000 

SBA ....... Dartmouth Regional Technology Center for additional business incubator space and support, 

Lebanon, NH.

100,000 

SBA ....... Davidson Green Business Incubator Initiative, Davidson, NC ........................................................ 100,000 

SBA ....... Downtown Salem Revitalization Toolbox program for economic development, Salem, OR ............ 150,000 

SBA ....... Eastern Connecticut State University, Center for Economic, Financial and Entrepreneurship 

Education, Willimantic, CT.

150,000 

SBA ....... Fay-Penn Economic Development Council, Local Economy Initiative, Fayette County, PA ............. 50,000 

SBA ....... Finlandia University and Jutila Center for Global Design and Business, business incubator, 

Hancock, MI.

100,000 

SBA ....... First State Community Loan Fund, for small business and community development technical 

assistance, Wilmington, DE.

175,000 

SBA ....... Grambling State University, Expanding Minority Entrepreneurship Regionally Across the Louisiana Delta (EMERALD), Grambling, LA.137,500 

SBA ....... Great Falls Development Authority, High Plains Financial Intermediary Loan Fund, for operating 

expenses of programs supporting small business development, Great Falls, MT.

125,000 

SBA ....... Greater Bridgeport Community Enterprises, Urban Green Business Incubator, Bridgeport, CT .... 150,000 

SBA ....... Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, Bi-State Entrepreneurial Development Initiative, IA ...................... 150,000 

SBA ....... Greater New Orleans regional economic alliance for Green New Orleans, a green business and 

jobs initiative, New Orleans, LA.

137,500 

SBA ....... Greene County Department of Economic Development, Business Park Development Project, 

Waynesburg, PA.

50,000 

SBA ....... Harford County, Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground Technical Assistance Business Development Office, Bel Air, MD.100,000 

SBA ....... Hartford Economic Development Corporation, Business Resource Center, Hartford, CT ............... 150,000 

SBA ....... Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership for technical assistance to minority and women business owners, Newark, NJ.100,000 

SBA ....... International Trade Alliance, Washington BRIC Export Initiative, Spokane, WA ............................ 200,000 

SBA ....... Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development Through Heritage Tourism, 

Jackson, MS.

650,000 

SBA ....... Jefferson Local Development Corporation for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund to 

support small business development, Whitehall, MT.

150,000 

SBA ....... Johnson and Wales University, Higher Education Consortium for Rhode Island Entrepreneurship, Providence, RI.200,000 

SBA ....... Johnson State College, Upward Bound, Lamoille County, VT ......................................................... 50,000 

SBA ....... Kaskaskia College, job counseling and training initiative, Centralia, IL ....................................... 150,000 

SBA ....... Kennebec Valley Council of Governments, Rural Maine Employment Initiative, Fairfield, ME ...... 400,000 

SBA ....... Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Bioscience & Technology Business Center, 

Lawrence, KS.

125,000 

SBA ....... Lewis and Clark Community College, job counseling and training initiative, Godfrey, IL ............ 150,000 

SBA ....... Lincoln County, Alamo Industrial Park Development, Alamo, NV ................................................... 150,000 

SBA ....... Lyndon State College, Center for Business Education and Rural Entrepreneurship, Lyndonville, 

VT.

250,000 

SBA ....... Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick Science and Technology Business Incubator, Brunswick, ME.750,000 

SBA ....... Midwest China Hub Commission, St. Louis, MO ............................................................................ 1,000,000 

SBA ....... Mississippi State University Entrepreneurship Center, Starkville, MS ........................................... 650,000 

SBA ....... Mississippi Technology Alliance, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ridgeland, 

MS.

1,000,000 

SBA ....... Montclair State University, Institute for Sustainability Studies Business Incubator, Montclair, 

NJ.

275,000 

SBA ....... Mount Washington Valley Economic Council, North Country Small Business Education Center, 

Conway, NH.

100,000 

SBA ....... National Centers of Excellence Regional Technology Deployment Pilot Project, Orem, UT ............ 600,000 

SBA ....... Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, Small Business Entrepreneur Training, 

Reno, NV.

150,000 
128 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, Farmer-to-Farmer Mentor Program for 

business development, Chittenden County, VT.

75,000 

SBA ....... Northern Kentucky University College of Informatics, Highland Heights, KY ................................. 250,000 

SBA ....... Northern Maine Acadian Development, Madawaska, ME ................................................................ 1,000,000 

SBA ....... Northern Michigan University Upper Peninsula Center for Community and Economic Development, Marquette, MI.100,000 

SBA ....... Ohio University, Small Business Development for Appalachian Ohio’s Emerging Biomass Industry, Athens, OH.125,000 

SBA ....... Oregon International Port of Coos Bay for the business center incubator, Coos Bay, OR ............ 125,000 

SBA ....... Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN ............................................... 650,000 

SBA ....... PIPELINE Entrepreneurial Fellowship, KS ........................................................................................ 125,000 

SBA ....... Portland Community College, Swan Island Training Center, Portland, OR .................................... 125,000 

SBA ....... Prince George’s County, Maryland, Africa Trade Office ‘‘Farm to Port’’ project, Largo, MD ......... 100,000 

SBA ....... Regional Development Corporation, New Mexico Youth Entrepreneurship Network, Santa Fe, 

NM.

100,000 

SBA ....... Research and Technology Institute of West Michigan for InnovationWorks, technical assistance 

to inventors, entrepreneurs, and existing businesses, Grand Rapids, MI.

100,000 

SBA ....... Rock Valley College, job training and small business counseling program, Rockford, IL ............ 200,000 

SBA ....... Rural Enterprise of Oklahoma, Small Business Resource Center, Cameron University, Lawton, 

OK.

100,000 

SBA ....... Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark Campus, New Jersey Entrepreneurship Development Initiative, Newark, NJ.100,000 

SBA ....... Safer Foundation, transitional employment program, Chicago, IL ................................................. 275,000 

SBA ....... Saint Xavier University, Minority small business initiative, Chicago, IL ....................................... 250,000 

SBA ....... Saratoga Economic Development Corporation, Saratoga Springs, NY ........................................... 100,000 

SBA ....... Sauk Valley Community College, Job training and certification program, Dixon, IL ..................... 226,000 

SBA ....... Seminole State College’s Economic Development Program for Business Recruitment and Retention, Seminole, OK.100,000 

SBA ....... Sirti Foundation for capacity building and education, technical assistance, and training for 

technology entrepreneurship, Spokane, WA.

500,000 

SBA ....... Souris Basin Regional Planning Council, North Dakota Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, 

Minot, ND.

300,000 

SBA ....... Student Assistance Foundation for a financial education program, Helena, MT .......................... 100,000 

SBA ....... Taos Pueblo village economic development, Taos, NM .................................................................. 100,000 

SBA ....... Tapetes de Lana for economic development, Mora, NM ................................................................. 100,000 

SBA ....... The Enterprise Center, Minority Business Development Initiative, Philadelphia, PA ..................... 100,000 

SBA ....... The Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce, Upper Manhattan Tourism and Tourism Related 

Small Business Initiative, New York, NY.

125,000 

SBA ....... The Nussbaum Center for Entrepreneurship, Business Incubator Renovation, Greensboro, NC .... 100,000 

SBA ....... University at Albany, State University of New York, National Clearinghouse for Research and 

Education in Financial Market Regulation, Albany, NY.

100,000 

SBA ....... University of Alabama, Rural Health Entrepreneurial Development Project, Tuscaloosa, AL ........ 1,250,000 

SBA ....... University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR .......... 275,000 

SBA ....... University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Business Support Incubator, Pine Bluff, AR ...................... 275,000 

SBA ....... University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business Development Center, Newark, DE ................... 175,000 

SBA ....... University of Louisiana at Monroe, Business Incubator Renovation, LA ........................................ 100,000 

SBA ....... University of Maine at Farmington, Western Maine Rural Small Business Initiative, Farmington, 

ME.

550,000 

SBA ....... University of Memphis, Memphis Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Memphis, TN ..... 400,000 

SBA ....... University of Mississippi, Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS ............................ 250,000 

SBA ....... University of Nevada Reno, Veteran Business and Workforce Development Initiative, Reno, 

NV.

150,000 

SBA ....... University of Northern Iowa, MyEntre.Net, A National Entrepreneurship Support Network, Cedar 

Falls, IA.

250,000 

SBA ....... University of Rhode Island Research Foundation, for technical assistance and outreach to support start-up and emerging businesses, South Kingstown, RI.250,000 

SBA ....... University of South Florida Business Incubator Project, Bartow, FL .............................................. 200,000 

SBA ....... University of Southern California, Center for Community Development, Los Angeles, CA ............ 500,000 

SBA ....... University of Southern Mississippi, Early Stage Entrepreneur/Commercialization Development, 

Hattiesburg, MS.

650,000 

SBA ....... University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water technologies, Milwaukee, WI.250,000 

SBA ....... Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA .................................... 50,000 

SBA ....... Vermont Worker’s Center, financial literacy workshops, Chittenden County, VT ........................... 75,000 

SBA ....... Virginia Community College System, Virginia Veterans Workforce Development Project, Richmond, VA.400,000 
129 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... Washington Hancock Community Agency, Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME ...... 200,000 

SBA ....... West Virginia University at Parkersburg, downtown center economic development, Parkersburg, 

WV.

250,000 

SBA ....... Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY .............................. 750,000 

SBA ....... Western Nevada College, Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Collaborative, Carson City, NV ..... 150,000 

SBA ....... Western New England College for an entrepreneurship initiative, Springfield, MA ....................... 100,000 

SBA ....... Western Washington University, National Center for Economic Vitality, Bellingham, WA ............. 300,000 

SBA ....... Williston State College for developing curriculum and delivery methods to address workforce 

shortage, Williston, ND.

100,000 

SBA ....... Wilmington College, Kettering Agriculture and Life Science Small Business incubator, Wilmington, OH.200,000 

SBA ....... World Trade Center Institute Delaware, Online Training Program, Wilmington, DE ...................... 50,000 

SBA ....... YWCA Malden, Financial Education and Advancement for Micro-Enterprises and At-Risk Families, Malden, MA.100,000 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $118,328,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 103,905,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,905,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal Service 

in 1971 as an independent establishment of the executive branch 

of the United States Government. The Postal Service’s basic function and obligation is to provide postal services to bind the Nation 

together through the personal, educational, literary, and business 

correspondence of the people. Its mission is to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and render postal 

services to all communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends appropriations totaling 

$103,905,000 for payment to the Postal Service Fund, a decrease 

of $14,423,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 

same as the budget request. 

This amount includes $29,000,000 for revenue forgone on free 

and reduced-rate mail pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2401(d). The recommendation also includes $74,905,000 as an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2012, which includes $68,914,000 for 2011 costs 

and $5,991,000 for the 2008 reconciliation adjustment. 

Revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail enables postage 

rates to be set at levels below the unsubsidized rates for certain 

categories of mail as authorized by subsections (c) and (d) of section 

2401 of title 39, United States Code. Free mail for the blind and 

for overseas voters will continue to be provided at the funding level 

recommended by the Committee. 

The Committee includes provisions in the bill that would assure 

that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind shall continue 

to be free; that 6-day delivery and rural delivery of mail shall continue without reduction; and that none of the funds provided be 

used to consolidate or close small rural and other small post offices 

in fiscal year 2011. 
130 

Mail Delivery.—The Committee believes that 6-day mail delivery 

is one of the most important services provided by the Federal Government to its citizens. Especially in rural and small-town America, this critical postal service is the linchpin that serves to bind 

the Nation together. 

Since fiscal year 1981, annual appropriations bills have each included language requiring 6-day per week postal delivery. The 

Postal Service has sought removal of this mandate to afford maximum delivery flexibility as an internal fiscal management tool. On 

March 30, 2010, the Postal Service filed its 5-day delivery proposal 

with the Postal Regulatory Commission. Federal law requires the 

Postal Service to seek an Advisory Opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission on any proposed change in nationwide service. 

The Postal Regulatory Commission is presently conducting a 

thorough fact-gathering evaluation, including hosting at least seven 

public field hearings, to solicit public input on the prospect of ending carrier street address delivery, collection at blue collection 

boxes, and most originating mail processing on Saturdays. Among 

the key questions that the Postal Regulatory Commission is considering about the delivery frequency are whether the savings the 

Postal Service anticipates would be as significant as estimated, 

whether mail volume would decline more than the Postal Service 

anticipates, whether businesses and citizens have service that remains adequate to meet their needs, and whether the national economic impact of service reductions would offset, or add to, the savings that are proposed. Before Congress makes any alteration in 

the postal delivery frequency status quo, the Committee believes it 

is prudent to allow the Postal Regulatory Commission’s process to 

continue, rather than pre-empt, or make less meaningful, the Commission’s work toward an Advisory Opinion. 

Postal Retail Network.—The Committee acknowledges that the 

Postal Service is undertaking significant reductions to its overhead, 

including the closure of postal retail facilities. Congress has given 

the Postal Service considerable discretion to decide how many post 

offices to erect and where to place them. The Committee notes that 

in fiscal year 2009, the Postal Service operated 35,823 retail facilities, nearly 17 percent fewer than the 43,112 operated in fiscal 

year 1970. These 35,823 facilities include 27,161 post offices, 4,828 

post offices branches and stations, and 3,834 community post offices and contract post units. The Committee understands that the 

Postal Service has partnered with more than 56,000 locations such 

as supermarkets, drug stores, and other retailers sell postage and 

selected postal services. Nearly 18,000 ATMs dispense sheets of 

stamps. The online alternative at usps.com allows customers to 

conveniently obtain shipping information and purchase and print 

postage around the clock. In 2009, nearly 30 percent of postal retail 

transactions were conducted in locations other than a Post Office. 

The Committee strongly urges the Postal Service to continue to expand the co-location of postal services and other innovative approaches to serving communities. 

Mail-related Recycling Initiatives.—Every year the Postal Service 

recycles about 1 million tons of wastepaper, cardboard, plastics, 

cans, and other materials. The Postal Service also generates about 

$7,500,000 in revenue from those recycling activities. The Postal 
131 

Service also purchases more than $200,000,000 worth of products 

containing recycled content each year. Many of the containers in 

the Postal Service mail system are made from recycled materials, 

and so are the stamped envelopes, post cards, stamp booklet covers, 

and packaging materials provided by the Postal Service. The adhesives used in U.S. postage stamps are biodegradable, and the Postal Services priority and express boxes and envelopes are recyclable. 

Through various continued successful partnerships, the Postal 

Service has facilitated reuse or recovery of overstock and outdated 

electronic equipment, saving tons of potential landfill waste. The 

Committee urges the Postal Service to continue its efforts to maximize the potential benefits of recycling initiatives. 

Fiscal Health.—The Committee remains concerned about the fiscal health of the Postal Service. Decline in mail volume caused by 

the recession and the movement of letters and bills to the Internet 

has had a staggering impact on the Postal Service, which released 

its most recent semi-annual and quarterly financial data on May 

6, 2010. For fiscal year 2010, it posted a net loss of $1,900,000,000 

as of March 31, 2010. Staff was cut by 47,000 to a total of 594,000, 

a decline of 120,000 personnel since 2008. For the quarter, total 

mail volume was 3.3 percent less than the same period last year. 

Even with a one-time boost of revenue from Census mail, revenue 

was still 1.4 percent less than the same 3-month period a year ago. 

In light of its dismal and unabated financial circumstances, the 

Committee urges the Postal Service to coordinate with Office of 

Personnel Management [OPM], the Postal Service Inspector General, the Postal Regulatory Commission, and the Office of Management and Budget to identify a fair and equitable methodology to 

calculate the amount the Postal Service should be contributing to 

the Civil Service Retirement System [CSRS] pension fund. In recent reports, the Postal Service Inspector General and the Postal 

Regulatory Commission conclude that OPM’s methodology in calculating the pension cost allocations between the former taxpayersupported Post Office Department and the new ratepayer-supported Postal Service resulted in the Postal Service overpaying its 

share of the CSRS pension fund. Although both the Board of Actuaries and the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2004 

that OPM’s methodology is consistent with congressional intent of 

the 1974 law that established the CSRS pension fund, the OPM Director stated during a March 2010 appropriations subcommittee 

hearing that in light of the methodology being called into question 

again, OPM would be willing to coordinate with the Postal Service 

Inspector General and other stakeholders to revisit OPM’s current 

methodology. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $244,397,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 244,397,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 244,397,000 
132 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The United States Postal Service Office of Inspector General 

[OIG] is an independent organization established in 1996 and 

charged with reporting to Congress on the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of Postal Service programs and operations. 

The OIG plays a key role in maintaining the integrity and accountability of America’s postal service, its revenue and assets, and its 

employees. The OIG meets this responsibility by conducting and 

supervising objective and independent audits, investigations, and 

other reviews. In fiscal year 2009, the OIG efforts resulted in 383 

audits and evaluations being completed identifying potential monetary benefits of nearly $10,100,000,000, 5,501 completed investigative cases, 893 arrests and indictments, and 2,750 administrative 

actions referred. These actions resulted in about $229,000,000 in 

monetary recoveries and cost avoidance in workers’ compensation 

and contract fraud cost programs. As a result, the return-on-investment was $19.69, up from $7.54 in fiscal year 2007. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation, out of the Postal 

Fund, of $244,397,000 for the United States Postal Service Office 

of Inspector General. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 

2010 funding level and the same as the budget request. The funds 

will support 1,194 FTEs and an increase to the OIG headquarters 

lease. Funds will enable the Office of Inspector General to concentrate on its fiscal year 2011 goals of focusing on investigating 

healthcare disability fraud and contract fraud allegations, audit 

work in response to Sarbanes-Oxley requirements, audits of data 

collection systems and procedures, and increasing total investigative financial, criminal, and administrative outcomes. In fiscal year 

2011, audit work will focus on areas that present a high risk to the 

Postal Service, particularly identifying potential cost savings and 

opportunities to increase revenue. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010 ............................................................................. $49,241,000 

Budget estimate, 2011 ........................................................................... 52,201,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,625,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the legislative branch established in 1969 under Article I of the Constitution of the United States. The Court was created to provide a national forum for the resolution of disputes between taxpayers and 

the Internal Revenue Service, resolve cases expeditiously while giving careful consideration to the merits of each matter, and ensure 

the uniform interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code. The matters over which the Court has jurisdiction are set forth in various 

sections of title 26 of the United States Code. 

The Court is composed of 19 judges, one of whom the judges elect 

as chief judge. In their judicial duties the judges are assisted by 
133 

senior judges, who participate in the adjudication of regular cases, 

and by special trial judges, who hear small tax cases and certain 

regular cases assigned to them by the chief judge. 

The Court conducts trial sessions throughout the United States, 

including Hawaii and Alaska. Decisions by the Court are reviewable by the U.S. Courts of Appeals and, if certiorari is granted, by 

the Supreme Court. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,625,000 for 

the U.S. Tax Court. This amount is $5,384,000 above the fiscal 

year 2010 enacted level and $2,424,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee notes that the increased funding is expected to help 

the Tax Court continue to comply with the Court Security Act of 

2007 (Public Law 110–177). Of the amount provided, $2,424,000 

shall remain available until September 30, 2012, to address the 

costs for perimeter security improvements to the U.S. Tax Court 

headquarters. 

STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS 

The Financial Services and General Government appropriation 

bill includes general provisions which govern both the activities of 

the agencies covered by the bill, and, in some cases, activities of 

agencies, programs, and general government activities that are not 

covered by the bill. 

The bill contains a number of general provisions that have been 

carried in this bill for years and which are routine in nature and 

scope. General provisions in the bill are explained under this section of the report. Those general provisions that deal with a single 

agency only are shown immediately following that particular agency’s or department’s appropriation accounts in the bill. Those provisions that address activities or directives affecting all of the agencies covered in this bill are contained in title VI. General provisions 

that are Government-wide in scope are contained in title VII of this 

bill. General provisions applicable to the District of Columbia are 

contained in title VIII of this bill. 
(134) 

TITLE VI 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS ACT 

Section 601 continues the provision prohibiting pay and other expenses of non-Federal parties intervening in regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this act. 

Section 602 continues the provision prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and prohibits transfers of funds unless 

expressly provided. 

Section 603 continues the provision limiting expenditures for consulting service through procurement contracts where such expenditures are a matter of public record and available for public inspection. 

Section 604 continues the provision prohibiting funds in this act 

from being transferred without express authority. 

Section 605 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

to engage in activities that would prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act (46 Stat. 590). 

Section 606 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

unless the recipient agrees to comply with the Buy American Act. 

Section 607 continues the provision prohibiting funding for any 

person or entity convicted of violating the Buy American Act. 

Section 608 continues the provision authorizing the reprogramming of funds and specifies the reprogramming procedures for 

agencies funded by this act. 

Section 609 continues the provision ensuring that 50 percent of 

unobligated balances may remain available for certain purposes. 

Section 610 continues the provision restricting the use of funds 

for the Executive Office of the President to request official background reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation without 

the written consent of the individual who is the subject of the report. 

Section 611 continues the provision ensuring that the cost accounting standards shall not apply with respect to a contract under 

the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. 

Section 612 continues the provision referencing non-foreign area 

cost of living allowances. 

Section 613 continues the provision waiving restrictions on the 

purchase of non-domestic articles, materials, and supplies in the 

case of acquisition by the Federal Government of information technology. 

Section 614 continues a provision on the acceptance by agencies 

or commissions funded by this act, or by their officers or employees, 

of payment or reimbursement for travel, subsistence, or related expenses from any person or entity (or their representative) that engages in activities regulated by such agencies or commissions. 
135 

Section 615 continues a provision allowing the Public Company 

Accounting Oversight Board to obligate amounts collected from 

monetary penalties for the purpose of funding scholarships for accounting students, as authorized by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

(Public Law 107–204). 

Section 616 is a provision rescinding $1,500,000 from unobligated 

balances for prior year appropriations made available for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 

Section 617 continues a provision permitting the Securities and 

Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to fund a joint advisory committee to advise on emerging 

regulatory issues, notwithstanding section 708 of this act. 

Section 618 is a provision deeming certain grant expenditures 

appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and authorized under the Help 

America Vote Act of 2002 to have been incurred for the programs 

and activities described under the ‘‘Election Reform Programs’’ 

heading. 

Section 619 is a provision requiring the President to transmit 

proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations requests to 

Congress on behalf of the judicial and legislative branches as is 

presently done for the executive branch. 

Section 620 is a provision permitting the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation to be a recipient of matching funds distributed 

by the Treasury from revenue from the sale of the Lincoln bicentennial coin. 

Section 621 is a provision related to agricultural trade with 

Cuba. 
(136) 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

Section 701 continues the provision requiring agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free 

from the illegal use of controlled substances. 

Section 702 modifies the provision setting specific limits on the 

cost of passenger vehicles purchased by the Federal Government 

with exceptions for police, heavy duty, electric hybrid, and clean 

fuels vehicles adding a new exception for commercial vehicles that 

operate on emerging motor vehicle technology. 

Section 703 continues the provision allowing funds made available to agencies for travel to also be used for quarters allowances 

and cost-of-living allowances. 

Section 704 continues the provision prohibiting the government, 

with certain specified exceptions, from employing non-U.S. citizens 

whose posts of duty would be in the continental United States. 

Section 705 continues the provision ensuring that agencies will 

have authority to pay the General Services Administration for 

space renovation and other services. 

Section 706 continues the provision allowing agencies to use receipts from the sale of materials for acquisition, waste reduction 

and prevention, environmental management programs, and other 

Federal employee programs. 

Section 707 continues the provision providing that funds for administrative expenses may be used to pay rent and other service 

costs in the District of Columbia. 

Section 708 continues the provision precluding interagency financing of groups absent prior statutory approval. 

Section 709 continues the provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in accordance 

with the applicable law of the United States. 

Section 710 continues the provision limiting the pay increases of 

certain prevailing rate employees. 

Section 711 continues the provision limiting the amount that can 

be used for redecoration of offices under certain circumstances. 

Section 712 continues the provision that permits interagency 

funding of national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications initiatives, which benefit multiple Federal departments, agencies, and entities. 

Section 713 continues the provision requiring agencies to certify 

that a schedule C appointment was not created solely or primarily 

to detail the employee to the White House. 

Section 714 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

to prevent Federal employees from communicating with Congress 
137 

or to take disciplinary or personnel actions against employees for 

such communication. 

Section 715 continues the provision prohibiting Federal training 

not directly related to the performance of official duties. 

Section 716 continues the provision prohibiting the expenditure 

of funds for the implementation of agreements in certain nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are included in the policies. 

Section 717 continues the provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda designed to support or 

defeat legislation pending before Congress. 

Section 718 continues the provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds by an agency to provide home addresses of Federal 

employees to labor organizations, absent employee authorization or 

court order. 

Section 719 continues the provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds to provide non-public information such as mailing or 

telephone lists to any person or organization outside of the Government without approval of the Committees on Appropriations. 

Section 720 continues the provision prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes within the 

United States not authorized by Congress. 

Section 721 continues the provision directing agencies’ employees 

to use official time in an honest effort to perform official duties. 

Section 722 continues the provision authorizing the use of current fiscal year funds to finance an appropriate share of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board administrative costs. 

Section 723 continues the provision authorizing breastfeeding at 

any location in a Federal building or on Federal property. 

Section 724 continues the provision permitting interagency funding of the National Science and Technology Council, and requiring 

an OMB report on the budget and resources of the Council. 

Section 725 continues the provision requiring identification of the 

Federal agencies providing Federal funds and the amount provided 

for all proposals, solicitations, grant applications, forms, notifications, press releases, or other publications related to the distribution of funding to a State. 

Section 726 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

to monitor personal information relating to the use of Federal 

Internet sites. 

Section 727 continues the provision regarding contraceptive coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. 

Section 728 continues the provision recognizing the U.S. AntiDoping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for Olympic, Pan 

American, and Paralympic sports in the United States. 

Section 729 continues the provision allowing departments and 

agencies to use official travel funds to participate in the fractional 

aircraft ownership pilot programs. 

Section 730 continues the provision prohibiting funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to the legislative 

branch and placing certain limitations on the Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship program. 

Section 731 continues the provision prohibiting the expenditure 

of funds for the acquisition of certain additional Federal law enforcement training facilities. 
138 

Section 732 continues a provision prohibiting funds for E-Government initiatives sponsored by OMB prior to 15 days following submission of a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and receipt of the Committees’ approval to transfer funds. 

The section also prohibits funds for new E-Government initiatives 

without the explicit approval of the Committees. 

Section 733 continues with modification the provision providing 

funding for the Midway Atoll Airfield. 

Section 734 continues a provision that prohibits the use of funds 

to begin or announce a study or a public-private competition regarding the conversion to contractor performance of any function 

performed by civilian Federal employees pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 or any other administrative 

regulation, directive, or policy. 

Section 735 continues a provision that prohibits executive branch 

agencies from creating or funding prepackaged news stories that 

are broadcast or distributed in the United States unless specific notification conditions are met. 

Section 736 continues the provision prohibiting funds used in 

contravention of the Privacy Act, section 552a of title 5, United 

States Code or section 522.224 of title 48 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Section 737 continues the provision requiring agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing a Government travel charge card and prohibits agencies from issuing a Government travel charge card to individuals with an unsatisfactory 

credit history. 

Section 738 continues a provision requiring OMB to submit a 

crosscut budget report on Great Lakes restoration activities not 

later than 45 days after the submission of the budget of the President to Congress. 

Section 739 continues a provision prohibiting funds in this or any 

other act from being used for Federal contract with inverted corporations, unless the contract preceded this act or the Secretary 

grants a waiver in the interest of national security. 

Section 740 prohibits the Office of Personnel Management or any 

other agency from using funds to implement regulations changing 

the competitive areas under reductions-in-force for Federal employees. 

Section 741 makes technical modifications to a provision enacted 

in fiscal year 2010 requiring agency compilation of inventories of 

service contracts. 

Section 742 continues a provision, with modifications, providing 

that the adjustment in rates of basic pay for employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in fiscal year 2011 shall be an increase of 1.4 percent. 

Section 743 declares the inapplicability of these general provisions to title IV and title VIII. 

Section 744 is a provision eliminating automatic statutory pay 

increases for the Vice President and certain other high level executive branch officials. 

Section 745 is a provision related to a study of the payment of 

interchange fees by the Federal Government. 
139 

Section 746 is a provision preventing certain anticompetitive 

practices related to the sale of drug products. 
(140) 

TITLE VIII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Section 801 continues the provision that specifies that an appropriation for a particular purpose or object shall be considered as 

the maximum amount that may be expended for said purpose or 

object. 

Section 802 continues the provision that permits funds for travel 

and payment of dues. 

Section 803 continues the provision that appropriates funds for 

refunding overpayments of taxes collected and for paying settlements and judgments against the District of Columbia government. 

Section 804 continues the provision that prohibits the use of the 

appropriation for publicity or propaganda purposes, and permits 

the use of local funds for carry out lobbying activity. 

Section 805 continues the provision that establishes notification 

requirements for certain reprogramming and transfer requirements 

with respect to funds and specifies a timeframe for approval and 

execution of requests to reprogram and transfer local funds. 

Section 806 continues the provision that restricts the use of 

funds only to the objects for which the appropriations were made. 

Section 807 continues the provision that prohibits the use of Federal funds for salaries, expenses, or other costs associated with the 

offices of U.S. Senator or Representative under section 4(d) of the 

D.C. Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979. 

Section 808 continues the provision that restricts the use of official vehicles to official duties and not between a residence and 

workplace, except under certain circumstances. 

Section 809 continues the provision that prohibits the use of appropriated funds by the District of Columbia Attorney General or 

any other officer or entity of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive or civil action which seeks to require 

Congress to provide for voting representation in Congress for the 

District of Columbia. 

Section 810 continues the provision that prohibits the use of Federal funds in this act to distribute, for the purpose of preventing 

the spread of blood borne pathogens, sterile needles or syringes in 

any location that has been determined by local public health officials or local law enforcement authorities to be inappropriate for 

such distribution. 

Section 811 continues the provision that includes a ‘‘conscience 

clause’’ on legislation that pertains to contraceptive coverage by 

health insurance plans. 

Section 812 continues the provision that requires the Mayor of 

the District of Columbia to submit annual reports on various indicators pertaining to the District of Columbia. 
141 

Section 813 continues the provision prohibiting use of Federal 

funds to change the legality of marijuana use. 

Section 814 continues the provision restricting the use of Federal 

funds for abortion, with certain exceptions. 

Section 815 continues a provision requiring the submittal of a revised appropriated funds budget that reflects the total amount of 

the approved appropriation and realigns all budget data for personal services and other-than-personal-services with anticipated actual expenditures. 

Section 816 continues a provision requiring the submittal of a revised appropriated funds budget for the District of Columbia 

Schools that aligns the schools’ budgets to actual enrollment. 

Section 817 continues a provision authorizing the transfer of 

local funds to capital and enterprise funds. 

Section 818 is a new provision that permits the Public Defender 

Service for the District of Columbia to purchase professional liability insurance for its attorneys, staff, and board members. 

Section 819 is a new provision that modifies the frequency of 

management evaluations by the Government Accountability Office 

of the District of Columbia’s chartering authority for public charter 

schools. 

Section 820 continues the provision which limits references to 

‘‘this Act’’ as referring to only this title. 
(142) 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment to 

the House bill ‘‘which proposes an item of appropriation which is 

not made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty 

stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate 

during that session.’’ 

Items providing funding for fiscal year 2011 which lack authorization are as follows: 

Department of the Treasury 

Departmental Offices 

Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments 

Office of the Inspector General 

Inspector General for Tax Administration 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

Financial Management Service 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 

Bureau of the Public Debt 

Community Development and Financial Institutions Fund 

Internal Revenue Service: 

Taxpayer Services 

Enforcement 

Operations Support 

Business Systems Modernization 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration 

Executive Office of the President 

Office of Management and Budget 

ONDCP: Training for drug court professionals 

District of Columbia 

Federal Payment for the District of Columbia Water and Sewer 

Authority 

Federal Payment for School Improvement 

Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 

Columbia 

Federal Payment for the D.C. National Guard 

Federal Payment for Housing for the Homeless 

Federal Payment for Redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths Hospital Campus 

Federal Payment for HIV/AIDS Prevention 

Independent Agencies 

Election Assistance Commission 

Federal Communications Commission 
143 

Federal Election Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

General Services Administration: 

Federal Building Fund 

GSA E-government Fund 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

National Archives and Records Administration, National Historical Publications and Records Commission 

National Credit Union Administration: Community Development 

Revolving Loan Fund 

Office of Government Ethics 

Office of Special Counsel 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 29, 2010, 

theCommittee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3677) making 

appropriations for financial services and general government for 

the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other purposes, 

subject to amendment and subject to the Committee spending guidance; and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate-reported 

bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the 

House companion measure, by a recorded vote of 18–12, a quorum 

being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Leahy Mr. Bond 

Mr. Harkin Mr. McConnell 

Ms. Mikulski Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Kohl Mr. Gregg 

Mrs. Murray Mr. Bennett 

Mr. Dorgan Mrs. Hutchison 

Mrs. Feinstein Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Durbin Mr. Alexander 

Mr. Johnson Ms. Collins 

Ms. Landrieu Mr. Voinovich 

Mr. Reed Ms. Murkowski 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Brown 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on 

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part 

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 
144 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the Committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by this bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 15—COMMERCE AND TRADE 

CHAPTER 2—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION; PROMOTION OF EXPORT TRADE AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION

SUBCHAPTER I—FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

§ 56. Commencement, defense, intervention and supervision 

of litigation and appeal by Commission or Attorney 

General 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) under the second paragraph of section 49 of this title 

(relating to enforcement of a subpena) and under the fourth 

paragraph of such section (relating to compliance with section 

46 of this title); øor¿ 

(E) under section 57b–2a of this title; or 

(F) under section 28; 

* * * * * * * 

(c) FOREIGN LITIGATION.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) OTHER AUTHORITY.—The authority provided by this 

subsection is in addition to any other authority of the Commission or the Attorney General. 

SEC. 28. PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE GENERICS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— 

(1) ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDING.—The Federal Trade Commission may initiate a proceeding to enforce the provisions of 

this section against the parties to any agreement resolving or 

settling, on a final or interim basis, a patent infringement 

claim, in connection with the sale of a drug product. 

(2) PRESUMPTION.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), in such 

a proceeding, an agreement shall be presumed to have anticompetitive effects and be unlawful if— 

(i) an ANDA filer receives anything of value; and 
145 

(ii) the ANDA filer agrees to limit or forego research, development, manufacturing, marketing, or 

sales of the ANDA product for any period of time. 

(B) EXCEPTION.—The presumption in subparagraph (A) 

shall not apply if the parties to such agreement demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the procompetitive benefits of the agreement outweigh the anticompetitive effects of the agreement. 

(b) COMPETITIVE FACTORS.—In determining whether the settling parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the 

fact finder shall consider— 

(1) the length of time remaining until the end of the life of 

the relevant patent, compared with the agreed upon entry date 

for the ANDA product; 

(2) the value to consumers of the competition from the 

ANDA product allowed under the agreement; 

(3) the form and amount of consideration received by the 

ANDA filer in the agreement resolving or settling the patent infringement claim; 

(4) the revenue the ANDA filer would have received by winning the patent litigation; 

(5) the reduction in the NDA holder’s revenues if it had lost 

the patent litigation; 

(6) the time period between the date of the agreement conveying value to the ANDA filer and the date of the settlement 

of the patent infringement claim; and 

(7) any other factor that the fact finder, in its discretion, 

deems relevant to its determination of competitive effects under 

this subsection. 

(c) LIMITATIONS.—In determining whether the settling parties 

have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the fact finder 

shall not presume— 

(1) that entry would not have occurred until the expiration 

of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity; or 

(2) that the agreement’s provision for entry of the ANDA 

product prior to the expiration of the relevant patent or statutory exclusivity means that the agreement is pro-competitive, although such evidence may be relevant to the fact finder’s determination under this section. 

(d) EXCLUSIONS.—Nothing in this section shall prohibit a resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in which the 

consideration granted by the NDA holder to the ANDA filer as part 

of the resolution or settlement includes only one or more of the following: 

(1) The right to market the ANDA product in the United 

States prior to the expiration of— 

(A) any patent that is the basis for the patent infringement claim; or 

(B) any patent right or other statutory exclusivity that 

would prevent the marketing of such drug. 

(2) A payment for reasonable litigation expenses not to exceed $7,500,000. 

(3) A covenant not to sue on any claim that the ANDA 

product infringes a United States patent. 
146 

(e) REGULATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.— (1) REGULATIONS.—The Federal Trade Commission may 

issue, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States 

Code, regulations implementing and interpreting this section. 

These regulations may exempt certain types of agreements described in subsection (a) if the Commission determines such 

agreements will further market competition and benefit consumers. Judicial review of any such regulation shall be in the 

United States District Court for the District of Columbia pursuant to section 706 of title 5, United States Code. 

(2) ENFORCEMENT.—A violation of this section shall be 

treated as a violation of section 5. 

(3) JUDICIAL REVIEW.—Any person, partnership or corporation that is subject to a final order of the Commission, issued 

in an administrative adjudicative proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), may, within 30 days of the issuance of 

such order, petition for review of such order in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit or 

the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the 

ultimate parent entity, as defined at 16 C.F.R. 801.1(a)(3), of 

the NDA holder is incorporated as of the date that the NDA is 

filed with the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration, 

or the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which 

the ultimate parent entity of the ANDA filer is incorporated as 

of the date that the ANDA is filed with the Secretary of the 

Food and Drug Administration. In such a review proceeding, 

the findings of the Commission as to the facts, if supported by 

evidence, shall be conclusive. 

(f) ANTITRUST LAWS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of the antitrust laws as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the 

Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)) and of section 5 of this Act to the extent that section 5 applies to unfair methods of competition. Nothing 

in this section shall modify, impair, limit or supersede the right of 

an ANDA filer to assert claims or counterclaims against any person, 

under the antitrust laws or other laws relating to unfair competition. 

(g) PENALTIES.— (1) FORFEITURE.—Each person, partnership or corporation 

that violates or assists in the violation of this section shall forfeit and pay to the United States a civil penalty sufficient to 

deter violations of this section, but in no event greater than 3 

times the value received by the party that is reasonably attributable to a violation of this section. If no such value has been 

received by the NDA holder, the penalty to the NDA holder 

shall be shall be sufficient to deter violations, but in no event 

greater than 3 times the value given to the ANDA filer reasonably attributable to the violation of this section. Such penalty 

shall accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a 

civil action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, in its 

own name by any of its attorneys designated by it for such purpose, in a district court of the United States against any person, 

partnership or corporation that violates this section. In such actions, the United States district courts are empowered to grant 
147 

mandatory injunctions and such other and further equitable relief as they deem appropriate. 

(2) CEASE AND DESIST.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If the Commission has issued a cease 

and desist order with respect to a person, partnership or 

corporation in an administrative adjudicative proceeding 

under the authority of subsection (a)(1), an action brought 

pursuant to paragraph (1) may be commenced against such 

person, partnership or corporation at any time before the 

expiration of 1 year after such order becomes final pursuant to section 5(g). 

(B) EXCEPTION.—In an action under subparagraph (A), 

the findings of the Commission as to the material facts in 

the administrative adjudicative proceeding with respect to 

such person’s, partnership’s or corporation’s violation of 

this section shall be conclusive unless— 

(i) the terms of such cease and desist order expressly provide that the Commission’s findings shall 

not be conclusive; or 

(ii) the order became final by reason of section 

5(g)(1), in which case such finding shall be conclusive 

if supported by evidence. 

(3) CIVIL PENALTY.—In determining the amount of the civil 

penalty described in this section, the court shall take into account— 

(A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 

violation; 

(B) with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of violations, the ability to pay, any effect 

on the ability to continue doing business, profits earned by 

the NDA holder, compensation received by the ANDA filer, 

and the amount of commerce affected; and 

(C) other matters that justice requires. 

(4) REMEDIES IN ADDITION.—Remedies provided in this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedy 

provided by Federal law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 

construed to affect any authority of the Commission under any 

other provision of law. 

(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘agreement’’ means anything 

that would constitute an agreement under section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 of this Act. 

(2) AGREEMENT RESOLVING OR SETTLING A PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘‘agreement resolving or settling 

a patent infringement claim’’ includes any agreement that is entered into within 30 days of the resolution or the settlement of 

the claim, or any other agreement that is contingent upon, provides a contingent condition for, or is otherwise related to the 

resolution or settlement of the claim. 

(3) ANDA.—The term ‘‘ANDA’’ means an abbreviated new 

drug application, as defined under section 505(j) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)). 
148 

(4) ANDA FILER.—The term ‘‘ANDA filer’’ means a party 

who has filed an ANDA with the Food and Drug Administration. 

(5) ANDA PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘ANDA product’’ means the 

product to be manufactured under the ANDA that is the subject 

of the patent infringement claim. 

(6) DRUG PRODUCT.—The term ‘‘drug product’’ means a finished dosage form (e.g., tablet, capsule, or solution) that contains a drug substance, generally, but not necessarily, in association with 1 or more other ingredients, as defined in section 

314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations. 

(7) NDA.—The term ‘‘NDA’’ means a new drug application, 

as defined under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)). 

(8) NDA HOLDER.—The term ‘‘NDA holder’’ means— 

(A) the party that received FDA approval to market a 

drug product pursuant to an NDA; 

(B) a party owning or controlling enforcement of the 

patent listed in the Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the 

‘‘FDA Orange Book’’) in connection with the NDA; or 

(C) the predecessors, subsidiaries, divisions, groups, 

and affiliates controlled by, controlling, or under common 

control with any of the entities described in subparagraphs 

(A) and (B) (such control to be presumed by direct or indirect share ownership of 50 percent or greater), as well as 

the licensees, licensors, successors, and assigns of each of 

the entities. 

(9) PATENT INFRINGEMENT.—The term ‘‘patent infringement’’ means infringement of any patent or of any filed patent 

application, extension, reissue, renewal, division, continuation, 

continuation in part, reexamination, patent term restoration, 

patents of addition and extensions thereof. 

(10) PATENT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM.—The term ‘‘patent infringement claim’’ means any allegation made to an ANDA 

filer, whether or not included in a complaint filed with a court 

of law, that its ANDA or ANDA product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively licensed to, the NDA holder of the 

drug product. 

(11) STATUTORY EXCLUSIVITY.—The term ‘‘statutory exclusivity’’ means those prohibitions on the approval of drug applications under clauses (ii) through (iv) of section 505(c)(3)(E) (5- 

and 3-year data exclusivity), section 527 (orphan drug exclusivity), or section 505A (pediatric exclusivity) of the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 14A—AID TO SMALL BUSINESS

§ 637. Additional powers 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
149 

(6)(A) Economically disadvantaged individuals are those socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in the 

free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital 

and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same business area who are not socially disadvantaged. In determining the 

degree of diminished credit and capital opportunities the Administration shall consider, but not be limited to, the assets and net 

worth of such socially disadvantaged individual. In determining the 

economic disadvantage of an Indian tribe, the Administration shall 

consider, where available, information such as the following: the 

per capita income of members of the tribe excluding judgment 

awards, the percentage of the local Indian population below the 

poverty level, and the tribe’s access to capital markets. In taking 

into account the net worth of a socially disadvantaged individual 

under this subparagraph for purposes of determining if such individual is economically disadvantaged, the Administrator shall consider a net worth of less than $1,000,000 as indicating that the individual is economically disadvantaged. 

* * * * * * * 

(d) Performance of contracts by small business concerns; inclusion of required contract clause; subcontracting 

plans; contract eligibility; incentives; breach of contract; review; report to Congress 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The clause required by paragraph (2) shall be as follows: 

‘‘(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(C) As used in this contract, the term ‘small business concern’ shall mean a small business as defined pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business Act and relevant regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. The term ‘‘small business concern 

owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals’’ shall mean a small business concern— 

‘‘(i) which is at least 51 per centum owned by one or 

more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; 

or, in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51 

per centum of the stock of which is owned by one or more 

socially and economically disadvantaged individuals; and 

‘‘(ii) whose management and daily business operations 

are controlled by one or more of such individuals. 

‘‘The contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, 

and other minorities, or any other individual found to be disadvantaged by the Administration pursuant to section 8(a) of 

the Small Business Act. The contractor shall presume that a socially disadvantaged individual is economically disadvantaged 

if such individual’s net worth, as determined in accordance 

with this section is less than $1,000,000. 
150 

TITLE 21—FOOD AND DRUGS 

CHAPTER 9—FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT

SUBCHAPTER V—DRUGS AND DEVICES

PART A—DRUGS AND DEVICES

§ 355. New drugs 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(j) Abbreviated new drug applications 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(D) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(I) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(V) AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER APPLICANT, THE LISTED

DRUG APPLICATION HOLDER, OR A PATENT OWNER.—The 

first applicant enters into an agreement with another applicant under this subsection for the drug, the holder of 

the application for the listed drug, or an owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification under paragraph 

(2)(A)(vii)(IV), the Federal Trade Commission or the Attorney General files a complaint, and there is a final decision 

of the Federal Trade Commission or the court with regard 

to the complaint from which no appeal (other than a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari) has been 

or can be taken that the agreement has violated section 28 

of the Federal Trade Commission Act or the antitrust laws 

(as defined in section 12 of title 15, except that the term 

includes section 45 of title 15 to the extent that that section applies to unfair methods of competition). 

* * * * * * * 

NOTE

Pub. L. 108–173, title XI, subtitle B, Dec. 8, 2003, 117 Stat. 

2461, provided that: 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘SEC. 1112. NOTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS. 

‘‘(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

‘‘(c) FILING.— 

‘‘(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
151 

‘‘(2) OTHER AGREEMENTS.—The parties that are required in 

subsection (a) or (b) to file an agreement in accordance with 

this subsection shall file with the Assistant Attorney General 

and øthe Commission the¿ the Commission— 

‘‘(A) the text of any agreements between the parties 

that are not described in such subsections and are contingent upon, provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related to an agreement that is required in subsection 

(a) or (b) to be filed in accordance with this subsectionø.¿; 

and 

‘‘(B) any other agreement the parties enter into within 

30 days of entering into an agreement covered by subsection 

(a) or (b).’’ 

‘‘(3) DESCRIPTION.—In the event that any agreement required in subsection (a) or (b) to be filed in accordance with 

this subsection has not been reduced to text, each of the parties involved shall file written descriptions of such agreement 

that are sufficient to disclose all the terms and conditions of 

the agreement. 

‘‘(d) CERTIFICATION.—The Chief Executive Officer or the company official responsible for negotiating any agreement required to 

be filed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall execute and file with 

the Assistant Attorney General and the Commission a certification 

as follows: ‘I declare that the following is true, correct, and complete 

to the best of my knowledge: The materials filed with the Federal 

Trade Commission and the Department of Justice under section 

1112 of subtitle B of title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, with respect to the 

agreement referenced in this certification: (1) represent the complete, 

final, and exclusive agreement between the parties; (2) include any 

ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, provide a contingent 

condition for, or are otherwise related to, the referenced agreement; 

and (3) include written descriptions of any oral agreements, representations, commitments, or promises between the parties that are 

responsive to subsection (a) or (b) of such section 1112 and have not 

been reduced to writing.’ ’’. 

TITLE 31—MONEY AND FINANCE 

SUBTITLE II—THE BUDGET PROCESS 

CHAPTER 11—THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND 

PROGRAM INFORMATION 

§ 1107. Deficiency and supplemental appropriations 

The President may submit to Congress proposed deficiency and 

supplemental appropriations the President decides are necessary 

because of laws enacted after the submission of the budget or that 

are in the public interest. The President shall include the reasons 

for the submission of the proposed appropriations and the reasons 

the proposed appropriations were not included in the budget. When 

the total proposed appropriations would have required the President to make a recommendation under section 1105(c) of this title 
152 

if they had been included in the budget, the President shall make 

a recommendation under that section. The President shall transmit 

promptly to Congress without change, proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the legislative branch and the judicial branch. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT 

(PUBLIC LAW 109–285) 

SEC. 7. SURCHARGES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—All sales of coins issued under this Act shall 

include a surcharge of $10 per coin. 

(b) DISTRIBUTION.—Subject to section 5134(f)(1), title 31, 

United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary from 

the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be promptly paid by 

the Secretary to the øAbraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission to 

further the work of the Commission¿ Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation for the purposes of commemorating the bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, and fostering and promoting 

the awareness and study of the life of Abraham Lincoln. 

(c) AUDITS.—The øAbraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission¿ 

Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation shall be subject to the 

audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United States 

Code. 

TITLE 41—PUBLIC CONTRACTS 

§ 433. Acquisition workforce 

(a) Applicability 

* * * * * * * 

(h) Education and training 

(1) Funding levels 

* * * * * * * 

(3) Acquisition workforce training fund 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(E) The Administrator of General Services, through the Office of Federal Acquisition Policy, shall ensure that funds collected øfor training¿ under this section are not used for any 

purpose other than the purpose specified in øsubparagraph 

(A)¿ subparagraphs (A) and (C) to (J) of section 405(d)(5) of 

this title. 

* * * * * * * 
153 

DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, 

THE JUICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCICES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998 (PUBLIC LAW 105–119) 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

SEC. 122. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to 

paragraph (2), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to establish, for a period of ø12 years¿ 13 years from date of enactment of 

this provision, a personnel management demonstration project providing for the compensation and performance management of not 

more than a combined total of 950 employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering, intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 

Firearms. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

(PUBLIC LAW 108–335) 

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

SEC. 346. øBIENNIAL¿ EVALUATION OF CHARTER SCHOOL AUTHORIZING BOARDS. (a) øBiennial management¿ Management evaluation of the District of Columbia Chartering Authorities for the 

District of Columbia Public Charter Schools shall be conducted by 

the Comptroller General of the United øStates.¿ States every five 

years. 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(6) Actual budget expenditures for the preceding ø2¿ 5 fiscal years; 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 (PUBLIC 

LAW 108–43) 

DIVISION H—TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT 

AGENCIES, AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 

TITLE IV 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, $13,432,000, to 

remain available until expended, øof which $3,000,000 is for site 
154 

preparation and construction management to construct a new regional archives and records facility in Anchorage, Alaska,¿ and of 

which $2,000,000 is for the repair and restoration of the plaza that 

surrounds the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library that is 

under the joint control and custody of the University of Texas: Provided, That such funds may be transferred directly to the University and used, together with University funds, for repair and restoration of the plaza and remain available until expended for this 

purpose. 

ENSURING NEEDED HELP ARRIVES NEAR CALLERS 

EMPLOYING 911 ACT, 2004 (PUBLIC LAW 108–494) 

TITLE III—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

SEC. 302. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN TITLE 31 PROVISIONS TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.— * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) POST-2005 FULFILLMENT OF PROTECTED OBLIGATIONS.—Section 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, United States 

Code, do not apply after øDecember 31, 2010¿ December 31, 2011, 

to an expenditure or obligation described in subsection (a)(2) made 

or authorized during the period described in subsection (a). 

TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 (PUBLIC LAW 109–115) 

TITLE VI 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, $9,682,000, to 

remain available until expended, øof which $1,500,000 is to construct a new regional archives and records facility in Anchorage, 

Alaska,¿ and of which $1,000,000 is for the repair and restoration 

of the plaza that surrounds the Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library that is under the joint control and custody of the 

University of Texas: Provided, That such funds may be transferred 

directly to the University and used, together with University funds, 

for repair and restoration of the plaza and remain available until 

expended for this purpose: Provided further, That such funds shall 

be spent in accordance with the construction plan submitted to the 

Committees on Appropriations on March 14, 2005: Provided further, That the Archivist shall be prohibited from entering into any 

agreement with the University or any other party that requires ad-
155 

ditional funding commitments on behalf of the Federal Government. 

CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 (PUBLIC 

LAW 111–117) 

DIVISION C—FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

SEC. 743. (a) SERVICE CONTRACT INVENTORY REQUIREMENT.— (1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) INVENTORY CONTENTS.—Not later than December 31, 

2010, and annually thereafter, the head of each executive 

agency required to submit an inventory in accordance with the 

Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 

105–270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note), other than the Department of 

Defense, shall submit to the Office of Management and Budget 

an annual inventory of service contracts awarded or extended 

through the exercise of an option, and task orders issued under 

any such contract, on or after April 1, 2010, for or on behalf 

of such agency. For each service contract, the entry for an inventory under this section shall include, for the preceding fiscal year, the following: 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(G) The number and work location of contractor and 

subcontractor employees, expressed as full-time equivalents for direct labor, compensated under the contract, using direct labor hours and associated cost data collected 

from contractors. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(B) øthe agency is giving special management attention to functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions;¿ the contracts exclude to the 

maximum extent practicable functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions; 

* * * * * * * 

(h) SUBMISSION OF REPORT ON ACTIONS TAKEN BEFORE PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION MAY OCCUR.—An executive agency may 

not begin, plan for, or announce a study or public-private competition regarding the conversion to contractor performance of any func-
156 

tion performed by Federal employees pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 or any other administrative regulation or directive until after that agency has submitted to the Office 

of Management and Budget a report, pursuant to subsection (f), that 

includes actions taken to convert from contractor to Federal employee performance functions that are not inherently governmental, 

closely associated with governmental functions, critical, or should 

not otherwise be reserved for performance by Federal employees. 

This subsection shall take effect beginning with the report required 

under subsection (f) that is included as an attachment to the annual 

inventory due by December 31, 2011. 

ø(h)¿ (i) GAO REPORTS ON IMPLEMENTATION.— (1) REPORT ON GUIDANCE.—Not later than 120 days after 

submission of the report by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget required under subsection (a)(2), the 

Comptroller General of the United States shall report on the 

guidance issued and actions taken by the Director. The report 

shall be submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives. 

(2) REPORTS ON INVENTORIES.— (A) INITIAL INVENTORY.—Not later than September 30, 

2011, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 

submit a report to the Committees named in the preceding 

paragraph on the initial implementation by executive 

agencies of the inventory requirement in subsection (a)(3) 

with respect to inventories required to be submitted by December 31, 2010. 

(B) SECOND INVENTORY.—Not later than September 

30, 2012, the Comptroller General shall submit a report to 

the same Committees on annual inventories required to be 

submitted by December 31, 2011. 

(3) PERIODIC BRIEFINGS.—The Comptroller General shall 

provide periodic briefings, as may be requested by the Committees, on matters related to implementation of this section. 

ø(i)¿ (j) EXECUTIVE AGENCY DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘executive agency’’ has the meaning given the term in section 

4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403). 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee spending 

guidance to its subcommittees for 2011: Subcommittee on 

Financial Services and General Government: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA 21,153 NA 2 21,149 
157 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

guidance 1

Amount 

of bill 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 25,400 25,400 NA 2 26,535 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 40,706 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,974 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 807 

2014 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 357 

2015 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 270 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2011 ......................................................................................... NA 688 NA 502 

1 There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2011. 

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING 

ITEMS 

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. 

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the 

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. 

As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the 

term ‘‘congressionally directed spending item’’ means a provision or 

report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, 

or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific 

State, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. 

For each item, a Member is required to provide a certification 

that neither the Member nor the Senator’s immediate family has 

a pecuniary interest in such congressionally directed spending 

item. Such certifications are available to the public on the website 

of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 

(www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm). 

Following is a list of congressionally directed spending items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this report, 

along with the name of each Senator who submitted a request to 

the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so identified. Neither 

the Committee recommendation nor this report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff benefits as defined in rule XLIV. 
158 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

DC ..................... Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC ..................................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Richard 

Durbin 

SBA ................... 4 Ag Hawaii, Improved Food Security through Small Business Development, Haleiwa, HI ........................................................................... $300,000 Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel 

Inouye 

SBA ................... ACCION USA, Womens Link Program, for training and technical assistance for women-owned microenterprises, New York, NY ............... $125,000 Senator Kirsten Gillibrand SBA ................... AccountAbility Minnesota for financial services assistance, St. Paul, MN .................................................................................................... $125,000 Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar SBA ................... Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Utilization of Seafood Processing Waste and Product Development, Naknek, AK .................... $299,000 Senator Lisa Murkowski SBA ................... Anchorage Community Land Trust for a financial literacy and community development program, Anchorage, AK ..................................... $200,000 Senator Mark Begich SBA ................... Ben Franklin Technology Partners, Manufacturing Pennsylvania’s Future commercialization initiative, PA ................................................. $50,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Benedictine University, Small business training program, Lisle, IL ............................................................................................................... $250,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Big Sky Economic Development Authority for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund, Billings, MT ................................................... $100,000 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester SBA ................... Boise State University, Entrepreneurial Initiative, Boise, ID ........................................................................................................................... $150,000 Senators Mike Crapo, Jim Risch SBA ................... Bradley University, small business training program, Peoria, IL ................................................................................................................... $400,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Small Business Construction Initiative, Sacramento, CA ..................................... $500,000 Senator Barbara Boxer SBA ................... Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon Manufacturing Accelerator, Pittsburgh, PA ............................................................................. $100,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Case Western Reserve University, Northern Ohio Structural Laboratories: Advanced Instrumentation for Northeast Ohio’s Bio-imaging 

Cluster, Cleveland, OH.

$125,000 Senators George Voinovich, Sherrod 

Brown 

SBA ................... Center for Rural Affairs, New Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Rural Nebraska, Lyons, NE ............................................................................. $100,000 Senator Ben Nelson SBA ................... Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Nebraska Entrepreneur Initiative, Lincoln, NE ........................................................................................ $175,000 Senator Ben Nelson SBA ................... Central Corridor’s Hmong Business Center, St. Paul, MN .............................................................................................................................. $150,000 Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar SBA ................... Chicago House and Social Service Agency, job training program, Chicago, IL ............................................................................................. $400,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... City of Carson City, High Tech Business Collaborative, Carson City, NV ...................................................................................................... $400,000 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... City of Chicago, workforce retraining program, Chicago, IL ........................................................................................................................... $450,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... City of Denver, Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Sustainability Project, Denver, CO ......................................................................... $500,000 Senator Michael Bennet SBA ................... City of Gallup, Kachina business incubator and redevelopment efforts, Gallup, NM ................................................................................... $100,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... City of Port Huron Economic Redevelopment Initiative, Port Huron, MI ......................................................................................................... $100,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow SBA ................... City of St. Cloud, Comprehensive Downtown Economic Development Plan and Program, St. Cloud, MN .................................................... $125,000 Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar SBA ................... Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Ft. Collins, CO .................................................................................. $200,000 Senator Mark Udall SBA ................... Dakota Rising Rural Entrepreneur Fellowship Program, South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Sioux Falls, SD .................................................... $250,000 Senator Tim Johnson SBA ................... Dartmouth Regional Technology Center for additional business incubator space and support, Lebanon, NH ............................................. $100,000 Senator Jeanne Shaheen 
159 

SBA ................... Davidson Green Business Incubator Initiative, Davidson, NC ........................................................................................................................ $100,000 Senator Kay Hagan SBA ................... Downtown Salem Revitalization Toolbox program for economic development, Salem, OR ............................................................................ $150,000 Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden SBA ................... Eastern Connecticut State University, Center for Economic, Financial and Entrepreneurship Education, Willimantic, CT .......................... $150,000 Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph 

Lieberman 

SBA ................... Fay-Penn Economic Development Council, Local Economy Initiative, Fayette County, PA ............................................................................. $50,000 Senator Robert Casey SBA ................... Finlandia University and Jutila Center for Global Design and Business, business incubator, Hancock, MI ................................................ $100,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow SBA ................... First State Community Loan Fund, for small business and community development technical assistance, Wilmington, DE ..................... $175,000 Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman SBA ................... Grambling State University, Expanding Minority Entrepreneurship Regionally Across the Louisiana Delta (EMERALD), Grambling, LA ..... $137,500 Senator Mary Landrieu SBA ................... Great Falls Development Authority, High Plains Financial Intermediary Loan Fund, for operating expenses of programs supporting 

small business development, Great Falls, MT.

$125,000 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester 

SBA ................... Greater Bridgeport Community Enterprises, Urban Green Business Incubator, Bridgeport, CT ..................................................................... $150,000 Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph 

Lieberman 

SBA ................... Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, Bi-State Entrepreneurial Development Initiative, IA ...................................................................................... $150,000 Senator Charles Grassley SBA ................... Greater New Orleans regional economic alliance for Green New Orleans, a green business and jobs initiative, New Orleans, LA ............ $137,500 Senator Mary Landrieu SBA ................... Greene County Department of Economic Development, Business Park Development Project, Waynesburg, PA ............................................ $50,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Harford County, Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground Technical Assistance Business Development Office, Bel Air, MD ............................. $100,000 Senator Benjamin Cardin SBA ................... Hartford Economic Development Corporation, Business Resource Center, Hartford, CT ................................................................................ $150,000 Senator Christopher Dodd SBA ................... Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership for technical assistance to minority and women business owners, Newark, NJ .......................... $100,000 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... International Trade Alliance, Washington BRIC Export Initiative, Spokane, WA ............................................................................................. $200,000 Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell SBA ................... Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development Through Heritage Tourism, Jackson, MS .......................................... $650,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... Jefferson Local Development Corporation for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund to support small business development, 

Whitehall, MT.

$150,000 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester 

SBA ................... Johnson and Wales University, Higher Education Consortium for Rhode Island Entrepreneurship, Providence, RI ...................................... $200,000 Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse SBA ................... Johnson State College, Upward Bound, Lamoille County, VT .......................................................................................................................... $50,000 Senator Bernard Sanders SBA ................... Kaskaskia College, job counseling and training initiative, Centralia, IL ....................................................................................................... $150,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Kennebec Valley Council of Governments, Rural Maine Employment Initiative, Fairfield, ME ...................................................................... $400,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Bioscience & Technology Business Center, Lawrence, KS ............................................... $125,000 Senators Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts SBA ................... Lewis and Clark Community College, job counseling and training initiative, Godfrey, IL ............................................................................ $150,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Lincoln County, Alamo Industrial Park Development, Alamo, NV ................................................................................................................... $150,000 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... Lyndon State College, Center for Business Education and Rural Entrepreneurship, Lyndonville, VT ........................................................... $250,000 Senator Patrick Leahy SBA ................... Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick Science and Technology Business Incubator, Brunswick, ME .............................. $750,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... Midwest China Hub Commission, St. Louis, MO ............................................................................................................................................. $1,000,000 Senator Christopher Bond 
160 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

SBA ................... Mississippi State University Entrepreneurship Center, Starkville, MS ............................................................................................................ $650,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... Mississippi Technology Alliance, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ridgeland, MS .................................................................... $1,000,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... Montclair State University, Institute for Sustainability Studies Business Incubator, Montclair, NJ .............................................................. $275,000 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... Mount Washington Valley Economic Council, North Country Small Business Education Center, Conway, NH ............................................. $100,000 Senator Jeanne Shaheen SBA ................... National Centers of Excellence Regional Technology Deployment Pilot Project, Orem, UT ............................................................................ $600,000 Senators Robert Bennett, Orrin 

Hatch 

SBA ................... Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, Small Business Entrepreneur Training, Reno, NV .................................................... $150,000 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, Farmer-to-Farmer Mentor Program for business development, Chittenden County, 

VT.

$75,000 Senator Bernard Sanders 

SBA ................... Northern Kentucky University College of Informatics, Highland Heights, KY ................................................................................................. $250,000 Senator Mitch McConnell SBA ................... Northern Maine Acadian Development, Madawaska, ME ................................................................................................................................ $1,000,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... Northern Michigan University Upper Peninsula Center for Community and Economic Development, Marquette, MI ................................... $100,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow SBA ................... Ohio University, Small Business Development for Appalachian Ohio’s Emerging Biomass Industry, Athens, OH ........................................ $125,000 Senators George Voinovich, Sherrod 

Brown 

SBA ................... Oregon International Port of Coos Bay for the business center incubator, Coos Bay, OR ............................................................................ $125,000 Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden SBA ................... Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN ................................................................................................................ $650,000 Senator Lamar Alexander SBA ................... PIPELINE Entrepreneurial Fellowship, KS ......................................................................................................................................................... $125,000 Senator Sam Brownback SBA ................... Portland Community College, Swan Island Training Center, Portland, OR .................................................................................................... $125,000 Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden SBA ................... Prince George’s County, Maryland, Africa Trade Office ‘‘Farm to Port’’ project, Largo, MD ......................................................................... $100,000 Senator Benjamin Cardin SBA ................... Regional Development Corporation, New Mexico Youth Entrepreneurship Network, Santa Fe, NM ............................................................... $100,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... Research and Technology Institute of West Michigan for InnovationWorks, technical assistance to inventors, entrepreneurs, and existing businesses, Grand Rapids, MI. $100,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabe- now SBA ................... Rock Valley College, job training and small business counseling program, Rockford, IL ............................................................................ $200,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Rural Enterprise of Oklahoma, Small Business Resource Center, Cameron University, Lawton, OK ............................................................ $100,000 Senator James Inhofe SBA ................... Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark Campus, New Jersey Entrepreneurship Development Initiative, Newark, NJ ............. $100,000 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... Safer Foundation, transitional employment program, Chicago, IL ................................................................................................................. $275,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Saint Xavier University, Minority small business initiative, Chicago, IL ........................................................................................................ $250,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Saratoga Economic Development Corporation, Saratoga Springs, NY ............................................................................................................ $100,000 Senator Charles Schumer SBA ................... Sauk Valley Community College, Job training and certification program, Dixon, IL ...................................................................................... $226,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Seminole State College’s Economic Development Program for Business Recruitment and Retention, Seminole, OK .................................. $100,000 Senator James Inhofe 
161 

SBA ................... Sirti Foundation for capacity building and education, technical assistance, and training for technology entrepreneurship, Spokane, 

WA.

$500,000 Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell 

SBA ................... Souris Basin Regional Planning Council, North Dakota Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, Minot, ND ............................................. $300,000 Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan SBA ................... Student Assistance Foundation for a financial education program, Helena, MT ........................................................................................... $100,000 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester SBA ................... Taos Pueblo village economic development, Taos, NM ................................................................................................................................... $100,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... Tapetes de Lana for economic development, Mora, NM ................................................................................................................................. $100,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... The Enterprise Center, Minority Business Development Initiative, Philadelphia, PA ...................................................................................... $100,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... The Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce, Upper Manhattan Tourism and Tourism Related Small Business Initiative, New York, NY .. $125,000 Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles 

Schumer 

SBA ................... The Nussbaum Center for Entrepreneurship, Business Incubator Renovation, Greensboro, NC .................................................................... $100,000 Senator Kay Hagan SBA ................... University at Albany, State University of New York, National Clearinghouse for Research and Education in Financial Market Regulation, Albany, NY. $100,000 Senator Charles Schumer SBA ................... University of Alabama, Rural Health Entrepreneurial Development Project, Tuscaloosa, AL ......................................................................... $1,250,000 Senator Richard Shelby SBA ................... University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR .......................................................................... $275,000 Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark 

Pryor 

SBA ................... University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Business Support Incubator, Pine Bluff, AR ...................................................................................... $275,000 Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark 

Pryor 

SBA ................... University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business Development Center, Newark, DE ................................................................................... $175,000 Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman SBA ................... University of Louisiana at Monroe, Business Incubator Renovation, LA ........................................................................................................ $100,000 Senators David Vitter, Mary Landrieu SBA ................... University of Maine at Farmington, Western Maine Rural Small Business Initiative, Farmington, ME ........................................................ $550,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... University of Memphis, Memphis Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Memphis, TN ...................................................................... $400,000 Senator Lamar Alexander SBA ................... University of Mississippi, Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS ............................................................................................ $250,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... University of Nevada Reno, Veteran Business and Workforce Development Initiative, Reno, NV .................................................................. $150,000 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... University of Northern Iowa, MyEntre.Net, A National Entrepreneurship Support Network, Cedar Falls, IA .................................................. $250,000 Senators Tom Harkin, Charles 

Grassley 

SBA ................... University of Rhode Island Research Foundation, for technical assistance and outreach to support start-up and emerging businesses, 

South Kingstown, RI.

$250,000 Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse 

SBA ................... University of South Florida Business Incubator Project, Bartow, FL .............................................................................................................. $200,000 Senator Bill Nelson SBA ................... University of Southern California, Center for Community Development, Los Angeles, CA ............................................................................. $500,000 Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne 

Feinstein 

SBA ................... University of Southern Mississippi, Early Stage Entrepreneur/Commercialization Development, Hattiesburg, MS ....................................... $650,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water technologies, Milwaukee, WI ................................... $250,000 Senator Herb Kohl SBA ................... Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA .................................................................................................... $50,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter 
162 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

SBA ................... Vermont Worker’s Center, financial literacy workshops, Chittenden County, VT ............................................................................................ $75,000 Senator Bernard Sanders SBA ................... Virginia Community College System, Virginia Veterans Workforce Development Project, Richmond, VA ...................................................... $400,000 Senators Mark Warner, Jim Webb SBA ................... Washington Hancock Community Agency, Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME ...................................................................... $200,000 Senators Susan Collins, Olympia 

Snowe 

SBA ................... West Virginia University at Parkersburg, downtown center economic development, Parkersburg, WV ......................................................... $250,000 Senator John Rockefeller SBA ................... Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY ............................................................................................... $750,000 Senator Mitch McConnell SBA ................... Western Nevada College, Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Collaborative, Carson City, NV ..................................................................... $150,000 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... Western New England College for an entrepreneurship initiative, Springfield, MA ....................................................................................... $100,000 Senator John Kerry SBA ................... Western Washington University, National Center for Economic Vitality, Bellingham, WA ............................................................................. $300,000 Senator Patty Murray SBA ................... Williston State College for developing curriculum and delivery methods to address workforce shortage, Williston, ND ............................. $100,000 Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan SBA ................... Wilmington College, Kettering Agriculture and Life Science Small Business incubator, Wilmington, OH .................................................... $200,000 Senator Sherrod Brown SBA ................... World Trade Center Institute Delaware, Online Training Program, Wilmington, DE ....................................................................................... $50,000 Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman SBA ................... YWCA Malden, Financial Education and Advancement for Micro-Enterprises and At-Risk Families, Malden, MA ....................................... $100,000 Senator John Kerry Treasury ............ Bank On USA demonstration projects, HI ........................................................................................................................................................ $2,400,000 Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel 

Inouye 

JUDICIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

GSA ................... California, Los Angeles, United States Courthouse ......................................................................................................................................... $92,000,000 The Judiciary 

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

GSA ................... California, Calexico, Calexico West Land Port of Entry ................................................................................................................................... $84,359,000 The President GSA ................... Colorado, Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation .............................................................................................................................. $7,957,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths DHS Consolidation and Development ............................................................................... $267,675,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure ............................................................................................ $99,281,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths Historic Preservation Mitigation ....................................................................................... $4,990,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths Highway Interchange ........................................................................................................ $8,350,000 The President GSA ................... Maine, Calais, Ferry Point Land Port of Entry ................................................................................................................................................. $1,552,000 The President 
163 

GSA ................... Maryland, White Oak, Food and Drug Administration Consolidation .............................................................................................................. $173,773,000 The President, Senators Benjamin 

Cardin, Barbara Mikulski 

GSA ................... Michigan, Detroit, P. V. McNamara Federal Building FBI Garage .................................................................................................................. $3,658,000 The President GSA ................... West Virginia, Martinsburg, IRS Annex ............................................................................................................................................................ $24,767,000 The President GSA ................... California, Los Angeles, Federal Building/Parking Garage ............................................................................................................................. $51,217,000 The President GSA ................... California, Richmond, Frank Hagel Federal Building ...................................................................................................................................... $113,620,000 The President GSA ................... California, San Diego, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse and Federal Building ....................................................................... $22,336,000 The President GSA ................... California, Van Nuys, James C. Corman Federal Building .............................................................................................................................. $11,039,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse ..................................................................................... $22,900,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Washington, West Wing Design Phase II ...................................................................................................................... $6,245,000 The President GSA ................... Indiana, Indianapolis, Major General Emmett J. Bean Federal Center ........................................................................................................... $65,813,000 The President GSA ................... New York, New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse ..................................................................................................... $28,000,000 The President ONDCP .............. National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ................................................................................................................................................. $1,187,500 The President ONDCP .............. National Drug Court Institute .......................................................................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 The President 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 304,888 346,401 334,900 ∂30,012 ¥11,501 

Executive direction ...................................................................................................................................................... (21,983 ) (38,587 ) (35,587 ) (∂13,604 ) (¥3,000 ) Economic policies and programs ................................................................................................................................ (47,249 ) (70,562 ) (68,362 ) (∂21,113 ) (¥2,200 ) Financial policies and programs ................................................................................................................................ (48,580 ) (91,212 ) (84,912 ) (∂36,332 ) (¥6,300 ) Terrorism and financial intelligence ........................................................................................................................... (64,611 ) (102,613 ) (102,613 ) (∂38,002 ) ..........................Treasury-wide management ........................................................................................................................................ (22,679 ) (43,426 ) (43,426 ) (∂20,747 ) ..........................Administration ............................................................................................................................................................. (99,786 ) .......................... .......................... (¥99,786 ) ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 304,888 346,401 334,900 ∂30,012 ¥11,501 

Department-wide systems and capital investments programs ........................................................................................... 9,544 22,000 13,000 ∂3,456 ¥9,000 Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 29,700 30,269 33,269 ∂3,569 ∂3,000 
164 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ............................................................................................................. 152,000 155,452 155,452 ∂3,452 ..........................Special Inspector General for TARP ..................................................................................................................................... 23,300 49,600 49,600 ∂26,300 ..........................Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ............................................................................................................................... 111,010 100,419 121,669 ∂10,659 ∂21,250 Treasury forfeiture fund (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥90,000 ¥62,000 ¥81,750 ∂8,250 ¥19,750 

Total, Departmental Offices .................................................................................................................................... 540,442 642,141 626,140 ∂85,698 ¥16,001 

Financial Management Service ............................................................................................................................................ 244,132 235,253 235,253 ¥8,879 ..........................Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 103,000 106,168 101,000 ¥2,000 ¥5,168 Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥75,000 .......................... .......................... ∂75,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 103,000 31,168 101,000 ¥2,000 ∂69,832 

Bureau of the Public Debt ................................................................................................................................................... 182,244 175,985 175,985 ¥6,259 ..........................Community development financial institutions fund program account .............................................................................. 246,750 250,000 302,400 ∂55,650 ∂52,400 

Capital Magnet Fund (by transfer) ............................................................................................................................. (80,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥80,000 ) ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 246,750 250,000 302,400 ∂55,650 ∂52,400 

Payment of government losses in shipment ....................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Department of the Treasury, non-IRS .......................................................................................................... 1,318,568 1,336,547 1,442,778 ∂124,210 ∂106,231 

Internal Revenue Service 

Taxpayer services ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,278,830 2,321,975 2,331,468 ∂52,638 ∂9,493 Enforcement .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4,904,000 5,007,400 5,682,880 ∂778,880 ∂675,480 Enhanced tax enforcement activities ................................................................................................................................... 600,000 790,000 .......................... ¥600,000 ¥790,000 Operations support ............................................................................................................................................................... 4,083,884 4,108,000 4,088,000 ∂4,116 ¥20,000 Business systems modernization ......................................................................................................................................... 263,897 386,908 386,908 ∂123,011 ..........................
165 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ........................................................................................................................ 15,512 18,987 18,987 ∂3,475 ..........................

Total, Internal Revenue Service .............................................................................................................................. 12,146,123 12,633,270 12,508,243 ∂362,120 ¥125,027 Total, title I, Department of the Treasury .............................................................................................................. 13,464,691 13,969,817 13,951,021 ∂486,330 ¥18,796 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (13,554,691 ) (14,031,817 ) (14,032,771 ) (∂478,080 ) (∂954 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥90,000 ) (¥62,000 ) (¥81,750 ) (∂8,250 ) (¥19,750 ) 

TITLE II—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

The White House 

Salaries and expenses (including Office of Policy Development) ....................................................................................... 59,143 59,859 59,859 ∂716 ..........................Compensation of the President ............................................................................................................................................ 450 450 450 .......................... ..........................

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. 59,593 60,309 60,309 ∂716 ..........................

Executive Residence at the White House: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,838 14,006 14,006 ∂168 ..........................White House repair and restoration ............................................................................................................................ 2,500 2,005 2,005 ¥495 ..........................

Council of Economic Advisers .............................................................................................................................................. 4,200 4,403 4,403 ∂203 ..........................National Security Council and Homeland Security Council ................................................................................................. 12,231 14,134 14,134 ∂1,903 ..........................Office of Administration ....................................................................................................................................................... 115,280 115,280 115,280 .......................... ..........................

Total, The White House ........................................................................................................................................... 207,642 210,137 210,137 ∂2,495 ..........................

Office of Management and Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 92,863 92,863 94,863 ∂2,000 ∂2,000 Government-wide Management Councils ............................................................................................................................. (17,000 ) (20,000 ) (17,000 ) .......................... (¥3,000 ) 

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 29,575 26,196 29,000 ¥575 ∂2,804 Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center ....................................................................................................................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 ..........................High intensity drug trafficking areas program ................................................................................................................... 239,000 209,950 239,000 .......................... ∂29,050 Other Federal drug control programs .................................................................................................................................. 154,400 165,300 175,825 ∂21,425 ∂10,525 

Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy ......................................................................................................... 427,975 401,446 443,825 ∂15,850 ∂42,379 

Unanticipated needs ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ..........................Partnership fund for program integrity innovation ............................................................................................................. 37,500 .......................... .......................... ¥37,500 ..........................Integrated, efficient and effective uses of information technology .................................................................................... .......................... 50,000 40,000 ∂40,000 ¥10,000 Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 4,604 4,657 4,657 ∂53 ..........................
166 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 330 335 335 ∂5 ..........................

Total, title II, Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President ................................. 771,914 760,438 794,817 ∂22,903 ∂34,379 

TITLE III—THE JUDICIARY 

Supreme Court of the United States 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of justices ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,166 2,197 2,197 ∂31 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 71,868 75,561 75,561 ∂3,693 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 74,034 77,758 77,758 ∂3,724 ..........................

Care of the building and grounds ....................................................................................................................................... 14,525 14,788 14,788 ∂263 ..........................

Total, Supreme Court of the United States ............................................................................................................ 88,559 92,546 92,546 ∂3,987 ..........................

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,491 2,502 2,502 ∂11 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 30,069 33,357 31,418 ∂1,349 ¥1,939 

Total, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit .................................................................................................... 32,560 35,859 33,920 ∂1,360 ¥1,939 

United States Court of International Trade 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,715 1,851 1,851 ∂136 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 19,635 20,417 20,417 ∂782 ..........................

Total, U.S. Court of International Trade ................................................................................................................. 21,350 22,268 22,268 ∂918 ..........................
167 

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges ................................................................................................................. 340,000 332,565 318,419 ¥21,581 ¥14,146 Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 4,671,018 4,977,216 4,921,632 ∂250,614 ¥55,584 

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................ 5,011,018 5,309,781 5,240,051 ∂229,033 ¥69,730 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................ 5,428 4,785 4,785 ¥643 ..........................Defender services ................................................................................................................................................................. 977,748 1,081,195 1,072,253 ∂94,505 ¥8,942 Fees of jurors and commissioners ....................................................................................................................................... 61,861 64,108 55,590 ¥6,271 ¥8,518 Court security ....................................................................................................................................................................... 452,607 495,038 495,038 ∂42,431 ..........................

Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ................................................................. 6,508,662 6,954,907 6,867,717 ∂359,055 ¥87,190 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 83,075 87,255 87,255 ∂4,180 ..........................

Federal Judicial Center 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 27,328 28,694 28,694 ∂1,366 ..........................

Judicial Retirement Funds 

Payment to judiciary trust funds ......................................................................................................................................... 82,374 90,361 90,361 ∂7,987 ..........................

United States Sentencing Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 16,837 17,595 17,595 ∂758 ..........................

Total, title III, the Judiciary .................................................................................................................................... 6,860,745 7,329,485 7,240,356 ∂379,611 ¥89,129 

TITLE IV—DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL FUNDS 

Federal payment for Resident Tuition Support .................................................................................................................... 35,100 35,100 35,100 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the District of Columbia .............................................. 15,000 15,000 15,000 .......................... ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts .......................................................................................................... 261,180 247,400 258,351 ¥2,829 ∂10,951 Federal payment for defender services in the in District of Columbia Courts .................................................................. 55,000 55,000 55,000 .......................... ..........................Federal payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia .......................... 212,408 217,783 217,783 ∂5,375 ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service .............................................................................. 37,316 40,690 40,690 ∂3,374 ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority .......................................................................... 20,000 25,000 25,000 ∂5,000 ..........................Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council .......................................................................................... 2,000 1,800 1,800 ¥200 ..........................Federal payment for judicial commissions .......................................................................................................................... 500 500 500 .......................... ..........................
168 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Federal payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia ............................................... 1,850 .......................... 1,000 ¥850 ∂1,000 Federal payment for school improvement ............................................................................................................................ 75,400 52,400 52,400 ¥23,000 ..........................Federal payment to jump start public school reform ......................................................................................................... .......................... 20,000 20,000 ∂20,000 ..........................Federal payment for consolidated laboratory facility .......................................................................................................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 ..........................Federal payment for the D.C. National Guard ..................................................................................................................... 375 2,000 1,375 ∂1,000 ¥625 Federal payment for housing for the homeless ................................................................................................................... 17,000 10,000 10,000 ¥7,000 ..........................Federal payment for youth services ..................................................................................................................................... 4,000 .......................... .......................... ¥4,000 ..........................Federal payment for redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus ...................................................................... .......................... 2,000 2,000 ∂2,000 ..........................Federal payment for HIV/AIDS prevention ............................................................................................................................ .......................... 5,000 3,000 ∂3,000 ¥2,000 

Total, Title IV, District of Columbia ....................................................................................................................... 752,129 729,673 738,999 ¥13,130 ∂9,326 

TITLE V—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Administrative Conference of the United States ................................................................................................................. 1,500 3,200 3,200 ∂1,700 ..........................Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation ..................................................................................................................... 750 .......................... 750 .......................... ∂750 Commodity Futures Trading Commission ............................................................................................................................ 168,800 216,000 286,000 ∂117,200 ∂70,000 

Financial regulatory reform contingent appropriations .............................................................................................. .......................... 45,000 .......................... .......................... ¥45,000 

Total, Commodity Futures Trading Commission ..................................................................................................... 168,800 261,000 286,000 ∂117,200 ∂25,000 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ................................................................................................................................ 118,200 118,600 118,600 ∂400 ..........................

Election Assistance Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 17,959 16,800 16,800 ¥1,159 ..........................Election reform programs ..................................................................................................................................................... 75,000 .......................... .......................... ¥75,000 ..........................

Total, Election Assistance Commission .................................................................................................................. 92,959 16,800 16,800 ¥76,159 ..........................
169 

Federal Communications Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 335,794 352,500 355,500 ∂19,706 ∂3,000 Offsetting fee collections—current year ............................................................................................................................. ¥335,794 ¥351,500 ¥355,500 ¥19,706 ¥4,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General (by transfer) ............................................................. (37,942 ) (47,916 ) (47,916 ) (∂9,974 ) ..........................Federal Election Commission ............................................................................................................................................... 66,500 68,800 70,800 ∂4,300 ∂2,000 Federal Labor Relations Authority ........................................................................................................................................ 24,773 26,000 26,000 ∂1,227 ..........................

Federal Trade Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 291,700 314,000 314,000 ∂22,300 ..........................Offsetting fee collections—current year ............................................................................................................................. ¥102,000 ¥96,000 ¥96,000 ∂6,000 ..........................Offsetting fee collections, telephone database ................................................................................................................... ¥21,000 ¥19,000 ¥21,000 .......................... ¥2,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 168,700 199,000 197,000 ∂28,300 ¥2,000 

General Services Administration 

Federal Buildings Fund 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................................................... (537,900 ) (291,900 ) (296,800 ) (¥241,100 ) (∂4,900 ) Limitations on availability of revenue: 

Construction and acquisition of facilities .................................................................................................................. 894,037 676,362 768,362 ¥125,675 ∂92,000 Repairs and alterations .............................................................................................................................................. 413,776 703,467 716,367 ∂302,591 ∂12,900 Installment acquisition payments ............................................................................................................................... 140,525 135,540 135,540 ¥4,985 ..........................Rental of space ........................................................................................................................................................... 4,804,871 5,291,946 5,216,946 ∂412,075 ¥75,000 Building operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,290,376 2,346,348 2,321,348 ∂30,972 ¥25,000 

Subtotal, Limitations on availability of revenue .................................................................................................... 8,543,585 9,153,663 9,158,563 ∂614,978 ∂4,900 

Repayment of debt ............................................................................................................................................................... 66,360 71,270 71,270 ∂4,910 ..........................Rental income to fund ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥8,223,000 ¥8,871,000 ¥8,871,000 ¥648,000 ..........................

Total, Federal Buildings Fund ................................................................................................................................ 386,945 353,933 358,833 ¥28,112 ∂4,900 

Government-wide policy ....................................................................................................................................................... 59,665 85,121 77,621 ∂17,956 ¥7,500 Operating expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 72,881 72,203 72,203 ¥678 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 59,000 62,905 61,025 ∂2,025 ¥1,880 Electronic Government Fund ................................................................................................................................................ 34,000 35,000 20,000 ¥14,000 ¥15,000 Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents ............................................................................................................ 3,756 3,907 3,907 ∂151 ..........................Federal acquisition workforce initiatives fund .................................................................................................................... .......................... 24,900 17,000 ∂17,000 ¥7,900 
170 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund ............................................................................................................................. 36,515 36,825 36,825 ∂310 ..........................

Total, General Services Administration .................................................................................................................. 652,762 674,794 647,414 ¥5,348 ¥27,380 

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 660 .......................... 950 ∂290 ∂950 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 40,339 41,621 41,621 ∂1,282 ..........................Limitation on administrative expenses ................................................................................................................................ 2,579 2,579 2,579 .......................... ..........................

Total, Merit Systems Protection Board ................................................................................................................... 42,918 44,200 44,200 ∂1,282 ..........................

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation 

Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Trust Fund ................................................................................................................ 2,500 2,200 3,000 ∂500 ∂800 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund .............................................................................................................................. 3,800 3,800 3,800 .......................... ..........................

Total, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation ........................................................................................ 6,300 6,000 6,800 ∂500 ∂800 

National Archives and Records Administration 

Operating expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 339,770 348,689 348,689 ∂8,919 ..........................

Reduction of debt ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥13,000 ¥14,000 ¥14,000 ¥1,000 ..........................

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ 4,100 4,250 4,250 ∂150 ..........................Electronic records archive .................................................................................................................................................... 85,500 85,500 72,000 ¥13,500 ¥13,500 Repairs and restoration ....................................................................................................................................................... 27,500 11,848 11,848 ¥15,652 ..........................National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants program ..................................................................... 13,000 10,000 10,000 ¥3,000 ..........................

Total, National Archives and Records Admin ......................................................................................................... 456,870 446,287 432,787 ¥24,083 ¥13,500 
171 

National Credit Union Administration 

Central liquidity facility: 

(Limitation on admin expenses, corporate funds) ...................................................................................................... (1,250 ) (1,250 ) (1,250 ) .......................... ..........................

Community development credit union revolving loan fund ................................................................................................. 1,250 2,000 2,000 ∂750 ..........................Office of Government Ethics ................................................................................................................................................ 14,000 14,227 14,227 ∂227 ..........................

Office of Personnel Management 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 102,970 95,769 96,439 ¥6,531 ∂670 

Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities ........................................................................................................ .......................... 670 .......................... .......................... ¥670 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 102,970 96,439 96,439 ¥6,531 ..........................

Limitation on administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................... 112,738 121,738 121,738 ∂9,000 ..........................

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 3,148 2,136 3,322 ∂174 ∂1,186 

Limitation on administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................... 21,215 20,428 21,888 ∂673 ∂1,460 

Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits .................................................................................................. 9,814,000 10,467,000 10,467,000 ∂653,000 ..........................Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance ..................................................................................................... 48,000 50,000 50,000 ∂2,000 ..........................Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund ........................................................................................................ 10,276,000 10,076,000 10,076,000 ¥200,000 ..........................

Total, Office of Personnel Management ................................................................................................................. 20,378,071 20,833,741 20,836,387 ∂458,316 ∂2,646 

Mandatory ...................................................................................................................................................... (20,138,000 ) (20,593,000 ) (20,593,000 ) (∂455,000 ) ..........................Discretionary .................................................................................................................................................. (240,071 ) (240,741 ) (243,387 ) (∂3,316 ) (∂2,646 ) 

Office of Special Counsel ..................................................................................................................................................... 18,495 19,486 19,486 ∂991 ..........................Postal Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................................................................. 14,333 14,450 14,450 ∂117 ..........................Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ........................................................................................................................ 1,500 1,683 1,500 .......................... ¥183 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,111,000 1,234,000 1,300,000 ∂189,000 ∂66,000 

Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities ........................................................................................................ .......................... 483 .......................... .......................... ¥483 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 1,111,000 1,234,483 1,300,000 ∂189,000 ∂65,517 

Prior year unobligated balances .......................................................................................................................................... ¥16,084 .......................... .......................... ∂16,084 ..........................

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 1,094,916 1,258,483 1,300,000 ∂205,084 ∂41,517 

Financial regulatory reform, contingent appropriations ...................................................................................................... .......................... 24,000 .......................... .......................... ¥24,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 24,000 .......................... .......................... ¥24,000 
172 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2010 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2010 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Securities and Exchange Commission ......................................................................................................... 1,094,916 1,258,483 1,300,000 ∂205,084 ∂41,517 

Selective Service System ...................................................................................................................................................... 24,275 25,400 25,400 ∂1,125 ..........................

Small Business Administration 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 433,438 444,269 464,000 ∂30,562 ∂19,731 

Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities ........................................................................................................ .......................... 1,767 .......................... .......................... ¥1,767 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 433,438 446,036 464,000 ∂30,562 ∂17,964 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 16,300 18,000 18,000 ∂1,700 ..........................Surety bond guarantees revolving fund ............................................................................................................................... 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ..........................Business Loans Program Account: 

Direct loans subsidy .................................................................................................................................................... 3,000 3,765 4,000 ∂1,000 ∂235 Guaranteed loans subsidy ........................................................................................................................................... 80,000 165,386 195,386 ∂115,386 ∂30,000 Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 153,000 157,000 157,000 ∂4,000 ..........................

Total, Business loans program account ................................................................................................................. 236,000 326,151 356,386 ∂120,386 ∂30,235 

Disaster Loans Program Account: 

Guaranteed loans subsidy ........................................................................................................................................... 1,690 .......................... .......................... ¥1,690 ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 76,588 203,000 203,000 ∂126,412 ..........................

Total, Disaster loans program account .................................................................................................................. 78,278 203,000 203,000 ∂124,722 ..........................

Salaries and expenses (Sec. 523) ....................................................................................................................................... 59,000 .......................... 60,600 ∂1,600 ∂60,600 

Total, Small Business Administration .................................................................................................................... 824,016 994,187 1,102,986 ∂278,970 ∂108,799 

United States Postal Service 

Payment to the Postal Service Fund .................................................................................................................................... 29,000 29,000 29,000 .......................... ..........................
173 

Advance appropriations ............................................................................................................................................... 89,328 74,905 74,905 ¥14,423 ..........................

Total, Payment to the Postal Service Fund ............................................................................................................ 118,328 103,905 103,905 ¥14,423 ..........................

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 244,397 244,397 244,397 .......................... ..........................

Total, United States Postal Service ........................................................................................................................ 362,725 348,302 348,302 ¥14,423 ..........................

United States Tax Court ....................................................................................................................................................... 49,241 52,201 54,625 ∂5,384 ∂2,424 

Total, title V, Independent Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 24,584,514 25,429,841 25,570,664 ∂986,150 ∂140,823 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (24,495,186 ) (25,354,936 ) (25,495,759 ) (∂1,000,573 ) (∂140,823 ) Advances ........................................................................................................................................................ (89,328 ) (74,905 ) (74,905 ) (¥14,423 ) ..........................(by transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (37,942 ) (47,916 ) (47,916 ) (∂9,974 ) ..........................

(Discretionary total) ................................................................................................................................................ (4,446,514 ) (4,836,841 ) (4,977,664 ) (∂531,150 ) (∂140,823 ) Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 46,433,993 48,219,254 48,295,857 ∂1,861,864 ∂76,603 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (46,434,665 ) (48,206,349 ) (48,302,702 ) (∂1,868,037 ) (∂96,353 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥90,000 ) (¥62,000 ) (¥81,750 ) (∂8,250 ) (¥19,750 ) Advances ........................................................................................................................................................ (89,328 ) (74,905 ) (74,905 ) (¥14,423 ) ..........................(by transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (117,942 ) (47,916 ) (47,916 ) (¥70,026 ) ..........................

Æ