50–868 PDF 

Calendar No. 102 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–43 

FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT 

APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 

JULY 9, 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. DURBIN, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1432] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1432) making appropriations for financial services and general government 

for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2010 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $46,479,193,000 

Amount of 2009 appropriations 1 ............................. 51,470,576,000 

Amount of 2010 budget estimate ............................ 46,439,230,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2009 appropriations .......................................... ¥4,991,383,000 

2010 budget estimate ........................................ ∂39,963,000 1 Includes $6,858,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in Public Law 

111–5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and $30,936,000 in 

emergency appropriations appropriated in Public Law 111–32, the Supplemental 

Appropriations Act, 2009. 
(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 ........... 14 

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

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

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ........................................................ 17 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund ................................................................................ 18 

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

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

United States Mint ........................................................................................... 20 

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

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund ................................. 21 

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

Internal Revenue Service ................................................................................. 23 

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

Enforcement ............................................................................................... 29 

Operations Support ................................................................................... 31 

Business Systems Modernization ............................................................. 32 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ......................................... 33 

Administrative Provisions—Internal Revenue Service ................................. 33 

Administrative Provisions—Department of the Treasury ............................. 34 

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

President: 

Compensation of the President ....................................................................... 36 

The White House .............................................................................................. 36 

Executive Residence at the White House ....................................................... 37 

White House Repair and Restoration ............................................................. 37 

Council of Economic Advisers .......................................................................... 38 

Office of Policy Development ........................................................................... 38 

National Security Council ................................................................................ 38 

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

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

Office of National Drug Control Policy ........................................................... 41 

Funds Appropriated to the President: 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas ................................................... 42 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs .................................................... 43 

Unanticipated Needs ........................................................................................ 46 

Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation .................................... 46 

Presidential Transition Administrative Support ........................................... 47 

Special Assistance to the President ................................................................ 47 

Official Residence of the Vice President ......................................................... 48 

Administrative Provisions—Executive Office of the President and Funds 

Appropriated to the President ..................................................................... 48 

Title III: The Judiciary: 

Supreme Court of the United States .............................................................. 49 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ............................... 50 

United States Court of International Trade ................................................... 51 

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ................. 51 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund ................................................................ 52 

Defender Services ............................................................................................. 52 

Fees of Jurors and Commissioners ................................................................. 53 

Court Security ................................................................................................... 53 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts ........................................ 54 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Federal Judicial Center .................................................................................... 54 

Judicial Retirement Funds .............................................................................. 55 

United States Sentencing Commission ........................................................... 55 

Administrative Provisions—The Judiciary ..................................................... 55 

Title IV—District of Columbia: 

Federal Funds: 

Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support ...................................... 57 

Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the 

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 58 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts ............................ 59 

Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts .................................. 60 

Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision 

Agency for the District of Columbia ..................................................... 61 

Federal Payment to the Public Defender Service for the District 

of Columbia ............................................................................................ 62 

Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority ..................................................................................................... 62 

Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council .......... 63 

Federal Payment for Judicial Commissions ............................................ 64 

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

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 64 

Federal Payment for School Improvement .............................................. 65 

Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform ......................... 69 

Federal Payment for Consolidated Laboratory Facility ......................... 70 

Federal Payment for the D.C. National Guard ....................................... 71 

Federal Payment for Permanent Supportive Housing ........................... 71 

Federal Payment for Reconnecting Disconnected Youth ....................... 72 

Federal Payment for Central Library and Branch Locations ................ 72 

Federal Payment to the Executive Office of the Mayor of the District 

of Columbia ............................................................................................ 73 

District of Columbia Local Operating Budget ................................................ 74 

Title V—Independent Agencies: 

Administrative Conference of the United States ........................................... 75 

Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation .............................................. 75 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission ...................................................... 76 

Consumer Product Safety Commission ........................................................... 78 

Election Assistance Commission ..................................................................... 79 

Federal Communications Commission ............................................................ 80 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General .......... 82 

Federal Election Commission .......................................................................... 83 

Federal Labor Relations Authority ................................................................. 83 

Federal Trade Commission .............................................................................. 84 

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission ............................................................. 86 

General Services Administration .................................................................... 86 

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation ...................................................... 99 

Merit Systems Protection Board ..................................................................... 100 

Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 

Policy Foundation ......................................................................................... 100 

National Archives and Records Administration ............................................. 101 

National Credit Union Administration ........................................................... 106 

Office of Government Ethics ............................................................................ 107 

Office of Personnel Management ..................................................................... 108 

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

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

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ................................................. 115 

Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board ................................. 115 

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

Selective Service System .................................................................................. 118 

Small Business Administration ....................................................................... 119 

United States Postal Service ........................................................................... 128 

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 ................................................................................................................... 144 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 146 

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 146 

Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority ............................................... 153 
(5) 

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL 

Fiscal year 2010 marks the third year for the Financial Services 

and General Government appropriations bill. The 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 $46,479,193,000 in discretionary 

and mandatory appropriations. This represents a decrease of 

$4,991,383,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and an increase of $39,963,000 over the budget request. Of the total, 

$24,400,000,000 is provided in discretionary appropriations, 

$13,463,000 above the budget request of $24,386,537,000. Mandatory appropriations total $22,079,193,000. 

The Committee-recommended bill is consistent with the allocation 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 ........................................................................................ .............................. $3,150,000 

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

General Services Administration ................................................................................. $680,913,000 222,900,000 

National Archives and Records Administration .......................................................... 17,500,000 ..............................

Office of National Drug Control Policy ....................................................................... 2,250,000 ..............................

Small Business Administration .................................................................................. .............................. 27,726,750 

Total ............................................................................................................... 700,663,000 254,776,750 

Combined Total Project Funding in bill ........................................................ 955,439,750 

The Small Business Administration account includes congressionally directed spending totaling $27,726,750 for 103 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 $680,913,000, of which $511,137,000 is for construction of designated Federal buildings and $169,776,000 is for 

repair of designated Federal buildings. The Committee includes 

$222,900,000 for three Federal building construction projects not 

included in the President’s request but requested by the judiciary. 

Within the National Archives and Records Administration, the 

President requested $17,500,000 for repair of the FDR Presidential 

Library. The Committee includes funding for two drug programs 
6 

within the Office of National Drug Control Policy that were requested by the President. 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2010, 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 
7 

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 

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. 

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 2011 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 

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 2011 to the fiscal year 

2010 enacted level. 
8 

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 2011 budget request. 
(9) 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $278,870,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 302,388,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 305,712,000 

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 United 

States 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 $305,712,000 for the Salaries and 

Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices account of the 
10 

Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2010. This amount is 

$3,324,000 above the budget request and $26,842,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Within the funds provided under this 

account, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for information 

technology modernization; $200,000 for official reception and representation expenses; $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies; and 

$6,787,000 for the Treasury-wide financial statement audits and 

other Treasury office and bureau audits. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

to the fiscal year 2010 budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendation for each office: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Executive direction (including General counsel) ....................................... 21,619 22,383 22,383 

Economic policies and programs .............................................................. 45,910 44,749 47,249 

Financial policies and programs ............................................................... 36,039 47,580 48,580 

Terrorism and financial intelligence ......................................................... 62,098 64,611 64,611 

Treasury-wide management and programs ............................................... 21,600 22,779 22,779 

Administration ............................................................................................ 91,604 100,286 100,110 

Total, Departmental offices .......................................................... 278,870 302,388 305,712 

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. 

National Academy of Sciences Study (Economic Policies and Programs): ∂$1,500,000.—The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for 

the Department to transfer to the National Academy of Sciences for 

a carbon audit of the Tax Code, as authorized by section 117 of the 

Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 (Public Law 110– 

343). The carbon audit shall consist of a comprehensive review of 

the Internal Revenue Code to identify the tax provisions with the 

largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects. 

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, 

and commissions. The Commission works to improve financial lit-
11 

eracy 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 has approved the following significant program 

increases in accordance with the budget request: 

Domestic Finance Staffing (Financial Policies and Programs): 

∂$8,731,000/∂26 FTE.—In order to meet current and future economic challenges, Treasury must maintain a vast expertise in complex finance and government fields. This funding increase is recommended to support additional staff in the Office of Domestic Finance. New staff shall be assigned to teams supporting economic 

research and modeling related to housing finance, small business 

and consumer issues, and capital markets. 

Tax Policy Staffing (Financial Policies and Programs): 

∂$4,863,000/∂15 FTE.—To ensure Treasury possesses capabilities to support rigorous analysis and implementation of revenue 

policy, the Committee recommends funding for 15 additional tax 

specialists in Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy. These new tax specialists shall apply tax expertise in each of the following key areas: 

(1) the financial crisis; (2) the financial stimulus plan; (3) climate 

change; and (4) healthcare reform. 

Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell and International Dues (Terrorism and Financial Intelligence): ∂$790,000/∂1 FTE.—Resources are recommended to support designated Treasury staff for 

the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell and annual dues to international anti-money laundering organizations. 

Management Staffing (Treasury-wide Management and Programs, Administration): ∂$3,000,000/∂13 FTE.—As the Department takes on broader and more complex financial and fiscal 

issues, policymakers and advisors will require more support for 

their work to meet these needs. This recommended funding increase shall support new staff in the areas of human capital, information technology, and procurement policy. 

Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network [TFIN] (Administration): 

∂$1,200,000/∂0 FTE.—Recommended funding will provide ongoing Operations and Maintenance (O&M) support for the TFIN system, including program management, O&M managed services provider contractor support, telecommunications and circuit costs, 

hardware and software maintenance, and technology refresh. 

The Committee makes the following findings: 

Management of the Financial Crisis.—In response to the financial crisis, Treasury’s role in the management of the Federal Government’s financial policies has expanded tremendously. In September 2008, Treasury exercised new authority under the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), taking 

responsibility on behalf of taxpayers for billions of dollars previously managed by the Government-sponsored housing entities 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In October 2008, Congress authorized the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–343, known commonly as the Troubled Assets Relief Program, 

or TARP), providing Treasury with the authority to utilize 
12 

$700,000,000,000 in taxpayer funds to implement a systemic, comprehensive plan to stabilize financial markets. Treasury continues 

to develop policies, strategies, and recommendations to overhaul 

the current financial system in order to prevent future financial 

and economic crises. 

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 has identified 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 new policies and programs related to stabilizing the economy. 

The Committee is concerned with certain aspects of the Department’s implementation of the TARP program. Since the program 

was authorized, TARP has evolved into 12 separate programs 

aimed at addressing different stress points in the market and at 

rebuilding a basic lending capability for domestic markets. The 

complexity of this program has created a communications challenge. In March 2009, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 

reported that TARP is very poorly understood by Congress and the 

public. The Committee directs the Department to develop a more 

effective strategy for communicating with Congress, the public, and 

other stakeholders in accordance with GAO recommendations. The 

Committee also directs the Department to pursue more detailed reporting from financial entities receiving TARP funds in order to ensure maximum transparency of the program. 

Foreclosure Crisis.—The Committee continues to be concerned 

that the Department’s strategies to reduce mortgage foreclosures 

and keep American families in their homes rely exclusively on voluntary actions of mortgage servicers. The Committee urges the Department to expand its efforts to address the foreclosure crisis beyond the scope of current voluntary programs and to keep the Committee promptly and regularly apprised of such efforts. The Committee directs the Department to provide a monthly report to the 

Committee on Appropriations on the number and value of foreclosures prevented to date under Treasury programs, including the 

number of foreclosures prevented by servicer and by the foreclosure 

mitigation strategy employed (principal reduction, principal forbearance, interest rate reduction, interest rate freeze, term extension, penalties reduction, overdue amount capitalization, short sale, 

deed-in-lieu, and other strategies). 

Economic Sanctions and Divestments.—The Committee recommendation includes $64,611,000 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 
13 

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. 

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; repair and renovation 

of the Treasury Annex; 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 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. 

Illegal Garnishments of Federal Benefits.—The Committee is concerned that payments of Federal benefits, including social security 

income, veterans’ benefits, and supplemental security income, are 

at risk for illegal garnishment by third-party collectors. While 

paper checks are protected, most benefits today are electronically 

deposited into bank accounts and are at risk of being frozen and 

garnished. Section 207 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 407) 

prohibits this practice and the Department is currently in the process of developing rules and guidance to end this practice for direct 

deposits of Federal benefits. The Committee directs the Department to provide a written report to the Committee on Appropriations within 15 days of enactment on the progress of creating 

guidelines to protect these wages. 

Agricultural Sales to Cuba.—The Committee is aware that the 

Department of the Treasury is continuing to require the sellers of 

agricultural goods and products to Cuba to receive cash payments 

in advance of shipping the goods rather than in advance of delivering the goods. This policy impedes U.S. sales since it increases 

the cost of doing business. The Committee has added a provision 

to the bill that stipulates that during fiscal year 2010 the term 

‘‘payment of cash in advance’’ shall be interpreted as payment before the transfer of title to, and control of, the exported items to 

the Cuban purchaser. The Committee urges the Department of the 

Treasury to use its rulemaking authority to permanently amend 

the Cuban Assets Control Regulations and remove impediments to 

United States agricultural sales to Cuba. 
14 

DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $26,975,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 9,544,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,544,000 

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 $9,544,000 for 

Department-wide systems and capital investments programs 

[DSCIP]. This amount is equal to the budget request and 

$17,431,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The following table compares the Committee recommendation 

with the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 enacted levels. 

DSCIP Initiative Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

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

Enterprise Content Management ............................................................... 6,000,000 ........................ ........................

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

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

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

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

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

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $26,125,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 26,700,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,700,000 

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 

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 
15 

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 $29,700,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General. This 

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

$3,575,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. Additional 

funds are provided to support the increased workload resulting 

from required reviews of certain bank failures. 

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $153,083,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 149,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 152,000,000 

1 Includes $7,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

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 

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 
16 

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. 

January 2009 marked the 10-year anniversary of TIGTA’s standup as an independent organization. Over the past decade, TIGTA 

has issued more than 1,600 final audit reports and made more 

than 4,000 recommendations to improve tax administration, on 

3,500 of which the IRS has taken action; identified more than 

$25,000,000,000 in funds that could have been put to better use 

and $192,000,000 in questioned costs; processed more than 91,684 

complaints; and opened 44,373 investigations, successfully closing 

more than 99 percent of such cases. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $152,000,000 for 

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This 

amount is a decrease of $1,083,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level which included $7,000,000 in emergency funds under 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111–5) 

and an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee appreciates the challenge 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. In recognition of the 

resource demands, the Committee provides an additional 

$3,000,000 above the budget request to support TIGTA’s work. 

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 for fiscal year 

2010, 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. 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. 
17 

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $91,465,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 102,760,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 104,260,000 

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 $104,260,000 for the Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN]. This amount is 

$12,795,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,500,000 above the budget request. 

The Committee recommends the following program increases for 

fiscal year 2010: 

Information Technology Modernization: ∂$10,000,000/∂1 

FTE.—The Committee recommends an increase of $10,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level to support FinCEN’s efforts 

to modernize the technical environment for implementation of the 

Bank Secrecy Act [BSA] in accordance with the budget request. 

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. 

The Committee is pleased that FinCEN has requested funding to 

begin a comprehensive modernization of the main information technology infrastructure supporting BSA implementation. This system 

is used by banks, Federal law enforcement, state and local law enforcement, and other Federal intelligence agencies to report, gath-
18 

er, 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 notes that FinCEN’s most recent attempt to modernize BSA infrastructure, BSA Direct Retrieval and Sharing, ultimately failed, costing the taxpayers over $14,000,000. 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. 

Strengthen Global Anti-money Laundering Efforts: 

∂$1,500,000.—The Committee recommends an increase of 

$1,500,000 above the budget request for FinCEN to improve collaboration with other Financial Intelligence Units around the world 

regarding international anti-money laundering and terrorist financing and for FinCEN to help other Financial Intelligence Units 

around the world to build and strengthen investigative and analytical capabilities. The Committee notes that while system and data 

improvements will enhance the capabilities of domestic efforts, 

communicating and collaborating effectively with global partners is 

also a critical component of combating terrorist financing and 

money laundering both domestically and abroad. 

TREASURY FORFEITURE FUND

(RESCISSION)

The Committee recommends a rescission of $50,000,000 of unobligated balances in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund. 
19 

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $239,785,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 244,132,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 244,132,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

In 1940, the Department of the Treasury established the Fiscal 

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

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 $244,132,000 for salaries and expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request 

and $4,347,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

Hundreds of Federal agencies accept credit and debit cards as 

payment for goods and services provided by the Federal Government. FMS provides a centralized card acquiring service for the 

majority of these agencies. The Committee is concerned that the 

Federal Government may be paying excessive interchange and 

other fees on these transactions and that rules issued by the card 

networks may work against the best interests of the taxpayer. GAO 

reported that credit card interchange fees and merchant discount 

fees cost the Federal Government over $400,000,000 in fiscal year 

2007 (GAO–08–558). GAO found that Federal entities have often 

been unable to effectively negotiate changes in the rates and fees 

they are charged. The Committee directs FMS to report to the 

Committee on Appropriations within 180 days of enactment on the 

potential cost savings and other benefits to the Federal Government if FMS were able to effectively negotiate (1) changes in the 

rates and fees assessed by card networks and (2) modifications to 

the rules and regulations of the card networks which restrict the 

Federal Government’s ability to determine the types of card pay-
20 

ments it accepts and the methods by which its transactions are 

processed. 

ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $99,065,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 105,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 103,000,000 

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 $103,000,000 for TTB for fiscal year 

2009. This amount is a decrease of $2,000,000 to the budget request and an increase of $3,935,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee does not recommend assessing fees 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. 

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 equip-
21 

ment 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 2008, the Mint transferred $750,000,000 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 $26,700,000 for 

circulating coinage and protective service capital investments for 

the Mint. This amount is a decrease of $15,450,000 below the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. 

BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $177,352,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 182,244,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 182,244,000 

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 $182,244,000 for the Bureau of the 

Public Debt for fiscal year 2010. This amount is an increase of 

$4,892,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and is equal to 

the budget request. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM

ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $207,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 243,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 246,750,000 

1 Includes $100,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–5). 
22 

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 $166,750,000 for the CDFI Fund, 

which is $40,250,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, 

which included funding provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), and $3,150,000 above 

the budget request. 

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. 

Of funding recommended for the CDFI Fund, $3,150,000 is provided for a pilot program to be conducted in Hawaii for financial 

education and pre-home ownership counseling as authorized in section 1132(d) of division A of the Housing and Economic Recovery 

Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289). The National Low Income Housing Coalition ranked Hawaii as the most expensive State for housing. As credit has become more difficult to obtain, working families 

in Hawaii need assistance to better prepare for purchasing a home. 

Services in the pilot program will include credit counseling, assisting with savings planning, and educating potential home buyers 

about mortgage products and available programs supporting home 

ownership. 

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. 

In addition to funding recommended for the CDFI Fund, 

$80,000,000 is recommended for the Capital Magnet Fund as requested in the budget. Funding was not provided for the Capital 
23 

Magnet Fund in fiscal year 2009. The Capital Magnet Fund is authorized in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public 

Law 110–289). Under that act, the Government-sponsored entities 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are required to contribute funding to 

the Capital Magnet Fund in order to support affordable housing 

projects. In November 2008, the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to suspend their contributions until further notice, temporarily leaving the Capital Magnet 

Fund without a funding stream. The recommendation of 

$80,000,000 temporarily funds the Capital Magnet Fund in lieu of 

contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provides for 

a temporary change in the leverage expectations for grants made 

under the program during fiscal year 2010. The Committee intends 

the funding to provide start-up capital for the Capital Magnet 

Fund and fully expects that the Capital Magnet Fund will operate 

without additional appropriations in the future when Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac resume the required contributions. 

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 

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 
24 

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 2008, the IRS collected more than $2,300,000,000,000 in revenue, net of refunds, and processed more 

than 250 million tax returns. More than 101.5 million returns, including 58 percent of individual returns were filed electronically. 

Also, in fiscal year 2008, the IRS customer assistance call centers 

answered 40.4 million assistor telephone calls and 52 million automated calls. There were nearly 7 million contacts at the 401 taxpayer assistance centers, and over 347 million visits to the IRS 

website, an increase of 61 percent over fiscal year 2007. In addition 

to serving taxpayers during the regular filing season, the IRS delivered $94,300,000,000 in economic stimulus payments to 116.2 million taxpayers. 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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,152,445,000 for the Internal 

Revenue Service for fiscal year 2010. This is an increase of 

$549,847,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$26,445,000 above 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 
25 

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 acknowledges the Department of the Treasury 

and the IRS’s August 2007 publication, ‘‘Reducing the Tax Gap: A 

Report on Improving Voluntary Compliance.’’ The Committee 

shares the concern that the steps outlined in that report are preliminary, and 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 

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 2010 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. 
26 

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 Center in each of these States 

is 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. 

TAXPAYER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $2,293,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,269,830,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,275,830,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $2,275,830,000 for Taxpayer Services, which is $17,170,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, 

and $6,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes 

that Congress provided direct funding to the Secretary of the 

Treasury for IRS implementation of the tax provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Public Law 111–5) and that 

those funds are not reflected in the ‘‘Taxpayer Services’’ account. 

Bill language is included providing not less than $6,100,000 for the 

tax counseling for the elderly program, not less than $9,500,000 for 

low-income taxpayer clinic grants, not less than $12,000,000, to be 

available for 2 years, for a community volunteer income tax assistance matching grant program for tax return preparation assistance 

and $205,954,000 for the Taxpayer Advocate Service. 

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. 

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 IRS, the IRS Oversight Board, and the National Taxpayer Advocate to work collaboratively to make the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint an integral and guiding component of 

delivering services. The Committee supports ongoing efforts to conduct research on taxpayer needs and taxpayer service performance. 
27 

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 89.6 million individual tax returns were 

filed electronically during the 2008 filing season, representing more 

than 63 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. This plan should address alternate electronic filing strategies, 

including Telefile and 2–D bar coding and methods of e-filing directly with the IRS for free as well as any impediments or circumstances that affect taxpayers inclinations toward electronic filing. 

The Committee believes that the IRS will deliver better taxpayer 

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

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. 

EITC.—The Committee is concerned that many low-income taxpayers and their families are having their Earned Income Tax 

Credit [EITC] benefits unnecessarily diminished through high-cost, 

short-term products such as refund anticipation loans [RALs]. The 

Committee directs the IRS, in consultation with the National Taxpayer Advocate, to educate consumers about the costs associated 

with these products and expand access to alternative methods of 

obtaining timely tax refunds. 

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, $12,000,000 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. 

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 
28 

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 IRS is not permitted to treat any in-kind contributions from the IRS as counting toward the $12,000,000 appropriation nor shall 

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

In addition, the Committee notes that 1 in 5 adults living in the 

United States have a disability, and that over 22 million families 

nationwide have a member with a disability. Only 21 percent of 

taxpayers with disabilities have annual incomes over $40,000, and 

working-age adults with disabilities are 3 times more likely than 

their nondisabled peers to live at or below the poverty line. Prior 

research has identified persons with disabilities as a major underserved market segment for receiving support from national low-income tax assistance programs, asset building coalitions, and the 

private sector financial services. 

The Committee understands that only a small number of the 

grants awarded thus far within the VITA Community Matching 

Grant Assistance program have focused on reaching taxpayers with 

disabilities as the primary target subpopulation. 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. 

Charitable Exempt Organizations.—The Committee is encouraged by recent IRS actions to invest greater resources in activities 

that educate charitable exempt organizations about their obligations under the Tax Code, helping to increase voluntary compliance 

and strengthen charities’ ability to improve lives and communities. 

The Committee anticipates that the IRS will utilize the increased 

resources in this appropriation to continue to expand outreach to 

and education of charitable organizations, particularly in light of 

significant changes to tax-exempt laws in the Pension Protection 

Act and other statutes. 

IRS Free File Program.—The Free File Program allows taxpayers 

meeting certain income requirements to electronically prepare and 

file their income tax returns free of charge. The IRS administers 

the Program as a partnership with the Free File Alliance, a consortium of tax software companies. The Committee has had longstanding concern that eligible taxpayers are not taking full advantage of this program. The Committee expects the IRS to place a 
29 

high priority on improving marketing and administration of the 

program as outlined by TIGTA. The IRS should promote public 

awareness of the availability of this program among those who can 

most benefit from its free services, particularly lower income, disadvantaged, the working poor and other underserved populations. 

ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,117,267,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,504,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,504,000,000 

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 the budget request level of $5,504,000,000 for enforcement activities for fiscal year 2010. This 

amount is $386,733,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and the same as the budget request. Bill language is included to 

transfer not less than $59,206,000 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 fully supports the IRS’s proposed use of the funding increase to promote compliance with U.S. international tax provisions and to address the tax gap attributable to international 

transactions. The Committee is cognizant of the trends in the international tax arena, specifically that (1) the number of multinational enterprises increased by twentyfold from 3,000 in 1990 to 

well over 63,000 in 2007, (2) the number of filings containing international features has increased by 87 percent in the brief span of 

2002 to 2007, (3) technology has eased the ability of small- to midsized businesses to complete globally, and (4) low-tax and no-tax jurisdiction countries are home to 58 percent of the foreign profits of 

U.S. multinational corporations. 

It is against that backdrop that the IRS will, with the increased 

resources supporting 784 additional FTE, be equipped to launch a 

robust package of 6 enforcement initiatives. These include improving identification and coverage of international issues and increased issue specialization to address complex international transactions; increasing coverage of smaller international businesses and 

individuals; increasing reporting compliance of domestic taxpayers 

with offshore activity by doubling the number of criminal investigation attache ́s in foreign ports of duty; furthering national law enforcement and counterterrorism objectives; expanding IRS’s international presence in the tax-exempt and government sectors, in-
30 

cluding discovery and investigation of offshore tax shelters used by 

pension plans; and increasing compliance efforts, through more rigorous automated matching and reconciliation of documents regarding foreign person’s U.S.-sourced income. 

The IRS has projected a substantial return on investment to be 

realized over the next 3 years from these initiatives. 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. While the 

IRS’s NRP has done a commendable job in updating the tax gap 

estimates, significant challenges remain in obtaining complete and 

timely data and in developing reliable methods for interpreting the 

data. 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. 

Leveraging Preparer Community.—The Committee believes that 

an understanding of the causes of inadvertent noncompliance and 

the role of preparers in facilitating both inadvertent and intentional noncompliance will improve tax administration and help 

guide IRS’s allocation of resources. The Committee is encouraged 

by the IRS’s focused efforts to study and identify how to better leverage the tax preparer community to increase taxpayer compliance. With over 80 percent of taxpayers using either a tax return 

preparer or third-party software to complete their returns, it is 

paramount that the IRS ensure that the professionals who assist 

taxpayers adhere to uniform and high ethical standards of conduct. 

Misclassification of Contractors.—The Committee continues to be 

highly concerned with the misclassification of workers as independent contractors, who file using IRS Form 1099. Many of these 

workers should be correctly classified as employees and should file 

using W–2 forms. 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. Therefore, the Committee strongly urges the IRS to 

provide increased tax enforcement in industries where 

misclassification of employees is widespread. 

Global Tax Administration Issues.—The bill includes $126,500 as 

a 1-year payment to support the IRS’s role as host in the United 
31 

States for the annual meeting of the Leeds Castle Group during 

2010. In 2006, the IRS and the tax administrations of nine other 

countries agreed to the establishment of the so-called ‘‘Leeds Castle 

Group’’. Under this arrangement, the commissioners of the revenue 

bodies of Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, 

Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and the United States 

agreed to meet regularly to consider and discuss issues of global 

and national tax administration in their respective countries, particularly mutual compliance challenges. 

OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,867,011,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,082,984,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,082,984,000 

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 $4,082,984,000 for Operations Sup- port for fiscal year 2010. This amount is $215,973,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

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

to remain available until September 30, 2011, for information technology support and not to exceed $1,000,000 to remain available 

until September 30, 2012, 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 steering committee), (3) a risk management plan, (4) a contingency plan 
32 

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. 

BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $229,914,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 253,674,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 274,119,000 

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 2010. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $274,119,000 for Business Systems 

Modernization [BSM] for fiscal year 2010. This amount is 

$44,205,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$20,445,000 above 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 [CADE] will permit daily, rather than weekly, updating of individual tax accounts. With CADE as its centerpiece, systems modernization by the IRS promotes enhanced customer service, more 

expeditious refund processing, and better administration of the tax 

system. 

The Committee believes that the amount requested in the budget 

for the BSM account is inadequate. The Committee recommends an 

additional $20,445,000 to augment the IRS’s continued investment 

in developing the CADE, the database that will ultimately be the 

central repository of tax account information for all individual taxpayers. The Committee notes that the IRS recently shifted its 

strategy for CADE, to focus on completion of the core taxpayer ac-
33 

count database. This approach will allow the IRS to accelerate data 

conversion to the new database while also addressing security, financial material weaknesses, and long-term architectural planning 

concerns. It is expected that once completed, the core database will 

improve the overall functionality of existing modernization systems, as well as improve overall customer service to taxpayers. 

The Committee shares the concern of the IRS Oversight Board 

about the particularly acute needs of the CADE project, which go 

far beyond what was requested in fiscal year 2010 and will certainly grow in fiscal year 2011. The Committee believes it is essential to accelerate the pace of progress and allow the IRS to achieve 

key milestones in the immediate future fiscal years. The Committee strongly urges that future funding requests take into account the critical need to make progress on deployment of a daily 

Individual Master File capability and the CADE relational database. 

HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $95,406,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 15,512,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,512,000 

1 Includes $80,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

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 $15,512,000 for the 

Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration in fiscal year 2010. 

This amount is $79,894,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5), 

$80,000,000 was provided to HITCA to implement the health insurance tax credit under the TAA Health Coverage Improvement Act 

of 2009. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

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

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 2010 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. 
34 

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, but modifies, a provision designating not 

less than $7,100,000,000 for enhanced tax enforcement to address 

the Federal tax gap and an additional $890,000,000 for the Internal Revenue Service for enhanced tax enforcement activities. This 

provision is consistent with section 401(c)(2)(B) of the concurrent 

resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010 (S. Con. Res. 13; 

House Report 111–089). 

Section 106 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 11 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 2010, 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, 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. 
35 

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. 
(36) 

TITLE II 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS 

APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $450,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 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 2009 enacted level and 

the same as the budget estimate. 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, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $53,899,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 59,319,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 59,319,000 

1 Amount does not include funding of the Office of Policy Development which was funded as 

a separate appropriation in fiscal year 2009. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The ‘‘Salaries and Expenses’’ account of The White House (previously titled ‘‘The White House Office’’) 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 $59,319,000 for 

The White House, Salaries and Expenses. The recommendation is 

$5,420,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and is 

equal to the budget request. 
37 

The budget requests that funding for the Office of Policy Development be included in funds appropriated under this heading. The 

Office of Policy Development supports the National Economic 

Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President in the formulation, 

coordination, and implementation of economic and domestic policy. 

The Office of Policy Development also provides support for other 

domestic policy development and implementation activities as directed by the President. The Committee agrees with the proposed 

consolidation and includes funding for the Office of Policy Development within the amounts recommended under this heading. Of the total funding, the Committee recommends $1,400,000 for 

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

EXECUTIVE RESIDENCE AT THE WHITE HOUSE

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $13,363,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 13,838,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,838,000 

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 $13,838,000 for 

the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee recommendation is $475,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and is equal to the budget request. The accompanying bill 

also continues certain restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use 

of the Executive Residence. 

WHITE HOUSE REPAIR AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,600,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,500,000 

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. 
38 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,500,000 for 

White House Repair and Restoration, equal to the budget request 

and $900,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $4,118,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,200,000 

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 $4,200,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This 

amount is equal to the budget request and is $82,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

OFFICE OF POLICY DEVELOPMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,550,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

The budget requests that funding for the Office of Policy Development be included in funds appropriated for The White House, 

Salaries and Expenses. The Committee agrees with the proposed 

consolidation and recommends funding for the Office of Policy Development within funds recommended for The White House, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2010. 

NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. 1 $11,965,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 12,231,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,231,000 

1 Includes $2,936,000 provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 

111–32). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

security. 
39 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,231,000 for 

the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council. This 

amount is equal to the budget request and $266,000 more than the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level, which included amounts provided in 

the Supplemental Appropriations act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32). 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $101,333,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 115,280,000 

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

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 2010, an increase of 

$13,947,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and equal to 

the budget request. 

The Committee has included space rental costs for the Office of 

Management and Budget [OMB] and the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy [ONDCP] in this account as the budget requests. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes $16,768,000 to stabilize and modernize the information technology infrastructure 

within the Executive Office of the President. The Committee notes 

that the funding provided for this purpose for fiscal year 2010 is 

an increase of $4,863,000 over the fiscal year 2009 enacted funding. 

This increase supports 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 supports the Office 

of Administration’s plans to use funds first to stabilize and secure 

the existing infrastructure. 

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 looks forward 

to receiving the previously requested report on this matter. The 
40 

Committee expects the Office of Administration to keep the Committee fully apprised of funding needs related to record preservation. 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $87,972,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 92,687,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 92,687,000 

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 $92,687,000 for 

the Office of Management and Budget which is an increase of 

$4,715,000 above than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and equal 

to the budget request. 

The Committee notes that additional funding over the budget request for fiscal year 2009 was provided to maintain and modernize 

the Federal Government’s core budgeting system, which is nearly 

20 years old. The Committee is disappointed that additional funds 

were not requested for fiscal year 2010 to modernize this system. 

The Committee reminds OMB that this system is used Government-wide by all Federal agencies in documenting and estimating 

budget activities, ensuring data integrity with other financial and 

accounting systems, and developing the President’s budget proposals. A comprehensive modernization will improve the integrity 

of budgetary data, enhance the capabilities of budgetary staff, and 

provide a more dynamic decisionmaking tool for OMB and the 

President. The Committee urges OMB to focus efforts on planning 

and implementing a modernization of this system using funds provided for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

The Committee notes that section 723 of the bill provides the authority for each Executive department and agency to transfer funds 

to, or reimburse a dedicated budget account supporting, the activities of certain Government-wide councils. These councils 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. The Committee notes that OMB approves such transfers and reimbursements and also directs the administration of 

these funds. The Committee directs OMB to include a budgetary 

justification for each council in the annual budget request for the 

Executive Office of the President beginning in fiscal year 2011. 
41 

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $27,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 27,575,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 28,575,000 

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 $28,575,000 for ONDCP’s salaries and expenses. This amount is $1,375,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the budget 

request. The increased funding level is provided to allow ONDCP 

to reach an actual staffing level of 118 full-time equivalents. 

The Committee has been very concerned in recent years with the 

organizational structure of ONDCP and with staffing decisions 

made by the leadership of this office in the previous administration. Staffing levels have declined from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal 

year 2008 by approximately 14 percent. The Committee has noted 

a lack of racial and ethnic diversity as well as a relatively low percentage of female representation as a percentage of the total workforce. Finally, the Committee has previously expressed displeasure 

with the role that political appointees have played in managing 

ONDCP. 

The Committee remains highly concerned that despite repeated 

Committee directives and prohibitions in recent years, ONDCP has 

failed to reverse a decision to reorganize 3 of its 12 components, as 

described in a December 1, 2006 letter to the Committee. Among 

other things, this reorganization realigned or reassigned staff from 

the Office of Planning and Budget, renamed that office the Office 

of Performance and Budget, and established a new Performance 

Branch. The Committee is dismayed at the lack of progress on this 

issue and directs that the new leadership reinstate the organizational structure in place prior to the reorganization announced in 

the letter. ONDCP is directed to provide written notice of actions 

taken to implement this directive not later than 45 days after enactment. 

As a result of these concerns, in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110–161), Congress directed 

the National Academy of Public Administration [NAPA] to conduct 

an independent study and analysis of ONDCP’s organization and 
42 

management. After conducting a comprehensive assessment of 

ONDCP’s management, structure, and human capital, NAPA 

issued its report in November 2008 and included five recommendations. Among other things, the report recommended that ONDCP 

streamline its organizational structure, rebalance its workforce, 

and implement effective human capital practices. 

The Committee agrees that ONDCP’s implementation of each of 

the five recommendations will help ONDCP increase organizational 

and mission effectiveness. ONDCP should keep the Committee apprised as it implements the recommendations and action items contained in the NAPA report. 

COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

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 recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for 

the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. This amount is 

$2,000,000 below the fiscal year enacted level, and the same as the 

budget request. The Committee is hopeful that new leadership will 

reinvigorate the CTAC program, allowing this once valuable program to again flourish. 

FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT

FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $234,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 220,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 234,000,000 

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. 
43 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $234,000,000 for 

the HIDTA program, the same as the fiscal year 2009 level and 

$14,000,000 above the budget request. With the increased funding, 

the Committee expects ONDCP to provide a program adjustment 

for HIDTAs that qualify under performance measurement criteria 

taking into account local conditions and resources. In allocating 

funding provided above the level of the budget request, priority 

should be given to ensuring that HIDTAs receive adequate funding 

before allocating such funding to discretionary programs. The Committee directs that funding shall be provided for the existing 

HIDTAs at no less than the fiscal year 2009 level or $3,000,000, 

whichever is greater. 

The Committee continues to be concerned about the widespread 

use of methamphetamine. Hawaii has one of the highest rates in 

the Nation for methamphetamine abuse, per capita. In addition, 

Hawaii has experienced an increase in crystal methamphetamine 

availability, while the Nation as a whole has generally experienced 

a downward trend. Hawaii received its HIDTA designation in 1999, 

yet its allocation of funding is among the lowest in the Nation. 

Given the need to effectively address this growing problem, the 

Committee strongly recommends that ONDCP consider an increase 

in the allocation to the Hawaii HIDTA. 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. 

OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $174,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 174,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 174,750,000 
44 

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 $174,750,000 for 

Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $50,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $750,000 above the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides the following 

funding levels: 

Amount 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign ...................................................................................................... $70,000,000 

Drug-Free Communities Support Program ......................................................................................................... 90,750,000 

National Community Anti-Drug Coalition training ................................................................................... (2,000,000 ) 

National Drug Court Institute ............................................................................................................................ 1,000,000 

U.S. Anti-Doping Agency .................................................................................................................................... 9,600,000 

World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] ..................................................................................................................... 1,900,000 

National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ................................................................................................... 1,250,000 

Performance Measures Development ................................................................................................................. 250,000 

National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.—The Committee 

has recommended consistent monetary support for the National 

Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign since it was initially funded by 

Congress in fiscal year 1998. The Committee is concerned that 

methamphetamine use is having a disproportional impact on our 

rural communities, rendering the addiction an epidemic in the lives 

of so many Americans from the Nation’s farmlands, reservations, 

and small towns. Most of these communities, because they are located outside of urban areas, lack the comprehensive support services needed to effectively address the addiction and its devastating 

grip on so many families. The Committee provides $70,000,000 for 

the Media Campaign, of which at least $8,000,000 shall be for 

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. ONDCP is encouraged to 

work with State and local governments to increase visibility of the 

Media Campaign. In order to combat methamphetamine abuse 

within scarce resources, the Committee encourages ONDCP to 

focus methamphetamine prevention advertising on geographic 

areas with the highest level of drug problem within a State. 

ONDCP is encouraged to use research-based advertising campaigns 

and to collaborate with statewide or regional methamphetamine 

prevention programs when possible. 
45 

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 $90,750,000 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 $9,600,000 for USADA, which is 

$200,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

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 relation-
46 

ships 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 trafficking, drug use, and their related consequences. The Committee 

provides $1,250,000 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 $250,000 for this program and 

directs ONDCP to outline and submit to the Committee a detailed 

plan for projects that assess the effectiveness of the strategy in 

achieving its goals and objectives, and develop and improve needed 

data sources, including specific funding levels, no later than 120 

days after enactment of this act. 

UNANTICIPATED NEEDS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 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 2009 and the same as the budget request. 

PARTNERSHIP FUND FOR PROGRAM INTEGRITY INNOVATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $175,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation (Partnership Fund) is a new program recommended by the President for 

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] will chair an interagency council consisting of representatives of appropriate Federal 

agencies, States, and other stakeholders. The council will analyze 

and select pilot programs for funding, develop strategies and goals 

for the overall program as well as for each pilot program, and de-
47 

velop methodologies for assessing the performance of the overall 

program and the pilot programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $40,000,000 for the Partnership 

Fund. The Partnership Fund is a new program and was not funded 

in fiscal year 2009. 

Although the recommended funding is $135,000,000 below the 

budget request, the Committee believes that the recommended 

amount represents sufficient resources to initiate the Partnership 

Fund in fiscal year 2010. The Committee expects to make future 

funding recommendations based on the progress and performance 

of the Partnership Fund in fiscal year 2010 and beyond. 

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 play a coordinating role in designing pilot programs, developing performance measures, and allocating funds, the Committee expects that 

the interagency council will 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. 

The Committee directs the interagency council, in consultation 

with OMB, to submit a progress report to the Committee on Appropriations, not later than March 30, 2010 and semiannually until 

the program is concluded, including detailed information on the 

goals and objectives of the Partnership Fund and of each pilot 

project; performance measures for the Partnership Fund and each 

pilot project; and an evaluation of the performance of the overall 

Partnership Fund and each pilot project to date. The report shall 

also include an operating plan detailing funding allocations for 

each pilot project and planned future funding allocations. 

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $8,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

This account supports the Office of Administration for expenses 

associated with the transition to the next Presidential administration. The Committee does not provide funding for this account for 

fiscal year 2010 because there will not be a Presidential transition 

in that year. 

SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $4,496,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,604,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,604,000 
48 

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 $4,604,000 for 

special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as the 

budget request and $108,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level. 

OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $323,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 330,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 330,000 

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 $330,000 for the 

official residence of the Vice President. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $7,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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 

the ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal year 2010. 

Section 203 allows for the transfer of up to 2 percent among programs within ONDCP. 

Section 204 establishes reprogramming requirements for 

ONDCP. 
(49) 

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 reminded that it, too, is subject to the 

same funding constraints facing the executive and legislative 

branches and continues to urge the Federal judiciary to devote its 

resources primarily to the retention of staff. Further, the judiciary 

is encouraged to contain controllable costs such as travel, construction, and other expenses. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $69,777,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 74,740,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 74,081,000 

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 $74,081,000 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 $4,304,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding level and slightly below the request. 
50 

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $18,447,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 14,568,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,525,000 

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 $14,525,000 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 $3,922,000 below the fiscal year 2009 funding level and approximately the same as the budget request. The 

Committee directs the Court to report to the Committee no later 

than 90 days after enactment of this act on its construction and 

modernization plans and to update the Committee as the Court becomes aware of any changes in schedule or budgetary needs. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $30,384,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 36,981,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 32,300,000 

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. 
51 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,300,000. 

The recommendation is $1,916,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding level, and $4,681,000 below the budget request but consistent 

with the judiciary’s re-estimate of fiscal year 2010 requirements. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $19,605,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 21,517,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,374,000 

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 $21,374,000. 

The recommendation is $1,769,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding level and consistent with the judiciary’s re-estimate of fiscal 

year 2010 requirements. 

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL

SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $4,811,369,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,162,252,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,076,845,000 

1 Includes $10,000,000 provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 

111–32). 

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 $5,076,845,000. 

The recommendation is $265,476,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and $85,407,000 below the budget request. 

Use of Lease-Construction Projects.—Historically, the judiciary, in 

conjunction with the General Services Administration, has utilized 

two execution strategies for meeting its courthouse space needs— 
52 

Federal construction and lease-construction. The Committee does 

not believe that every need for judicial space must be met through 

additional Federal construction and that lease-construction can be 

an appropriate alternative under certain circumstances. The Committee directs the General Services Administration and the judiciary to develop and submit a joint report on this issue to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than 120 days after enactment of this act. The 

report should identify the circumstances under which it would be 

appropriate to acquire court facilities using a lease-construction 

strategy. 

Yuma, Arizona Courthouse.—In the case of the proposed leaseconstruction project for courthouse space in Yuma, Arizona, the 

Committee supports the lease-construction strategy. 

VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $4,253,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,428,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,428,000 

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 $5,428,000. The 

recommendation is $1,175,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding 

level and consistent with the budget request. 

DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $849,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 982,646,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 975,504,000 

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 serv-
53 

ices. 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 $975,504,000. 

The recommendation is $126,104,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and $7,142,000 below the budget request. 

Panel Attorney Pay Rates.—The Committee’s recommended funding level supports an increase in the non-capital panel attorney 

rate per hour from $110 to $115 in fiscal year 2010. 

FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $62,206,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 63,401,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 62,275,000 

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 $62,275,000. 

The recommendation is $69,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and $1,126,000 less than the budget request. 

COURT SECURITY

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $428,858,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 463,642,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 457,353,000 

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). 
54 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $457,353,000. 

The recommendation is $28,495,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and $6,289,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee recommends funding for new U.S. Marshals 

Service positions as well as requested reimbursements to the Marshals Service. 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $79,049,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 83,963,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,075,000 

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 $83,075,000. 

This recommendation is $4,026,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and $888,000 below the budget request. 

FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $25,725,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 27,486,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,328,000 

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. 
55 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,328,000. 

The recommendation is $1,603,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding level and $158,000 below the budget request. 

The Committee has included funding requested for both education, research, and technology, as well as education and training 

enhancements. The Committee directs the Federal Judicial Center 

to keep the Committee apprised of staff brought on board throughout fiscal years 2009 and 2010. 

JUDICIAL RETIREMENT FUNDS

PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $76,140,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 82,374,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 82,374,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The funds in this account cover the estimated future benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and magistrate 

judges, claims court judges, and spouses and dependent children of 

deceased judicial officers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,374,000 for 

payments to the Judicial Officers’ Retirement Fund and the Claims 

Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is $6,234,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 funding level and consistent with the 

budget request. 

UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $16,225,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 17,056,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,837,000 

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 $16,837,000. The recommendation is $612,000 above the fiscal year 2009 funding level and consistent with the judiciary’s re-estimate of fiscal 

year 2010 requirements. 

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THE JUDICIARY

The Committee recommends the following administrative provisions for the judiciary. 
56 

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. 

Section 307 allows for a salary adjustment for Justices and 

judges. 
(57) 

TITLE IV 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

FEDERAL PAYMENTS

FEDERAL FUNDS

A total of $727,365,000 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 

$14,995,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$11,760,000 below the budget request. A total of $2,575,447,000 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $35,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 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, the program has disbursed over $218,975,600 

for the benefit of over 14,125 District of Columbia residents. Thirty-eight percent of the grantees are the first members of their families to attend college. 
58 

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 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee understands that the program will have 

$192,774 in carryover funds available in fiscal year 2010. The Committee urges the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to 

continue its efforts to improve the student retention and college 

graduation rate of program participants. 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 nonFederal 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. 

According to data collected by the National Student Clearinghouse [NCS], more than 3,600 students participating in the DC 

TAG program have earned 2- or 4-year college degrees. The Committee understands that the Office of the State Superintendent of 

Education is currently conducting a comprehensive review of graduation rates for students enrolled in the DC TAG program. The 

Committee directs the District of Columbia to promptly provide the 

results of the completed review to the Committees on Appropriations, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY COSTS

IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $39,177,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,350,000 

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 President has supported reimbursing the District for 

these costs. 

In addition, the District of Columbia National Guard, under the 

exclusive jurisdiction of the President of the United States, is specifically trained to support law enforcement during critical missions, such as demonstrations, Presidential inaugurations and funerals, and emergency services for weather-related contingencies. 
59 

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 total payment of $15,350,000, of which $15,000,000 is 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. 

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 2011. The Committee further directs the District of Columbia to submit, within 60 days of 

the end of fiscal year 2010, 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. 

In addition, the Committee recommends $350,000 for a tuition 

assistance program for nonresident District of Columbia National 

Guard members. 

The total funding is $23,827,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $350,000 above the budget request. The Committee 

notes that in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 

111–8), an enhanced Federal payment of $38,825,000 was provided 

to support the unprecedented security and planning costs incurred 

by the District of Columbia for the January 2009 Presidential Inauguration. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $248,409,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 248,592,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 258,517,000 

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 in-
60 

cludes 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 $258,517,000, which is $10,108,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $9,565,000 above the President’s 

budget request. This amount includes $12,014,000 for the Court of 

Appeals, $110,836,000 for the Superior Court, $60,147,000 for the 

Court System, and $75,520,000 for capital improvements to courthouse facilities. 

The Committee recommendation for the Superior Court of the 

District of Columbia is $2,345,000 above the President’s recommended funding of $108,491,000, and will permit the Court to 

enhance juvenile probation services through a community-based 

drop-in center to supervise youth and establish a mental health 

court coordinator to strengthen services for defendants with mental 

illness. 

The Committee recommendation for the District of Columbia 

Court System is $1,700,000 above the President’s recommended 

funding of $58,447,000, and will permit the Court System to enhance performance reporting and strategic management to increase 

the Courts’ accountability to the public and support an IT infrastructure program manager to ensure that physical relocation of 

the information technology offices within the court complex is not 

disruptive to court operations. 

The Committee recommendation for capital improvements provides $5,520,000 above the President’s recommendation of 

$70,000,000 to support maintenance of infrastructure, including 

HVAC, electrical, and plumbing upgrades, and other repair projects 

to address health and safety risks, improve signage, enhance ADA 

access, and update technology. The Committee supports the 

$15,000,000 included in the President’s recommendation to complete the modernization of the adult cellblock and United States 

Marshals Service administrative space to address health, safety, 

and security concerns. 

The Committee commends the courts on the steps taken to address concerns about the substandard working conditions of the 

United States Marshals Service at the Moultrie Courthouse. The 

Committee encourages the District of Columbia Courts to continue 

progress on the plan to upgrade the conditions to an acceptable 

level. The Committee directs the District of Columbia Courts to 

keep the Committee regularly informed on the status of the renovations, including prompt notification of any significant cost increases 

or schedule delays. 

DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $52,475,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 52,475,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 55,000,000 
61 

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 

$2,525,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,525,000 

above the budget request. 

To promote access to justice and ensure that high-quality legal 

representation remains available to the indigent in the District of 

Columbia Courts, the Committee recommends an increase to support a continued phase-in of the compensation adjustment from $80 

to $90 per hour for attorneys appointed to represent persons under 

the Criminal Justice Act, the Counsel for Child Abuse and Neglect 

program, and the Guardianship program. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER

SUPERVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $203,490,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 212,408,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 212,408,000 

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 15,000 offenders on a daily basis and the Pretrial Services 

Agency which monitors approximately 5,269 defendants at any 

given time and has placed over 1,788 defendants into substance 

abuse treatment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $212,408,000, which is $8,918,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 
62 

the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that the increased resources will enable CSOSA to expand the global positioning system [GPS] program capacity for surveillance of high-risk 

offenders and GPS data information sharing with District of Columbia public safety officials. 

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 from 115 per officer in fiscal year 2007 to 82 to 

per officer in fiscal year 2008. 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 health and sex offender assessments, 

and transitional housing is constrained. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $35,659,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 37,316,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 37,316,000 

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 $37,316,000, which 

is $1,657,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND

SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $16,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 20,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000 
63 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $20,000,000, 

to be matched by at least $20,000,000 provided by the Water and 

Sewer Authority, to continue implementation of the Long-Term 

Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan. This is an increase of 

$4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same 

as the budget request. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING

COUNCIL

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,774,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,774,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,774,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,774,000 to 

the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council [CJCC]. This is the 

same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the 
64 

budget request. The Committee directs the CJCC to submit annual 

performance measures in an annual report, which should also describe progress made on individual CJCC initiatives. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $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. 

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 

$500,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as 

the budget request. The Committee supports 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $4,888,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

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 $3,888,000 below the fiscal year 2009 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, to meet the 

growing demand for critical intensive care services. With the funds 

provided, CNMC will renovate an unoccupied unit adjacent to the 
65 

current pediatric intensive care unit, which will increase the number of beds from 23 to 33. 

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. 

The Committee commends CNMC for its role as both an international pediatric specialty care destination for children from nearly 20 countries, and as a safety net hospital for the children in its 

community. 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 163 District public and public charter schools, CNMC is an integral part of the fabric of the District 

of Columbia. 

Because of a commitment of Federal resources for capital improvements, CNMC has successfully leveraged private philanthropic support. It has used Federal funds and private funds to expand and upgrade its facilities, including completion of a 54 bed 

neonatal intensive care unit, decontamination unit, quarantine facility and a 250 bed inpatient tower providing family centered accommodations and state-of-the art technology. 

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 

June 1, 2010 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $54,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 74,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 75,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Committee continues its commitment to improving educational opportunities for the children of the District of Columbia. 

The Committee enhances 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. 

The Committee acknowledges the daunting challenges this undertaking presents, given that District of Columbia public school 
66 

students chronically perform well below national averages in reading and mathematics, but notes that progress has been made over 

the past 2 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 plans to implement 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 59 tuition-free, autonomous public charter 

schools on 95 campuses operating in the District, enrolling approximately 25,000 students, one-third 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. 

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 and to 

close poorly performing schools. The Committee 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. 

Congress established the private school scholarship (voucher) 

program as a 5-year pilot in 2003. The intent of this program, operated by the Washington Scholarship Fund under a grant from the 

Department of Education, is to help increase the District of Columbia’s capacity to provide parents, particularly low-income parents 

whose children attend low-performing schools, more options for 

quality education. In school year 2008–2009, over 1,700 students 

participated in the program at 49 nonpublic schools. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $75,400,000, 

which is $21,400,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$1,000,000 above budget request. These funds are allocated as follows: $42,200,000 for the District of Columbia Public Schools to improve public school education; $20,000,000 to expand quality charter schools; and $13,200,000 to the Secretary of Education for opportunity scholarships for low-income students in the District of 

Columbia, of which $1,000,000 may be used for program oversight 

and administration, and of which $1,000,000 may be used to administer testing of students to determine and compare academic 

performance of participating schools. 

District of Columbia Public Schools 

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 
67 

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, to fix its long-broken 

data management system, which makes it difficult for parents to 

access their children’s files, and to hire more special needs staff. As 

part of the increased Federal funds provided for the District of Columbia Public Schools for fiscal year 2010 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 

The Committee notes that the District of Columbia’s fiscal year 

2010 Budget Act contains a decrease in the public charter schools 

per pupil facilities allowance in the amount of $7,300,000. The 

Committee also notes that, even before this decrease, public charter 

schools in the District receive approximately one-half as much facilities funding per student as does the District of Columbia Public 

Schools [DCPS]. The Committee believes that facilities funding 

should be equitably distributed among all District public school 

students and urges the Office of the State Superintendent of Education to distribute to the public charter schools, on a per pupil 

basis, $5,000,000 in additional facilities allowance funding. The 

Committee encourages the District of Columbia to fund the remaining $2,300,000 shortfall. 

With respect to the Federal payment for fiscal year 2010, 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 contain a particular emphasis on 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. Federal funding made available through this appropriation directed to OSSE should be made available to the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board no later than 30 

days after enactment of this act. 

Over the years, public charter schools have moved into and revitalized former DCPS school buildings that otherwise would have 
68 

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 24 school buildings recently 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, no later than January 15, 2010, a detailed fiscal year 2010–2014 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. 

Opportunity Scholarship Program 

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 expressly provides 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; and (2) the core subject matter teachers of the eligible students hold 4-year bachelor’s 

degrees. 

The Committee emphasizes that the authorization for the private 

scholarship program expired on September 30, 2008. Accordingly, 

the Committee directs that funds provided for the scholarship program shall be used for currently enrolled participants rather than 

new scholarship applicants. The Committee is particularly sensitive to the potential impact of disrupting students’ educational 

settings, but is also concerned about the potential damage of allowing students to remain in low-quality private schools. 

The purpose of the pilot opportunity scholarship program was to 

provide students with academic opportunities not available in lowperforming public schools. Therefore, the Committee continues 

funding for current recipients of opportunity scholarships, but directs the Secretary of Education to submit a report to Congress assessing the quality of all participating schools. The Committee directs the Secretary to allow the use of scholarships after school 
69 

year 2010–11 only at schools performing at an academic level superior to District of Columbia public schools. 

For purposes of determining the performance of participating 

schools, the Committee further directs the Secretary to administer 

the same test to opportunity scholarship participants that will be 

administered to the District public school students in the 2009– 

2010 school year for the purposes of compiling the requested report. 

The Committee directs schools enrolling students participating in 

the opportunity scholarship program and the administrator of the 

program to comply fully and promptly with all requests by the Secretary for data and information necessary for the completion of the 

report to Congress. The Committee provides additional funding to 

the Secretary to administer the assessments and compile the report 

to Congress. 

In November 2007, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] 

detailed several program shortcomings in some of the participating 

schools in the scholarship program, including unsuitable learning 

environments, teachers without bachelor’s degrees, and lack of occupancy permits. GAO also cited concerns about the sufficiency of 

financial controls and management issues, including failure to determine accreditation of participating schools. 

A federally mandated evaluation of the program is being conducted by the Department of Education’s Institute of Education 

Sciences. Results assessing the overall impact of the program after 

the first 3 years of implementation, reflect that student test scores 

in reading improved by an equivalent of 3 months of additional 

learning over 3 years, but that there was no statistically significant 

difference in scores for male students, in math scores for any students, or for students coming from public schools designated as ‘‘in 

need of improvement.’’ The program had a positive impact on parents’ perception of safety and satisfaction but no impact on student 

reports of safety and satisfaction. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO JUMP START PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $20,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

With the enactment of Public Law 110–33, providing the Mayor 

of the District of Columbia with authority over 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 failing public school system. Under the direction of the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools, 

a multitude of critical initiatives are underway. For fiscal year 

2009, Congress provided a one-time Federal contribution to 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 provides no funding in this account for fiscal year 

2010, the same as the budget request. The Committee provides 
70 

funds for local education initiatives through the ‘‘Federal Payment 

for School Improvement’’ account within this title. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CONSOLIDATED LABORATORY FACILITY

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $21,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 15,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,000,000 

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 

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. Currently, the FBI reports that approximately 

30 percent of their 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. 

A new comprehensive laboratory, housing both anti-terrorism 

and criminal forensic components under one roof, 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 recommends a Federal payment of $15,000,000 

for costs associated with completing the construction of a new comprehensive laboratory facility in the District of Columbia. This is 

$6,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and the same 

as the budget request. The Committee directs that this Federal 

payment be equally matched with local funds. 

The Committee notes that over the past 5 fiscal years Congress 

has provided over $43,000,000 in Federal payments, matched by 

over $160,000,000 in local investments. 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. 

The Committee expects that the $15,000,000 provided will be the 

final Federal payment for the project. The Committee is aware of 

the withdrawal of a construction contract award in June 2009 and 

is concerned that the anticipated scheduled completion in the fall 

of 2011 may be impacted. The Committee urges the Mayor to keep 

the Committee regularly informed of the progress on the project. 
71 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE D.C. NATIONAL GUARD

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $2,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal 2010 budget request seeks a new 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. In fiscal 2009, local funds support 33 civilian administrative personnel, a Federal Facilities Operations 

and Maintenance Activities grant supports facilities maintenance 

currently performed by an additional 39 civilian personnel, and the 

D.C. National Guard receives appropriations annually through the 

Department of Defense Appropriations Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend a new Federal payment for 

the D.C. National Guard. The Committee provides a payment for 

the D.C. National Guard under the Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security account within the bill. The D.C. National Guard also receives Federal funding through the Department of Defense appropriation. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $19,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal 2010 budget request seeks a new Federal payment of 

$19,200,000 to help transform the delivery of services and reduce 

chronic and family homelessness in the District of Columbia. As 

proposed, the requested funds would augment a local investment in 

the Mayor’s ‘‘Housing First’’ initiative to develop and provide permanent supportive housing and wrap-around services. The Committee notes that due to the downturn in the economy, the District 

proposes to decrease its budget using local funds for this program 

from the $12,071,000 to $10,071,000, which will allow the District 

to continue to support the 427 individuals and 80 families currently 

housed through Housing First. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

While the Committee lauds the Mayor for his efforts to fulfill his 

pledge to replace homeless shelters with housing and address the 

critical needs of the most severely disabled and longest-term homeless individuals and families in the District, the Committee is unable to support the proposed Federal contribution at this time. The 
72 

Committee strongly urges the District of Columbia government to 

evaluate and take advantage of Federal grant funding available 

through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

The Committee further notes the work of the Urban Institute and 

its June 2008 report, ‘‘Transforming the District of Columbia’s Public Homeless Assistance System,’’ which offers an array of recommendations for engaging developers in programs to move the 

chronically homeless into permanent supportive housing and cites 

exemplary best practices and experiences of other communities in 

the country that have successfully mobilized resources for permanent supportive housing. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RECONNECTING DISCONNECTED YOUTH

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $5,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The fiscal 2010 budget request seeks a new Federal payment of $5,000,000 to support a local initiative designed to significantly reduce the number of young people in the District of Columbia who 

are currently not connected to positive work or school activities or 

at risk of becoming disconnected from these critical influences. The 

District of Columbia proposes to use Federal funds to augment 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 Committee does not recommend a new Federal payment to 

the District of Columbia for reconnecting disconnected youth. In fiscal year 2009, this initiative was funded predominantly with local 

resources, augmented with a small amount of private grants. The 

Committee appreciates that in this uncertain economic climate and 

challenging local budgetary constraints, the District diverted local 

resources that may have otherwise been devoted to this program to 

other more pressing, higher priority needs. The Committee is unable to support a new Federal investment at this time, and urges 

the District of Columbia government to explore and exhaust other 

Federal grant options and private sources to support this program 

in fiscal year 2010. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CENTRAL LIBRARY AND BRANCH LOCATIONS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $7,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Many of the District’s public libraries are in a state of significant 

disrepair and are poorly equipped. The adult illiteracy rate in the 

District of Columbia is 37 percent. In many major metropolitan 

areas around the country, new libraries have revitalized many dis-
73 

tressed neighborhoods. A Blue Ribbon Task Force of local and national experts recommended the creation of a state-of-the-art library system to add multi-lingual support, hundreds of new computers with broadband technology, and deep reference materials 

and children’s programs. 

The District of Columbia Public Library is undergoing a transformation that includes services, programs, collections, and buildings. The Library is in the process of rebuilding four neighborhood 

libraries—Anacostia, Benning, Tenley-Friendship, and Watha T. 

Daniel/Shaw. Old buildings have been razed and library services 

are being provided by interim facilities in the four neighborhoods. 

Construction of the new state-of-the-art libraries is scheduled to 

begin in late summer 2008 and expected to be completed by the 

end of 2009 in order to open to the public in the spring of 2010. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no new funding as a Federal payment contribution toward the costs of renovating and rehabilitating 

District of Columbia public libraries. 

The Committee is pleased that the District library system is proceeding with a long-needed, multi-year facilities modernization 

project, with four new libraries under construction, and investing 

in literacy initiatives that will complement and support the Mayor’s education reform agenda. 

FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR OF THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,388,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend a Federal payment to the 

Executive Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia. This is 

$3,388,000 below the fiscal year 2009 level and the same as the 

budget request. 

DELAYS IN PROPERTY CONVEYANCES

The Committee is aware that certain conveyances of land authorized by the Federal Government and the District of Columbia Government and Real Property Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–396) have 

not yet occurred. The delay in completing these conveyances has resulted in the continued deterioration of a historically significant 

property, the Old Naval Hospital on Capitol Hill. This property was 

a small Civil War-era hospital and is the last significant un-restored historic building on Capitol Hill. The property has been 

through a competitive process conducted by the District of Columbia government to choose an operating entity to be granted lease 

for the property for the purpose of its complete historic renovation 

and ultimate operation as a community center dedicated to lifetime 

education. The Committee is concerned that the cost and viability 

of the restoration of this property will continue to diminish if the 

hospital property remains tied to the larger transfers in the act, 

and urges the General Services Administration, the Architect of the 
74 

Capitol, and the District of Columbia government to expedite the 

exchange of land conveyances authorized by Public Law 109–396. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LOCAL OPERATING BUDGET

The Committee recommends a total of $8,858,278,000 for the operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in the fiscal year 2010 budget submitted to the Congress by the government 

of the District of Columbia in June 2009. Of the total, 

$5,721,742,000 is from local funds, $2,575,447,000 is from Federal 

grant funds, $556,429,000 is from other funds, and $4,660,000 is 

from private funds. The Committee directs that any changes to the 

financial plan as submitted by the District must follow the reprogramming guidelines. 
(75) 

TITLE V 

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,625,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,500,000 

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 $1,500,000 for ACUS, $1,125,000 

below the budget request and the same as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee reminds ACUS that pursuant to section 

609 of division D of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public 

Law 111–8), not to exceed 50 percent of unobligated balances from 

salaries and expenses remaining available at the end of fiscal year 

2009 shall remain available until September 30, 2010. The Committee expects ACUS to use these carryover funds, in addition to 

the recommended funds, for fiscal year 2010 operating expenses. 

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS FELLOWSHIP FOUNDATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

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 recognize and award cutting-edge 

innovation in the fields of homeland security, life sciences, and education. During its 16-year existence, the Foundation has awarded 

approximately $7,600,000 to worthy American scientists, student 

inventors, and exemplary teachers who inspire despite especially 

challenging educational environments or personal physical disabilities. 
76 

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 $1,000,000 for 

the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation. This is the same 

as the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $146,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 160,600,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 177,000,000 

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 
77 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $177,000,000 for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is $31,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $16,400,000 above the 

budget request. 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. 

The Committee further acknowledges the need for CFTC to make 

mission-critical investments in technology to sort through the millions of pieces of information generated by markets, much of it electronic, daily. 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. 

In the past decade, trading volume has increased more than tenfold—reaching well over 3.4 billion trades in 2008. Actively traded 

contracts have quintupled—from 258 in 1997 to 1,521 in 2008. The 

notional value of contracts traded per day has experienced exponential growth from $4,000,000,000 in 1976 to an estimated 

$5,000,000,000,000 in 2008. Despite this phenomenal surge in activity, CFTC staffing levels have not kept pace, and in fact, have 

dropped 21 percent. The globalized, electronic, and round-the-clock 

nature of the marketplace and the emergence of derivatives and 

hedge funds have transformed the regulatory environment. 

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. 

The Committee commends the CFTC for its decision to conduct 

a series of hearings to solicit input from consumers, businesses, 

and market participants on how the CFTC can best use its existing 

authorities, with the first hearing focused on whether Federal speculative limits should be set by the CFTC for all commodities of finite supply, particularly energy commodities, as well as a review 

of the appropriateness of exemptions from limits for certain market 

participants. 

The Committee is also pleased that the CFTC is taking steps to 

improve the transparency of market data to better inform market 

participants and the public. 

The Committee is aware of discussions to harmonize regulatory 

oversight of futures and securities products to achieve greater pro-
78 

tection of investors, ensure market integrity, and promote price 

transparency. Building on previous work, the Committee directs 

the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress not 

later than March 1, 2010 on the extent of conflicts in statutes and 

regulations with respect to the similarities in futures and securities 

and provide recommendations that would reduce or eliminate discrepancies and gaps, enhance regulatory effectiveness and efficiency, and heighten market transparency. 

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $105,404,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 107,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 115,000,000 

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 authorities 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 $115,000,000 for the Consumer 

Product Safety Commission, which is $9,596,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 funding level and $8,000,000 above the budget request. 

This increased funding level is provided for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to carry out its increased responsibilities 

under the CPSIA. The Committee is aware that in fiscal year 2009 

CPSC has received hundreds of complaints about health and safety 

problems associated with drywall imported from China. The Com-
79 

mittee is appreciative of the fact that CPSC is leading a coordinated, comprehensive, and multi-faceted Federal investigation of 

imported drywall products. The Committee notes that funds provided in fiscal year 2010 will be available to support CPSC’s investigation of imported and domestic drywall products. 

Small Business Compliance.—CPSIA established many vital 

safeguards for ensuring that children’s products are safe. In December 2008, the CPSC sought comments from the public on section 102 of CPSIA, which requires testing of certain children’s 

products. In particular, the CPSC sought comments regarding testing component parts of children’s products rather than testing the 

final product. The Committee believes that small businesses could 

benefit greatly by protocol and guidance from the CPSC for those 

circumstances under which the testing of component parts is sufficient for a small business to demonstrate that its products are in 

compliance with section 102. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the CPSC expedite the issuance of such guidance. 

Within the funds provided, the Committee has included sufficient 

resources for the Commission to educate micro-businesses, such as 

home-based businesses, thrift stores, second-hand shops and operators of church fairs, about compliance with CPSIA. 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $17,959,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 16,530,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,530,000 

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 

is also charged with awarding grants to improve election administration and to enhance election equipment. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee provides $16,530,000 for EAC’s administrative 

expenses, which is $1,429,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 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. 

ELECTION REFORM PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $106,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 52,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 52,000,000 
80 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides grants 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 recommends $52,000,000 for election reform pro- grams. This amount is $54,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $341,875,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 335,794,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 335,794,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation provides $335,794,000 for the 

salaries and expenses of the Federal Communications Commission 

[FCC], of which $335,794,000 is to be derived from the collection 

of fees. The recommendation is $6,081,000 below the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. 

Universal Service Fund.—The Committee notes that Congress established the Universal Service Fund [USF] in 1996 to help provide 

communities across the country with affordable telecommunications services. The Committee continues to be concerned about 

the FCC’s lack of proper oversight over USF programs, which in 

fiscal year 2010 are estimated to expend over $8,800,000,000. 

While FCC has delegated the operational management of USF to 

the Universal Service Administrative Company [USAC], FCC continues to have responsibility for the management and oversight of 

USF programs. 

The Committee fully supports auditing and investigations of Federal spending, including of USF programs and recipients. Auditing 

and other oversight activities are critical to help ensure proper 

stewardship of taxpayer dollars. However, the Committee is very 
81 

concerned that recent audits of telecommunications providers receiving USF support have been unnecessarily burdensome. The 

Committee directs the FCC to work with USAC and the FCC Inspector General [IG] to develop more uniform audit processes that 

are as consistent as possible so that telecommunications providers 

are fully informed of document retention and other audit requirements. The Committee also directs the FCC to work with USAC 

and the FCC IG to ensure that all USF auditors are familiar with 

the telecommunications industry. 

The Committee directs FCC to report to the Committee on Appropriations within 60 days of enactment of this act with detailed 

information on all audit activity since fiscal year 2007 conducted by 

FCC, USAC and the FCC IG, including the cost of audit activity, 

audit methodologies, and the results of such audits. The report 

shall also include detailed information on FCC’s plans for continued required reviews under the Improper Payments Information 

Act (Public Law 107–300), USAC’s plans for continued auditing, 

and plans for FCC, the FCC IG, and USAC to communicate more 

effectively to USF recipients. Finally, the Committee notes that a 

detailed analysis of the FCC IG audit program performed by USAC 

has reported no instance of fraud in any of the program’s audits, 

and has recognized a generally high level of program compliance. 

Rural Health Care Pilot Program.—The Committee notes that 

the Commission dedicated over $417,000,000 for the construction of 

67 statewide or regional broadband telehealth networks in 42 

States and 3 U.S. territories under the Rural Health Care Pilot 

Program [RHCPP]. This program is designed to significantly increase access to acute, primary, and preventive healthcare in rural 

America. 

The Committee notes that there is a particular need for 

broadband access in rural healthcare, where isolated clinics can 

save lives by using advanced communications technology to tap the 

expertise of modern urban medical centers. 

The Commission’s RHCPP will eventually support the connection 

of more than 6,000 public and nonprofit health care providers nationwide to broadband telehealth networks. The healthcare facilities participating in the Pilot Program include hospitals, clinics, 

universities and research centers, behavioral health sites, correctional facility clinics, and community health centers. Telehealth 

and telemedicine services provide patients in rural areas with access to critically needed medical specialists in a variety of practices, 

including cardiology, pediatrics, and radiology, in some instances 

without leaving their homes or communities. Intensive care doctors 

and nurses can monitor critically ill patients around the clock and 

video conferencing allows specialists and mental health professionals to deliver medical care for patients in different rural locations, often hundreds of miles away. 

The Committee is very concerned that, to date, the Commission 

has made funding commitments for only 6 of the 67 approved 

projects. The Committee therefore directs the Commission to place 

a high priority on the roll-out of this vital pilot initiative. The Committee specifically notes that the Commission has not made any 

funds available for the New England Telehealth Consortium, the 

largest regional rural telehealth network in the country. This 
82 

project will serve rural residents in over 300 sites across Vermont, 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine. The Committee directs the Commission to better manage the Universal Service Administrative Company and its role in providing these funding commitments. 

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, 

2010. The ADA contains accounting rules which could complicate 

the operation of the FCC’s universal service electronic rate program. 

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, 2009 ............................................................................. ($27,495,000) 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... (37,942,000) 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (37,942,000) 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 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 $37,942,000 for the FDIC inspector 

general, the same as the budget request and $10,447,000 more 

than the fiscal year 2009 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. 
83 

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $63,618,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 64,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,000,000 

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 $67,000,000 for the Federal Election 

Commission, $3,000,000 more than the budget request and 

$3,382,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The Committee recommends the increase in funding over the budget request 

to enable the FEC to maintain current staffing levels and services, 

address audit findings related to information technology, enhance 

public access to electronic records, and address increased workload 

demands. 

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $22,674,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 24,773,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,773,000 

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. 

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 
84 

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 $24,773,000 for 

the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the same as 

the budget request and $2,099,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. 

The Committee supports the efforts of the FLRA in reducing the 

caseload backlog and is pleased with the planned movement towards electronic filing of public records. 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $259,200,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 287,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 289,300,000 

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 $289,300,000. The rec- ommendation is $30,100,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $2,100,000 above the budget request. 

The amounts recommended above the budget request are provided to enhance consumer protection activities and to support required activities related to the health information technology provisions included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 [ARRA] (Public Law 111–5). 

Of the amounts provided, $102,000,000 is derived from HartScott-Rodino pre-merger filing fees and $21,000,000 is derived from 

Do-Not-Call fees. The total amount of direct appropriations for this 

account is therefore $166,300,000. The Committee notes that this 

change reflects a net decrease in offsetting fee collection receipts 

since last year. 

Consumer Protection.—Additional funds shall include support for 

investigations into fraud related to the housing crisis, including 

mortgage and other financial services fraud. The Committee continues to be concerned about the role that deceptive and misleading 

practices in the financial services industry have played in the recent housing crisis. Additional consumer protection funding shall 

also support investigations regarding unfair and deceptive practices 

associated with Federal programs promoting economic stimulus 

and stabilization, including ARRA and the Emergency Economic 
85 

Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–343, known commonly as 

the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP). The Committee is 

concerned that fraudulent activity conducted under the disguise of 

these programs can be particularly deceptive to consumers because 

such schemes use language and symbols associated with Government programs to gain the attention of consumers. 

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. 

Used Motor Vehicles.—The Committee notes that the FTC has 

been petitioned by several consumer groups to modify the Used 

Motor Vehicle Trade Regulation Rule to inform prospective purchasers of used Chrysler vehicles that, as a result of the Chrysler 

bankruptcy proceeding, the restructured Chrysler company is absolved of liability for product defect claims arising from vehicles 

that were manufactured pre-bankruptcy. The Committee directs 

the FTC to report to the Committee within 90 days of enactment 

on how the Commission plans to inform potential purchasers of 

used cars about the extent to which the Chrysler and the General 

Motors bankruptcy proceedings may have limited the rights of consumers to recover for product defect or asbestos exposure claims associated with used Chrysler and General Motors vehicles. 
86 

FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $8,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was established in the 

Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–21) 

to examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial 

and economic crisis in the United States. An emergency appropriation of $8,000,000, to remain available until February 15, 2011, for 

the necessary expenses of the Commission was provided in the 

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32). 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no new funding for the Financial 

Crisis Inquiry Commission. This is the same as the budget request. 

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

Annual 5-Year Plans for Federal Buildings and Border Stations.—The Committee is disappointed that the 2010 Budget request did not include the two 5-year plans required by the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8). The Committee 

reiterates the requirement that the GSA include in its annual 

budget submission to Congress, detailed 5-year plans for Federal 

building and land port of entry (border station) construction 

projects with yearly updates of total project future funding needs 

for construction. The 5-year plan for border stations shall be a coordinated effort between GSA and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. 

Los Angeles Courthouse.—The Committee remains quite troubled 

by the lack of progress achieved in constructing a new courthouse 

in Los Angeles, California. Designated as the judiciary’s top priority and a judicial emergency in 2000, the Los Angeles courthouse 

project has received more than $33,000,000 for courthouse design 

and for the purchase and preparation of the construction site. In 

2004 and 2005 Congress appropriated more than $350,000,000 for 

construction of the courthouse. Numerous problems followed, and a 

construction contract was never awarded. Despite the fact that 

Congress has appropriated nearly $400,000,000 for the project, the 

project has completely stalled, and there appears to be little likeli-
87 

hood that construction will begin in the foreseeable future. Nearly 

10 years after being identified as a judicial emergency, today, the 

Los Angeles courthouse project remains the judiciary’s highest construction priority. 

The Committee appreciates the efforts GSA has made in recent 

years in trying to find a cost-effective solution. According to a GAO 

report (GAO–08–889), GSA has developed eight different proposals 

to house the court, some of which involve splitting the District 

Court between two locations. GSA reported to the Committee that 

the judiciary has been steadfast in opposing alternatives other than 

a single courthouse that will house all the District Judges and that 

there is no consensus on the best way to proceed. 

The Committee recognizes the desirability of consolidating all the 

District Judges in one new courthouse. However, if this is an essential objective of the project, GSA and the judiciary must pursue the 

design of a much more modest facility than has been proposed to 

date and must ensure that the existing Roybal Federal Building 

and Courthouse location is fully utilized. The Committee directs 

GSA to work with the judiciary in developing a cost-effective design 

proposal that would not require splitting of the District Court. GSA 

shall report quarterly to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

Senate and the House of Representatives, beginning in January 

2010, on progress made in reaching a mutually agreeable solution 

to this longstanding problem. The Committee urges GSA and the 

judiciary to work collaboratively and creatively, considering options 

such as courtroom sharing, to meet this challenge. 

Yuma, Arizona Courthouse.—The Committee has not included 

construction funding for a new courthouse in Yuma, Arizona. Instead, the committee directs GSA to proceed expeditiously to enter 

into a contract for a non-prospectus level lease-construct courthouse facility that is critically needed in Yuma. This Southwest 

border court lacks the space and security features necessary to 

handle the volume and types of Federal court proceedings being 

held at this location. A lease-construct project is an appropriate 

strategy in instances such as this in which the court space need is 

modest, acute, and in a location where an extensive Federal presence is not needed. 

Lease-construct Report.—The Committee is concerned that decisions regarding the provision of courthouse space for the judiciary 

are made without any consultation with the judiciary, particularly 

with respect to whether to undertake a new construction project or 

utilize a lease-construct strategy for acquiring space. The Committee directs the General Services Administration and the judiciary to develop and submit a joint report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives no 

later than 120 days after enactment of this act. The report should 

identify the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to 

provide court facilities using a lease-construct strategy. The Committee understands that this approach may be more conducive to 

the effective delivery of justice and warranted in instances when 

the need is modest, acute, and in a location where a large Federal 

court presence is not needed. 

Use of Stairs.—The Committee commends GSA for carrying out 

an annual program that promotes the use of stairs through the dis-
88 

play of appropriate signage in federally owned and leased buildings. This program delivers considerable health benefits for the 

Federal workforce and the general population at a very low cost to 

the Government. The Committee believes that the Federal Government should be a leader in encouraging workplace wellness, and 

there is mounting evidence that even small amounts of exercise accumulated throughout the day can provide significant health benefits. In addition, lessening the use of elevators will speed their 

movement for those that genuinely need them. The Committee supports the continued promotion of the use of stairs and directs GSA 

to display appropriate signage next to elevator buttons, at the entrance to stairwells, and at the base of escalators in federally 

owned and leased buildings. 

Promoting Energy Efficiency Through Use of Revolving Doors.— The Committee supports the promotion of the use of revolving 

doors over swing doors by staff, tenants, and visitors to Federal 

buildings, when possible and appropriate, as a significant component of energy conservation. One of the most common ways that 

outside air penetrates a building is through the doors. Revolving 

doors maintain the existing environment within a building because 

they create a seal that prevents outside air from flowing into a 

building. On average, eight times as much air is exchanged when 

a swing door is opened compared to a revolving door. In addition 

to keeping heat and cold in or out, revolving doors create a better 

inside environment by reducing pollution, noise, and dirt. Unfortunately, the use of revolving doors is not as prevalent as it could be, 

resulting in less energy efficiency within buildings. The Committee 

looks forward to receiving GSA’s upcoming report on the actions 

taken and achieved to promote the use of revolving doors. 

Custom House in New Orleans.—The Committee is aware that 

Hurricane Katrina caused a roof collapse on one of the most 

architecturally and historically significant Government-owned 

structures in the southern United States, the U.S. Custom House 

in New Orleans, Louisiana. While renovations are being conducted 

by GSA and the Customs and Border Patrol, work has been proceeding slowly. The Committee is supportive of the project and expects that contracts will be awarded in a timely manner. 

Community Involvement.—The Committee is concerned that GSA 

frequently shows a lack of concern for the opinions of local communities when developing and planning construction projects. The 

Committee urges GSA to make every possible attempt to address 

community concerns during the development stage of all GSA 

projects. The Committee directs GSA to coordinate with the community leaders and stakeholders in Madawaska, Maine, to address 

concerns during the development of the new port of entry. 

Contracts for Design and Construction of Border Stations and 

Ports of Entry.—The Committee is aware that the construction of 

new border patrol stations and land ports of entry will enhance 

America’s security and improve cross-border commerce. The Committee also acknowledges that these construction projects represent 

significant economic opportunity, particularly in rural America. 

Therefore, the Committee encourages GSA to make every effort to 

involve small businesses at all stages of design and construction of 

border stations and land ports of entry. The Committee directs 
89 

GSA and Customs and Border Protection to limit their reliance on 

indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts for design and construction of border stations and ports of entry. 

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND—LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF

REVENUE

Limitation on availability of revenue: 

Limitation on availability, 2009 1 .................................................. $13,973,771,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 ....................... 8,530,685,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,488,585,000 

1 Includes $5,546,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–5), of which not less than $750,000,000 was made available for Federal Buildings and United States Courthouses, not less than $300,000,000 was made available for border 

stations and land ports of entry, and not less than $4,500,000,000 was made available for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green Buildings, as defined in section 401 of Public Law 110–140. This does not include $4,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was transferred to the Government-wide Policy account. 

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. 

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 177 million square feet of rental 

space in fiscal year 2008. GSA expects to provide 190 million 

square feet of rental space in fiscal year 2009 and 194 million in 

fiscal year 2010. 

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 commer-
90 

cial 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, 2009 1 ......................................................... $746,317,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 657,637,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 734,037,000 

1Of the $5,550,000,000 provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) for deposit in the Federal Buildings fund, not less than $750,000,000 was 

made available for Federal buildings and United States Courthouses, and not less than 

$300,000,000 was made available for border stations and land ports of entry. 

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 $734,037,000 for construction and acquisition, including non-prospectus projects. 

CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION 

State Description Amount 

CA Calexico, Calexico West, Land Port of Entry ...................................................................................... $9,437,000 

CO Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation ................................................................................. 9,962,000 

DC Southeast Federal Center Remediation .............................................................................................. 15,000,000 

FL Miami, FBI Consolidation .................................................................................................................... 190,675,000 

GA Savannah, U.S. Courthouse ................................................................................................................ 7,900,000 

ME Madawaska, Land Port of Entry ......................................................................................................... 50,127,000 

MD White Oak, FDA Consolidation ............................................................................................................ 137,871,000 

PA Pennsylvania, Lancaster, U.S. Courthouse ......................................................................................... 6,500,000 

TX El Paso, Tornillo-Guadalupe, Land Port of Entry ............................................................................... 91,565,000 

TX San Antonio, U.S. Courthouse ............................................................................................................. 4,000,000 

UT Salt Lake City, U.S. Courthouse ......................................................................................................... 211,000,000 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2009 1 ......................................................... $692,374,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 496,276,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 453,776,000 

1Of the $5,550,000,000 provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–5) for deposit in the Federal Buildings fund, not less than $4,500,000,000 was 

made available for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to High-Performance Green 

Buildings, as defined in section 401 of Public Law 110–140. 

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 pro-
91 

grammed 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 new obligational authority of 

$453,776,000 for repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2010. This 

amount is $232,098,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level 

and $36,000,000 below the President’s request. The Committee has 

included limited funding for two special emphasis programs, energy 

and water retrofit and conservation measures and Federal highperformance green buildings. The Committee strongly supports 

these programs and expects GSA to use funding made available 

under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) to support these programs in fiscal year 2010 in addition to the funding provided for fiscal year 2010. 

REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS 

State Description Amount 

DC East Wing Infrastructure Systems Replacement ................................................................................ $114,500,000 

DC Eisenhower Executive Office Building Courtyard Replacement .......................................................... 10,000,000 

DC Eisenhower Executive Office Building Roof Replacement .................................................................. 15,000,000 

DC New Executive Office Building ............................................................................................................ 30,276,000 

INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2009 ........................................................... $149,570,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 140,525,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 140,525,000 

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 $140,525,000 for installment acquisition payments. This amount is $9,045,000 below 

the fiscal year 2009 funding level and the same as the budget request. 

RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2009 ........................................................... $4,642,156,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 4,879,871,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,829,871,000 
92 

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 

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 $4,829,871,000 for 

rental of space. The Committee recommendation is $187,715,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and is $50,000,000 below 

the budget request. 

BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2009 ........................................................... $2,197,354,000 

Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 2,356,376,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,330,376,000 

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 $2,330,376,000 for 

building operations. This amount is $133,022,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and $26,000,000 below the budget request. 
93 

ENERGY-EFFICIENT FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE FLEET PROCUREMENT

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $300,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1Provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111–5) provided $300,000,000 for capital expenditures and 

necessary expenses of acquiring motor vehicles with higher fuel 

economy, including hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles, and commercially-available plug-in hybrid vehicles. These funds are to remain 

available until September 30, 2011. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends no new funding for Energy-Efficient 

Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement. This is the same as the 

budget request. 

GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $58,578,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 65,165,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 61,165,000 

1 Includes $4,000,000 by transfer as provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Office of Government-wide Policy provides for Governmentwide policy development, support, and evaluation functions associated with real and personal property, supplies, vehicles, aircraft, 

information technology, acquisition, transportation, and travel 

management. This office also provides for the Federal Procurement 

Data Center, Workplace Initiatives, Regulatory Information Service 

Center, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat. The Office of Government-wide 

Policy, working cooperatively with other agencies, provides the 

leadership needed to develop and evaluate the implementation of 

policies designed to achieve the most cost-effective solutions for the 

delivery of administrative services and sound workplace practices, 

while reducing regulations and empowering employees. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,165,000 for 

Government-wide Policy. This amount is $2,587,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, which included funds transferred by 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 

111–5) and $4,000,000 below the budget request. 

High-performance Green Buildings.—The Committee notes that 

the budget requests that $4,000,000 be provided for the Office of 

Federal High-Performance Green Buildings to support a staffing 

level of 9 full-time equivalents [FTEs]. The budget request indicates that the request is a continuation of funding provided in the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 [ARRA] (Public 
94 

Law 111–5). ARRA provided $4,000,000 to be transferred to the 

Government-wide Policy account for the Office of Green Buildings, 

as authorized in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 

[EISA] (Public Law 110–140). These funds are available for obligation through fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee is extremely disappointed that GSA has, to date, 

failed to obligate any of the funds provided in ARRA for the Office 

of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings. The Committee reminds GSA that ARRA provided over $12,000,000,000 across Government for investments in Federal buildings and Federal facilities. Many of these appropriations provide funds for investments in 

energy efficiency, energy-efficient retrofits to existing facilities, or 

energy projects. Funding for the Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings was included in ARRA with the expectation 

that the Federal director would assist all Federal agencies in using 

these funds to implement improved green building standards. The 

Committee is dismayed that GSA appears to have taken no actions 

in this regard. 

In light of GSA’s critical responsibilities under EISA and ARRA, 

the Committee directs GSA to use the $4,000,000 provided in 

ARRA to fully establish and stand up the Office of Federal HighPerformance Green Buildings, including hiring the requested nine 

FTEs as soon as possible and then immediately begin fulfilling its 

responsibilities. 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 

and its projects. The Committee further directs GSA to report to 

the Committee on the obligation of these funds on a monthly basis. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $70,645,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 71,881,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 71,881,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Operating Expenses provides for the salaries and expenses of 

Government-wide activities associated with utilization and donation of surplus personal property and disposal of real property; 

agency-wide policy direction, management, and communications; 

the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; and services as authorized 

by 5 U.S.C. 3109. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,881,000 for 

Operating Expenses. This amount is $1,236,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $61,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 60,080,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 58,000,000 

1 Includes $7,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 
95 

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 $58,000,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $3,000,000 below 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,080,000 below the budget 

request. 

ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $33,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 35,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This program supports interagency ‘‘electronic government’’ or ‘‘egov’’ initiatives, i.e., 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. 

Proposals for funding of e-gov initiatives must meet capital planning guidelines and include adequate documentation to demonstrate a sound business case, attention to security and privacy, 

and a mechanism to measure performance against planned results. 

In addition, a small portion of the funds may be used for awards 

to project management teams that delivered the best product to 

meet customer needs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000 for 

the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is $35,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,000,000 above the 

budget request. 

The Committee strongly supports the activities of the Federal 

CIO Council related to ‘‘cloud computing’’ and encourages the council to continue to assess and address the escalating costs, inefficiencies, and stove-piping related to the management of Federal data. 

The Committee has included $35,000,000 for electronic government 
96 

activities related to Cloud Computing Infrastructure Pilots and Collaboration, $2,000,000 above the President’s request. This amount 

includes $15,000,000 for improving innovation, efficiency and effectiveness in Federal IT, including an initiative on optimizing common services and solutions/cloud-computing. This initiative would 

provide for pilots to identify enterprise-wide common solutions to 

eliminate duplication at the agency level and lower the total cost 

of Federal IT infrastructure. Of this $15,000,000, the Committee is 

including $7,500,000 for the Center for IT Excellence proposed by 

GSA. The center will deploy a selected set of infrastructure services, cloud based applications, offer Infrastructure as a service to 

agencies, and provide portal government applications. 

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for USASpending.gov for 

implementation of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Public Law 109–282). At USASpending.gov, 

citizens will be able to see how, when, with whom, and on what the 

Government is spending taxpayer funds, and whether or not that 

money is delivering results. 

The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for Efficient Federal 

Workforce activities, an initiative that will provide a significant expansion of technologies for file sharing and access management, 

and investment in a system that spans across all agencies, rather 

than relying on agency-centric systems. The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for participation and collaboration, including, 

harnessing new technologies, an initiative for the development and 

deployment of Web 2.0 technologies in a way that would encourage 

citizen participation and collaboration. 

Finally, $3,000,000 is recommended for Data.gov, an online repository that allows the public to easily find, download, and use 

publicly available data sets that are generated and held by the 

Federal Government. 

The Committee urges GSA to administer this funding in joint 

consultation with the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee expects GSA to use funds for infrastructure pilots primarily 

on infrastructure migration activities related to consolidation, 

standardization, and optimization. This will allow GSA to identify 

enterprise-wide common solutions that have the potential to eliminate duplication and lower the total cost of Federal information 

technology infrastructure. To increase efficiencies, the Committee 

urges GSA to use the funds provided for the Center of IT Excellence to further examine the use of secure virtualized data centers 

by co-locating the Center at an existing multi-tenant, Government 

Owned/Government Operated [GOGO] data facility. 

ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $2,934,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,756,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,756,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This appropriation provides for an annual pension and compensation for office staffs and other related operating expenses for 

each former President pursuant to Public Law 85–745. The cost of 
97 

franking privileges for the widows of former President Reagan and 

former President Ford are also funded in this appropriation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $3,756,000 for allowances and office 

staff for former Presidents, $822,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

funding level and the same as the budget request. 

Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee’s recommendation for fiscal year 2010 funding: 

FISCAL YEAR 2010 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 70 102 ................ 238 

Benefits for Former Presidents .......................... 199 199 210 210 ................ 818 

Travel .................................................................. 2 56 5 80 ................ 143 

Rental Payments to GSA .................................... 102 175 579 345 ................ 1,201 

Communications, Utilities, and Miscellaneous 

Charges: 

Telephone ................................................... 10 17 7 85 ................ 119 

Postage ...................................................... 15 13 14 20 14 76 

Printing ............................................................... 5 14 18 26 ................ 63 

Other Services .................................................... 75 112 51 162 ................ 400 

Supplies & Materials .......................................... 5 15 2 40 ................ 62 

Equipment .......................................................... 7 69 36 86 ................ 198 

Total Obligations ................................... 518 830 1,088 1,306 14 3,756 

PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $8,520,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

This appropriation provides for an orderly transfer of executive 

leadership, in accordance with the Presidential Transition Act of 

1963. Funds are only requested during a Presidential election year 

and are not available for obligation by the incumbent administration. The Committee is therefore not recommending funding for fiscal year 2010. 

FEDERAL CITIZEN SERVICES FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $36,096,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 36,515,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 36,515,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Federal Citizen Services Fund [FCSF] (formerly the Federal 

Citizen Information Center) appropriation provides for the salaries 

and expenses of the Office of Citizen Services [OCS]. The FCSF 

consolidates all of GSA’s citizen-oriented programs into a single 

funding source by unifying OCS programs formerly funded by the 

Federal Citizen Information Center Fund and the Operating Expenses appropriations. The Office of Citizen Services provides citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media with access 
98 

points to easily obtain Government information and services via 

the Internet, e-mail, print, and telephone. 

The OCS provides information and services to the public primarily through USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov, the official web 

portals of the U.S. Government. OCS also operates pueblo.gsa.gov, 

consumeraction.gov and consumidor.gov, webcontent.gov, and 

kids.gov websites. OCS provides direct telephone (1–800–FED– 

INFO), e-mail and online assistance to citizens through the National Contact Center, and offers simple and cost-effective contact 

center solutions to customer Federal agencies through the USA 

Services 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 administrative support to various interagency steering committees. OCS provides management 

of the USA.gov hosting infrastructure, including support for all 

Federal agency applications on USA.gov, 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 Indian 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 FCSF 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 FCSF 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 $36,515,000 for the Federal Services 

Center, an increase of $419,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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 for meeting program requirements. 

Section 512 requires that the fiscal year 2011 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, secu-
99 

rity 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 

Care, Housing, and Human Services, access to GSA Sources of Supply. 

HARRY S TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 660,000 

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 2009, despite having cut expenditures 

by 27 percent, annual trust fund revenue has declined 33 percent. 

The Foundation anticipates a budget deficit of $500,000 for fiscal 

year 2010 if appropriations are not provided. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $660,000 for the 

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation. This amount is $160,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $660,000 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. 
100 

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $38,811,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 40,339,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,339,000 

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 $40,339,000 for 

the Merit Systems Protection Board. This is an increase of 

$1,528,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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 SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,200,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,850,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall 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 Foundation. The 

Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships, and grants, and 

funds activities of the Udall Center. 

The Morris K. Udall Foundation also supports training programs 

for professionals in health care policy and public policy, such as the 
101 

Native Nations Institute [NNI]. NNI, 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 $3,850,000 for 

the Morris K. Udall Foundation. This amount is $100,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $1,650,000 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $2,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,800,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000 

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 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 $3,000,000 for 

the Morris K. Udall Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This 

amount is $900,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

$800,000 below 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 respon-
102 

sibilities including mediating Freedom of Information Act disputes 

and coordinating controlled unclassified information. 

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $330,308,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 339,770,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 339,770,000 

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 $339,770,000 for operating expenses 

of the National Archives and Records Administration for fiscal year 

2010. This amount is $9,462,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee’s recommendation includes requested funds to 

implement the Controlled Unclassified Information [CUI] Office to 

oversee the CUI framework, operate the Office of Government Information Services to support accessibility to records under the 

Freedom of Information Act, expand the archival staff by 12 FTE 

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. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $4,100,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,100,000 

1 Appropriations for the Office of the Inspector General were included within the Operating 

Expenses appropriation in fiscal year 2009. 

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 

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 provides $4,100,000 for the Office of Inspector 

General [OIG] as a new separate appropriation, the same as the 

budget request. In previous fiscal years, appropriations for the OIG 

were a component of the Operating Expenses appropriation. The 

Committee supports a distinct account for the OIG in order to 

clearly identify the resources necessary to staff and operate the ex-
103 

panding mission-critical oversight and accountability functions performed by the OIG to ensure responsible NARA stewardship over 

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 Committee supports the increase above the fiscal year 2009 funding to support the hiring of two criminal investigators and one program auditor in the OIG. 

ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $67,008,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 85,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 85,500,000 

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 $85,500,000 for the ERA project. This amount is an increase of $18,492,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee provides additional resources as requested in the budget to 

support the deployment of public access and initial preservation capabilities developed during 2009. 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 2010 shall specifically identify and 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 is committed to working to ensure that this program is adequately funded on an expedited basis so ERA can preserve the Nation’s important records at the earliest feasible date. 

The Committee is highly concerned about the lack of progress in 

developing ERA capabilities to ingest electronic records from the 

previous Presidential administration. The Committee is aware that 

NARA certified initial operating capability for the Executive Office 

of the President [EOP] System in December 2008. However, a recent review by the Government Accountability Office [GAO] determined that less than 3 percent of the electronic records from the 

Bush administration had been ingested into the system at the time 
104 

of the review and that NARA did not expect the remainder to be 

ingested until October 2009. 

The Committee is concerned that until NARA completely and accurately ingests the Bush administration Presidential records into 

the EOP system, it will be unable to use the system for its intended purpose. Furthermore, NARA will incur additional costs 

maintaining the systems it is now using to support requests for 

these records. The Committee urges NARA to place a high priority 

on addressing the delay in ingesting records. The Committee directs NARA to report to Congress no later than December 31, 2009 

on the status of the Bush administration records ingestion project. 

The Committee is also 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 

that the funding provided be devoted to establish a robust online 

backup and restoration service and ensure that adequate capabilities are in place for managing restricted information. 

The Committee notes that in March 2009, NARA officials became 

aware that an external hard drive containing copies of Clinton administration EOP data was missing from one of its facilities. The 

Committee recognizes that the sheer volume of archived materials, 

combined with a limited operating budget, means that such losses 

may occur. However, the loss of any information, particularly classified materials or personally identifiable information, should be 

considered a serious matter and NARA should take steps to 

promptly notify those individuals affected and the congressional 

committees of jurisdiction. The Committee is very concerned that 

NARA did not timely inform the Committee of the loss of this material. The Committee directs NARA to inform all relevant committees of jurisdiction of any such data breaches within 24 hours of 

when a data breach has been discovered. 

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $50,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 27,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 27,500,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $27,500,000 for the repairs and restoration account. This amount is $23,211,000 below the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee is aware of the great need of repairs of Presidential libraries, particularly the FDR Presidential Library, which 

suffers from flooding, whose infrastructure is dangerously deterio-
105 

rated and outdated, and whose systems violate NARA’s standards 

for preservation. 

The Committee is pleased to support the request, which includes 

$17,500,000 to complete the renovation of the FDR Presidential Library, the oldest in the Presidential library system. This funding 

will ensure that this facility meets modern standards and that the 

records of President Roosevelt are housed in appropriate space. The 

Committee is particularly encouraged that the budget request reflects the highest priority needs in the capital improvement plan. 

The Committee expects the remaining $10,000,000 to be used to 

fund repairs and restorations to 16 NARA-owned facilities. 

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 2010 budget submission and urges NARA to include 

an appropriate level of funding for repair of valuable historic Presidential libraries in the fiscal year 2011 budget request. 

NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $11,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,000,000 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for the National Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. This amount 

is $750,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and $2,000,000 

above the budget request. As requested, the Committee does not include a transfer of funds to the Operating Expenses account for administrative support in fiscal year 2010, as such support for staff 

costs will be provided through the base ‘‘Operating Expenses’’ account. The Committee notes that this will enable more of the funds 

to be available for grants than in previous fiscal years. 

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 (1) accelerating the Founding Fathers Online project to 

provide online access to the pre-publication transcriptions of the 
106 

papers of the Founding Fathers without charge; (2) publishing historical papers of key figures and movements in our Nation’s history; and (3) advancing archives preservation, access, and 

digitization projects within the interlocking repositories of historic 

records and hidden collections. The Committee directs that of the 

total funds made available, not less than $3,000,000 be designated 

for each of these three efforts. The Committee further notes the 

creation of two new grant programs in the Presidential Historical 

Records Preservation Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–404), including 

grants for Presidential centers of historical excellence and grants 

to preserve records of servitude, emancipation, and post-Civil War 

Reconstruction. The Committee appreciates the competing demands for scarce resources, and provides an additional $2,000,000 

above the request to address the additional responsibilities. The 

Committee expects that up to $1,000,000 of the funds provided be 

devoted to each of the two new grant programs under Public Law 

110–404. The Committee urges NARA to consult with the members 

of the NHPRC in formulating prioritization of resources. 

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) 
107 

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 2010. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 

[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 

‘‘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 $1,000,000 for technical assistance 

grants to community development credit unions. This funding level 

is equal to the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $13,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 13,665,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,665,000 

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. 

OGE carries out these responsibilities by developing regulations 

pertaining to conflicts of interest, postemployment restrictions, 
108 

standards of conduct, and public and confidential financial disclosure in the executive branch; by monitoring compliance with financial disclosure requirements by recommending appropriate corrective action when necessary; by evaluating the effectiveness of applicable laws; and by preparing advisory opinions and policy memoranda interpreting requirements regarding conflicts of interest, 

post employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and financial 

disclosure. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,665,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in fiscal 

year 2010. This amount is $665,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 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, as well as initiatives undertaken to fulfill OGE’s critical role 

in Presidential transition issues, including education on post-employment restrictions for outgoing officials and processing the public financial disclosure reports filed by the Presidential nominees 

for high-level positions requiring Senate confirmation. The funding 

level will also allow OGE to provide the necessary training and 

guidance to equip both new and experienced ethics officials to handle ethics issues within their agencies. 

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $92,829,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 94,970,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 94,970,000 

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 increasingly responsible 

for personnel operations, OPM provides a Government-wide policy 

framework for personnel matters, advises and assists agencies 

(often on a reimbursable basis), and ensures that agency operations 

are consistent with requirements of law on issues such as veterans 

preference. OPM oversees examining of applicants for employment, 

issues regulations and policies on hiring, classification and pay, 

training, investigations, other aspects of personnel management, 

and operates a reimbursable training program for the Federal Government’s managers and executives. OPM is also responsible for 

administering the retirement, health benefits, and life insurance 

programs affecting most Federal employees, retired Federal employees, and their survivors. 
109 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a general fund appropriation of 

$94,970,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of Personnel 

Management. This amount is $2,141,000 above the fiscal year 2009 

level and the same as the budget request. 

The recommendation includes $5,908,000 for the Enterprise 

Human Resources Integration project and $1,364,000 for the 

Human Resources Line of Business project. 

Retirement Systems Modernization.—The Committee is appreciative of the new Director’s intention to make retirement systems 

modernization a top priority for OPM. In its April 2009 report, 

GAO recommended that OPM provide immediate attention to ensure that six actions are taken. The Committee is encouraged that 

OPM agrees with the six recommendations outlined in the GAO report and has begun to address them. The Committee is providing 

additional funds for fiscal year 2010 to allow OPM to begin taking 

the critical, foundational steps necessary to ensure success for this 

program. Getting this program back on track with appropriate 

management leadership, controls, oversight, and with the goal of 

ensuring accurate and timely computation of annual annuities for 

all Federal retirees, is a high priority. 

Disability Policy and Leadership.—OPM, as the personnel agency 

for the Federal Government, should be committed to helping the 

Federal Government become the model employer Congress and the 

law mandate that it be, with regard to individuals with disabilities. 

The Committee commends OPM on its outreach to Federal agencies, stakeholders, and job seekers regarding the Schedule A appointing authority. The Committee believes, however, that greater 

use could be made of the Internet in communicating the Federal 

Government’s policies regarding employing persons with disabilities. The Committee believes that the USAJOBS electronic employment portal could be made more user-friendly for those seeking 

information and applicants who wish to be considered under Schedule A authority. Including direct links to clearly written explanations of the Schedule A authority and including this topic in 

presentations of frequently asked questions would greatly improve 

the value of the website. The Committee directs OPM to work expeditiously to improve the USAJOBS site to make information about 

Schedule A authority more readily accessible and to report to the 

Committee of specific actions taken. The report should be submitted not later than 120 days after enactment. 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program and Nursing 

Shortage.—The Committee is concerned with the ongoing shortage 

of nurses, which is due in large part to the national shortage of 

nurse faculty, and encourages OPM to assist in alleviating the 

shortage through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility 

Program. This program provides for the temporary assignment of 

personnel between the Federal Government and State and local 

governments, colleges and universities, and other eligible entities. 

Federally employed nurses could be given the opportunity to serve 

a temporary assignment in an accredited school of nursing. The 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that more than 1 million 

new and replacement registered nurses will be needed by 2016. 
110 

However, schools of nursing are forced to turn away thousands of 

qualified applicants each year due to faculty shortages. The Federal Government currently employs more than 53,000 nurses domestically, and many have the educational background and expertise to teach the next generation of nurses, in the process gaining 

valuable experience and informing students about careers in government service. 

The Committee directs OPM to carry out the Intergovernmental 

Personnel Act Mobility Program with special attention provided to 

Federal agencies employing more than 2,000 nurses. OPM may develop guidelines that provide Federal agencies direction or guidance in using their authority under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program— 

—to provide financial assistance to Federal employees holding a 

degree in nursing to accept an assignment to teach in an accredited school of nursing in exchange for a commitment from 

the individual to serve for an additional term in Federal service or a commitment from the school of nursing to take additional steps to increase its number of nursing students that 

will commit to Federal service upon graduation; and 

—to provide financial or other assistance to Federal employees 

who have served as a nurse in the Federal Government, are eligible for retirement, and are qualified to teach to expedite the 

transition of such individuals into nurse faculty positions. 

The Committee is mindful of the challenges the Federal Government faces in recruitment efforts to attract and retain talented 

nurses. OPM should work with the Committee to determine the 

best approach to assigning Government-employed nurses to public 

and private universities and ways to encourage accredited schools 

of nursing to promote nursing careers in Federal agencies. 

Employment for the Blind.—The Committee applauds the administration’s commitment to programs which support disabled Americans to become fully employed and integrated into their communities. The Committee looks forward to receiving and considering 

the previously requested report on this matter, including the views 

of the Federal employee labor organizations. 

LIMITATION

(TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $118,082,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 113,238,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 112,738,000 

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 $112,738,000, which 

is $5,344,000 less than the fiscal year 2009 level and $500,000 less 
111 

than the budget request. The amount includes not more than 

$4,000,000 for retirement systems modernization. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,828,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,136,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,136,000 

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 $2,136,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in fiscal 

year 2010. This amount is $308,000 more than the fiscal year 2009 

enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

(LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $18,755,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 20,428,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,428,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the 

trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General activities 

totaling $20,428,000 for fiscal year 2009. This amount is $1,673,000 

more than the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, and the same as the 

budget request. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEES HEALTH

BENEFITS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $9,533,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 9,814,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,814,000,000 
112 

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 $9,814,000,000 for Government payments for annuitants, employees health benefits. 

GOVERNMENT PAYMENT FOR ANNUITANTS, EMPLOYEE LIFE

INSURANCE

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $46,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 48,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 48,000,000 

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 contribution associated with annuitants’ post-retirement life insurance coverage. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of $48,000,000 for the Government payment for annuitants, employee 

life insurance. 

PAYMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $10,550,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 10,276,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 10,276,000,000 

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 an-
113 

nuity 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 

$10,276,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and disability fund. 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $17,468,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 18,495,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 18,495,000 

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 

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. 

In 2008, OSC’s assistance or action was sought by Federal employees and others in more than 7,399 instances, an increase of 

over 31 percent over 2007. OSC obtained 62 favorable actions in 

prohibited personnel practice cases, 32 corrective actions in Hatch 

Act complaints, and 28 corrective actions in USERRA cases. OSC 

received 445 Hatch Act complaints during 2008, an increase of 

nearly 58 percent over 2007. OSC issued 4,283 Hatch Act advisory 

opinions (both written and oral) to persons who sought advice, an 

increase of over 53 percent. During 2008, OSC’s Disclosure Unit received 530 new disclosure matters for possible referral, an increase 

of 10 percent. The Disclosure Unit referred matters to agency 

heads for their review a total of 40 times during 2008. 
114 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,495,000 for the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is $1,027,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $14,043,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 14,333,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,333,000 

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 $14,333,000 for the Postal Regulatory Commission. This 

amount is $290,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level and 

the same as the budget request. The funds will support 74 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 2010, the Commis-
115 

sion will issue an annual compliance determination report assessing the Postal Service’s compliance with the ratemaking regulations and applicable laws. 

PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,000,000 

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. 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 concerned that now, 18 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. 

RECOVERY ACT ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY BOARD

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. 1 $84,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... ........................... 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 

1 Includes $84,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board (Recovery Board) was authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5) (Recovery Act). The Re-
116 

covery Board is composed of Inspectors General of agencies administering programs and overseeing spending authorized in the Recovery Act. The Recovery Board conducts and coordinates activities 

related to the accountability, transparency, and oversight of spending under the Recovery Act and oversees the administration of Recovery.gov, a website providing detailed information on the implementation of the Recovery Act. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee does not recommend additional funding for the 

Recovery Board for fiscal year 2010 which is consistent with the 

budget request. Funding for the Recovery Board in fiscal year 2010 

shall be derived from funds provided in the Recovery Act, which 

will remain available until September 30, 2011 for the salaries, expenses, and operating costs of the Board as well as the administration of Recovery.gov. 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $970,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,026,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,126,000,000 

1 Includes $10,000,000 in emergency appropriations provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32) 

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 30,000 registrants including 

12,000 public companies, 4,600 mutual funds, 11,300 investment 

advisers, 600 transfer agents, and 5,500 broker dealers. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends a total budget (obligational) authority of $1,126,000,000 for the salaries and expenses of the SEC, including $1,115,780,000 from new fee collections and $10,220,000 

from prior year balances. This total funding level is $166,000,000 

above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, not including emergency 

funds provided in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–32) and $100,000,000 above the budget request, to 

allow the SEC to begin to address staffing shortfalls and upgrade 

inadequate information technology. 
117 

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 

acknowledges that funding shortfalls have hampered SEC’s ability 

to fulfill its mission. The SEC’s staffing remain 5 percent below 

what the SEC was provided in 2005 when the SEC received additional funding due to Enron and other corporate scandals. Staffing 

shortfalls impact the SEC’s ability to ensure adequate supervision 

of market participants and promote and sustain public confidence 

in the integrity of our capital markets. 

The Committee’s recommended funding increase would allow the 

SEC to return to fiscal year 2005 staffing levels and fund an additional 5 percent staffing increase to support more aggressive policing of the securities markets through examinations and enforcement actions. The recommended funding increase would strengthen 

SEC’s examination responsibilities by enabling SEC’s Office of 

Compliance Inspections and Examinations to hire market experts 

to strengthen risk-based oversight of the investment management 

industry and expand its inspections of credit rating agencies. The 

recommended funds would 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. 

While the number of registered investment advisers dramatically 

grew since 2005, the SEC staff overseeing these entities dropped by 

over 7 percent. 

Similarly, in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, the recommended increase would allow the SEC to vigorously advance its 

enforcement mission by hiring more trial lawyers and experienced 

staff with specialized skills. Resource challenges in recent years 

have affected the SEC’s ability to bring enforcement actions 

promptly and efficiently. Reduced staffing levels have prevented 

promising leads from being pursued and have resulted in cases 

being closed prematurely. 

The Committee also supports expansion of the SEC’s Office of 

Risk Assessment and its program to bring in seasoned industry 

professionals to help uncover hidden risks to investors. 

In addition, the recommended increase would support urgent, 

critical investments in information technology upgrades so that 

SEC’s staff have cutting edge automation support tools to enhance 

their ability to promptly handle tips, complaints, and referrals as 

well as to better identify emerging risks using improved surveillance tools. 

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. 

As noted previously in this report, the Committee is aware of discussions to harmonize regulatory oversight of futures and securities 
118 

products to achieve greater protection of investors, ensure market 

integrity, and promote price transparency. As specified earlier 

under the Committee’s discussion of its recommendations for the 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Committee directs 

the Government Accountability Office to report to Congress not 

later than March 1, 2010 on the extent of conflicts in statutes and 

regulations with respect to the similarities in futures and securities 

and provide recommendations that would reduce or eliminate discrepancies and gaps, enhance regulatory effectiveness and efficiency, and heighten market transparency. 

The Committee is 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 expects 

the work of the Office to remain a high priority during fiscal year 

2010 and directs the SEC to continue to submit quarterly reports 

on its activities. 

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 encourages the SEC to continue its efforts to improve the timeliness of disbursement of funds to investors victimized by securities fraud. The Committee applauds the SEC’s efforts 

to establish a specialized office devoted to ensuring that funds are 

promptly disbursed and install a new computer system to simplify 

the tracking, collection, and distribution of assessed penalties. 

The Committee is pleased that the SEC has made strides to simplify complex information and improve electronic public access to 

investment information through interactive data systems. The 

Committee is aware of a growing need for SEC-regulated entities 

to provide accurate and consistent reporting of their financial risks 

due to climate change. In order to ensure such information is provided to investors and the public, the SEC is encouraged to issue 

guidance clarifying the disclosures of climate change-related risk 

that regulated entities should provide in their regular financial reporting under current law. 

SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $22,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 24,400,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,400,000 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Selective Service System is an independent Federal agency, 

operating with permanent authorization under the Military Selec-
119 

tive 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 $24,400,000 for 

the Selective Service System. This amount is $2,400,000 above the 

fiscal year 2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. 

The Committee encourages the System to continue the development of its Central Registrant Processing Portal Initiative, and to 

improve the cost effectiveness of the registration process by continuing to increase the percentage of electronic and automatic registrations. 

The Committee supports the allocation of $2,000,000 for upgrading the Service’s information technology systems. A modernized 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, and facilitate 

improved customer services through the Internet. 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $1,342,280,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 779,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 860,904,000 

1 Includes $730,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Public Law 111–5). 

The Committee recommendation provides $860,904,000 for the 

Small Business Administration [SBA]. The recommendation is 

$481,376,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, which included funds provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, and is $81,604,000 above the budget request. Funding 

is distributed among the SBA appropriation accounts as described 

below. 
120 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $455,896,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 422,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 444,000,000 

1 Includes $69,000,000 provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

The Committee recommendation provides $444,000,000 for salaries and expenses of the SBA. The recommendation is $11,896,000 

below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, which included funds provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

[ARRA], and is $22,000,000 above the budget request. 

Non-credit Business Assistance Programs.—Within the amounts 

made available under this heading, the Committee recommendation provides $185,630,000 for the SBA non-credit business assistance programs. The recommendation is $26,718,000 above the 

budget request and $658,000 below the 2009 enacted level, which 

included funds provided in ARRA. 

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 

budget estimate 

Committee 

recommendation 

Small Business Development Centers .................................................................................... 97,000 114,400 

Drug-free Workplace Grants ................................................................................................... 1,030 1,030 

SCORE ..................................................................................................................................... 5,148 7,000 

Women’s Business Centers ..................................................................................................... 13,020 14,300 

Women’s Business Council ..................................................................................................... 773 1,000 

Microloan Technical Assistance .............................................................................................. 10,000 22,000 

Veterans Programs .................................................................................................................. 2,200 2,500 

PRIME ...................................................................................................................................... 3,120 5,500 

Native American Outreach ...................................................................................................... 1,040 1,500 

7(j) Technical Assistance ....................................................................................................... 3,397 3,400 

HUBZone .................................................................................................................................. 2,184 3,000 

Entrepreneurial Development Initiative .................................................................................. 20,000 10,000 

Total, Non-credit Business Assistance Programs ..................................................... 158,912 185,630 

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 $114,400,000 for 

fiscal year 2010, an increase of $17,400,000 above the budget request and $4,400,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted level. The 

Committee is concerned with the administration’s request to reduce 

funding for SBDCs in fiscal year 2010 to $97,000,000, a reduction 

of $13,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 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 busi-
121 

nesses 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. The Committee recommends that up to $10,000,000 shall be 

available for a new Entrepreneurial Development program administered by the SBA, $10,000,000 above the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level and $10,000,000 below the budget request. The Committee is 

pleased with the administration’s planned initiatives under this 

proposed program to enhance the effectiveness of veterans assistance programs, encourage regional economic clusters, and provide 

small business development assistance to areas most devastated by 

the current economic crisis. 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 $3,000,000 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 2010, temporarily increases the maximum 

amount of grant funding eligibility for qualified Microloan intermediaries and temporarily waives the requirement for Microloan 

intermediaries to contribute non-Federal matching funds. These 

temporary conditions will provide relief to Microloan intermediaries 

that are providing increased assistance to Microloan borrowers and 

struggling to secure private matching funds during the economic 

downturn. The Committee fully expects to restore these requirements for fiscal year 2011 funding. 

The Committee supports funding for veterans programs and veterans business outreach centers and provides $2,500,000 for vet-
122 

erans programs, an increase of $300,000 above the budget request 

and $1,300,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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. 

The Committee understands how critical it is to assist small 

business owners in their beginning start-up stages. Through the 

Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, 

SBA’s 7(j) program provides training to 8(a) firms (firms that are 

socially or economically disadvantaged). These firms are eligible for 

Government contracts set-aside specifically for small businesses; 

however, because of a firm’s status as a socially or economically 

disadvantaged firm, its employees need more than just financial 

opportunities to grow. These firms are also in need of technical assistance to help them meet the demands of these contracts. 7(j) 

training is a significant part of the 8(a) program effort to promote 

small business opportunities and growth. The Committee directs 

SBA to provide a status update report reviewing the last 5 years 

of the 7(j) program, including the number of clients trained, the 

length of training program, the cost per client per training program, follow-up actions, description and examples of curricula provided, and all other relevant information that would provide the 

Committee with insight into the performance of the 7(j) program. 

This report shall be submitted no later than 180 days from the 

date of enactment. 

Operating Expenses.—Within the amounts made available under 

this heading, the Committee recommendation provides 

$258,370,000 for SBA’s operating expenses. The recommendation is 

$11,238,000 below the 2009 enacted level, which included funds 

provided in ARRA, and is $4,718,000 below the budget request. The 

funding recommendations are made in accordance with the information included in the budget justification, with the following exceptions: up to $8,000,000 is provided to hire 80 additional FTEs 

to enhance operational support associated with the expected increase in purchases, processing, and monitoring of existing SBA 

loans; $1,000,000 is provided for quality assurance and best practice reviews; $1,000,000 is provided for a study of the next generation of equity capital companies; and $1,000,000 is provided as an 

additional amount for costs associated with administering the 

small business development and entrepreneurship initiatives provided in section 503. The Committee directs SBA to utilize funding 

provided for operating expenses in fiscal year 2010 and funding 

available from prior year appropriations, including funding provided in ARRA, to support full-time, dedicated staff, including a Director, for the Microloan program. 

The Committee is pleased with SBA’s progress to date on implementing provisions in ARRA related to increasing access to capital 

for small businesses. The Committee notes that SBA has made a 

strong effort to implement new programs and changes in existing 

programs under ARRA in a timely manner while ensuring that 

such programs are designed and administered efficiently and effec-
123 

tively. The Committee directs SBA to continue placing a top priority on implementing ARRA programs. 

Within the amounts recommended for SBA’s operating expenses, $11,690,500 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 notes that this large modernization effort coincides with SBA’s implementation of ARRA programs 

and SBA’s proposal to initiate new entrepreneurial development 

programs, both of which are significant endeavors. 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. 

The Committee strongly supports the SBA’s Historically Underutilized Business Zone [HUBZone] program and believes that it is 

a critical resource for distressed communities, especially during the 

current economic downturn. The program was created to stimulate 

economic development and job creation in distressed areas by providing access to more Federal contracting opportunities for qualified small businesses. Accordingly, the Committee has provided additional funding as requested by the administration to improve 

SBA’s administration and oversight of the HUBZone program and 

strongly encourages SBA to continue its efforts in strengthening its 

management and oversight of this important program. 

The Committee is pleased with the results of the Office of Personnel Management’s 2008 survey, ‘‘Best Places to Work in the 

Federal Government.’’ SBA employee responses to questions related 

to job satisfaction resulted in SBA ranking 26 out of 30 agencies, 

a significant improvement from the 2007 ranking of last place. The 

Committee is encouraged by the administration’s plans to focus efforts on employee training. Training is a key part of improving employee morale because staff can anticipate professional growth and 

career progression within the organization, as well as see how improving their skills can contribute to improving agency performance. The Committee directs SBA to document a comprehensive 

plan for training that links core competencies to SBA’s goals, in accordance with recommendations from the Government Accountability Office. Finally, the Committee recommends that, in addition 

to pursuing valuable outside studies of quality assurance and best 

practice reviews, senior management seek and incorporate the 

opinions of experienced career staff on further steps that can be 

taken to improve the administration of SBA programs and job satisfaction of SBA employees. 

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 posi-
124 

tions which have remained vacant for several years, to ensure adequate services for small businesses. 

The Committee is aware that the SBA currently has 17 international finance specialists posted throughout the country at onestop assistance centers operated by the Department of Commerce. 

This program has facilitated well over $10,000,000,000 in exports 

in the last 10 years, helping to create 140,000 new and higher-paying jobs. The Committee directs the SBA to review and make efforts to fill international finance specialist vacancies in high export 

areas, especially vacancies which have remained unfilled for several years. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $26,750,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 16,300,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,300,000 

1 Includes $10,000,000 provided in 2009 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

The Committee recommendation provides $16,300,000 for the Office of Inspector General. The recommendation is $10,450,000 

below the fiscal year 2009 enacted level, which included funds provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 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, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $17,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,000,000 

1 Includes $15,000,000 provided in 2009 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000. The recommendation is $16,000,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level, which included funds provided in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is the same as the budget request. 

BUSINESS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $776,980,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 236,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 236,000,000 

1 Includes $636,000,000 provided in 2009 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (Public Law 111–5). 

The Committee recommendation provides $236,000,000. The rec- ommendation is $540,980,000 below the fiscal year 2009 enacted 

level, which included funds provided in the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is equal to the budget request. The recommendation provides $153,000,000 for administrative 

expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with SBA sala-
125 

ries and expenses to cover the common overhead expenses associated with the business loans programs. 

The recommendation provides $3,000,000 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 

notes that while only 165 entities are qualified as Microlending 

intermediaries under the Microloan program, the Small Business 

Act authorizes the administration to fund up to 300 Microloan 

intermediaries annually. The Committee urges SBA 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 conducting such outreach and other plans for expanding the reach of 

the Microloan program. 

The recommendation provides $80,000,000 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 2010 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 2010. The Committee expects the program to return to typical operation when the economy 

recovers. 

The Committee is familiar with SBA’s loan program known as 

Patriot Express, and its efforts to conduct outreach to veterans who 

may be seeking to start or grow a small business. The Committee 

directs SBA to collaborate with the U.S. Department of Labor, especially its Veterans Employment and Training Services Office, 

and the U.S. Veterans Administration, the U.S. Department of Defense, all other relevant Federal agencies, State and local governments, not-for profit organizations, and other stakeholders to identify existing studies, programs, resources, and all available Federal 

funding to assist veterans in starting and/or growing a small business. The Committee directs SBA to provide a report, no later than 

180 days from the date of enactment, on its findings and recommended next steps for greater assistance to veteran small business owners through existing grants, loans, and educational programs and assistance. 

DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. ........................... 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $104,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 104,000,000 

The Committee provides $104,000,000 for the Disaster Loans 

program. The recommendation is $104,000,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. Of the 

total funding, $1,690,000 is recommended for two pilot disaster 
126 

loan guarantee programs authorized in the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–246) and $102,310,000 is 

recommended for necessary administrative expenses for carrying 

out disaster loan programs. Any direct loan subsidies required in 

fiscal year 2010 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 provides $59,604,000 for small business development 

and entrepreneurship initiatives, including programmatic and construction activities, to be awarded as follows: 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership for the AMBIT Youth Entrepreneurship Curriculum, 

Anchorage, AK.

$200,000 

SBA ....... Alcorn State University for the Systems Research Institute, MS ................................................... $250,000 

SBA ....... Amoskeag Business Incubator, Manchester, NH ............................................................................. $120,000 

SBA ....... Bennett College for Women, The Center for Women’s Entrepreneurship, Greensboro, NC ............ $100,000 

SBA ....... Boise State University for a research, economic development and entrepreneurial initiative, 

ID.

$200,000 

SBA ....... Brewer Business and Commerce Park, Brewer, ME ........................................................................ $1,050,000 

SBA ....... Center for Economic Growth, Watervliet Innovation Center, Albany, NY ........................................ $117,500 

SBA ....... Central Connecticut State University, for a manufacturing workforce initiative and technical 

assistance program, New Britain, CT.

$100,000 

SBA ....... Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf’s Community Kitchen Expansion Project, Burlington, VT.$100,000 

SBA ....... City of Buffalo, Buffalo clean energy incubator, Buffalo, NY ........................................................ $117,500 

SBA ....... City of Jal, renovation of Burke Junior High School to house business ventures, Jal, NM ........... $85,000 

SBA ....... City of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles Technology Advancement Program and Clean Technology Development Center, Los Angeles, CA.$250,000 

SBA ....... City of Providence, Department of Planning and Development, Rhode Island Center for Life 

Sciences, research, development and commercialization, Providence, RI.

$300,000 

SBA ....... City of Salem, downtown revitalization ‘‘toolbox’’ program, Salem, OR ........................................ $200,000

SBA ....... City of Santa Rosa, Ilfeld Warehouse business incubator, Santa Rosa, NM ................................. $170,000 

SBA ....... College of Notre Dame of Maryland, for lab facilities, Baltimore, MD .......................................... $100,000 

SBA ....... Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Fort Collins, CO ............... $200,000 

SBA ....... Community College of Philadelphia, Northeast Regional Center for small business education, 

growth, and training, Philadelphia, PA.

$100,000 

SBA ....... Community Economic Development Fund Foundation, Small Business Institute, for training and 

technical assistance to stabilize small business operations, Meriden, CT.

$100,000 

SBA ....... Community Links Hawaii for planning and development of Oahu Technology and Innovation 

Park, Oahu, HI.

$250,000 

SBA ....... Community Service Society of New York, financial education project, New York, NY ................... $117,500 

SBA ....... Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, Entrepreneurial Development and Government Procurement Center, Honolulu, HI.$300,000 

SBA ....... Cuyahoga Community College, veterans outreach and business development program, Cleveland, OH.$200,000 

SBA ....... Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center [DVIRC] for small business succession planning 

services, Philadelphia, PA.

$175,000 

SBA ....... Department of Community Affairs, Division on Women, New Jersey Women’s Microbusiness 

Credit Program, for training and mentoring activities, Trenton, NJ.

$100,000 

SBA ....... Detroit Renaissance, Detroit Creative Corridor Center, Detroit, MI ................................................ $200,000 

SBA ....... Eastern Washington University for accelerating economic development in rural and underserved communities of the Inland Pacific Northwest, Spokane, WA.$200,000 

SBA ....... Entrepreneurial Development Center Program, College Park, GA ................................................... $125,000 

SBA ....... Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority, Colorado Drug, Device, and Diagnostic Development Institute, Aurora, CO.$220,000 

SBA ....... Florida Institute of Technology, Florida Advanced Combustion Center, Brevard County, FL ......... $200,000 
127 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... Great Falls Development Authority, to support the administrative costs of the Central Montana 

Growth Fund, Great Falls, MT.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program 

[SATOP], Syracuse, NY.

$117,500 

SBA ....... Hannah Grimes Center, business incubator renovation and expansion, Keene, NH ...................... $80,000 

SBA ....... Haymarket Center for a workforce development initiative, Chicago, IL ......................................... $700,000

SBA ....... HOPE Community Development Corporation for an economic development initiative, Charleston, 

WV.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Illinois Eastern Community Colleges for the Small Business Development Center, Olney, IL ...... $200,000 

SBA ....... Illinois Institute of Technology for University Technology Park, Chicago, IL .................................. $600,000 

SBA ....... Illinois State Library to expand access to Illinois public libraries, Springfield, IL ....................... $300,000 

SBA ....... Illinois State University for the McLean County Business Incubator, Normal, IL .......................... $500,000 

SBA ....... Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development through Heritage Tourism, 

MS.

$500,000 

SBA ....... Kansas World Trade Center for the Wichita EcoPartnership, Wichita, KS ..................................... $400,000 

SBA ....... Kelley Road Business Park, Orono, ME ........................................................................................... $200,000 

SBA ....... Latin Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Leadership Program, Las Vegas, NV ............................... $213,333 

SBA ....... Lawrence CommunityWorks, Union Crossing Mill Redevelopment, Lawrence, MA ......................... $200,000 

SBA ....... Leavenworth Technology and Research Park, Leavenworth, KS ..................................................... $300,000 

SBA ....... Loring Commerce Centre Infrastructure Development for the Loring Development Authority, 

Limestone, ME.

$975,700 

SBA ....... Louisiana Office of Social Entrepreneurship for administrative costs of a business planning 

initiative, Baton Rouge, LA.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Credit Counseling Capacity Building, St. Paul, MN ......... $200,000 

SBA ....... McNeese State University, Southwest Louisiana Entrepreneurial and Economic Development 

Center [SEED], Lake Charles, LA.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Minot State University-Bottineau, Entrepreneurial Center for Horticulture, Bottineau, ND ........... $250,000 

SBA ....... Mississippi Biotechnology Association for Capacity Building for the Mississippi Biotechnology 

Industry, Ridgeland, MS.

$250,000 

SBA ....... Mississippi State University for the Entrepreneurship Center to Develop New Entity Creation 

[ECDEC], MS.

$500,000 

SBA ....... Mississippi Technology Alliance for the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, MS ........... $850,000 

SBA ....... Missouri Chamber Education Foundation to develop a small business technology, training and 

outreach center, Jefferson City, MO.

$1,000,000 

SBA ....... Montana Technology Venture Center, for expansion and operations of the TechRanch next step 

program, Bozeman, MT.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Nebraska Community Foundation, HomeTown Competitiveness, Lincoln, NE ................................ $275,000 

SBA ....... Neighborhood Development Center, Midtown Global Market business technical assistance, St. 

Paul, MN.

$200,000 

SBA ....... Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology [NCET], small business and entrepreneurship development, NV.$213,333 

SBA ....... Nevada Small Business Development Center, for Imagine 2012, an Hispanic business development initiative, Reno, NV.$213,334 

SBA ....... North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center for a Rural Business Finance Program, 

Raleigh, NC.

$250,000 

SBA ....... North Carolina School of the Arts/Winston-Salem State University, The Center for Design Innovation, Winston-Salem, NC.$100,000 

SBA ....... Northern Virginia Community College for retraining displaced workers in Geographic Information Systems, Richmond, VA.$200,000 

SBA ....... Northwest Pennsylvania Incubator Association for an incubator project, Erie County, PA ........... $100,000 

SBA ....... Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN ............................................... $750,000 

SBA ....... Phillips County Economic Development for a Entrepreneur Business Enhancement Program 

[EBEP], Phillips County, KS.

$300,000 

SBA ....... Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse for the Tech Belt Biosciences Initiative, Pittsburgh, PA .... $50,000 

SBA ....... Port of Clarkston, Asotin County Industrial Park infrastructure completion, Asotin County, WA .. $300,000 

SBA ....... Portland Community College, sustainable careers for a green economic recovery, Portland, 

OR.

$200,000 

SBA ....... Prospera (Gallatin Valley Development Corporation), Accelerated Entrepreneur Program, Bozeman, MT.$200,000 

SBA ....... Rhode Island School of Design and Brown University, Partnership for Sustainable Development/Rhode Island Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship [RI–CIE], for technical assistance to small businesses on green product design and marketing and on developing 

and commercializing innovative products and services, Providence, RI.

$150,000 

SBA ....... Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME ......................................................................... $150,000 

SBA ....... Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc, for a Women and Veteran’s Business Resource Center at 

Seminole State College, Durant, OK.

$200,000 
128 

Agency Project Amount 

SBA ....... Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey urban entrepreneurship development 

initiative, New Brunswick, NJ.

$271,050 

SBA ....... Shawnee Community College for the Small Business Development Center, Ullin, IL ................... $200,000 

SBA ....... Souris Basin Regional Planning Center, North Dakota REAP Zones, ND ....................................... $250,000 

SBA ....... South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Dakota Rising for an entrepreneur development system, SD ..... $250,000 

SBA ....... The Cuban American National Council [CNC] New Jersey Regional Office, Latino financial education, foreclosure prevention, and home ownership program, Union City, NJ.$100,000 

SBA ....... The University of Mississippi for the Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS ......... $250,000 

SBA ....... The University of Southern Mississippi for the Early Stage Entrepreneur and Commercialization 

Development, Hattiesburg, MS.

$500,000 

SBA ....... Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network for job training, placement and retention services, Chicago, IL.$400,000 

SBA ....... University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water technologies, Milwaukee, WI.$250,000 

SBA ....... University of Alabama for a Business Development Research Project, Tuscaloosa, AL ................ $1,000,000 

SBA ....... University of Alaska, Small Business Development Center, Ketchikan, AK ................................... $300,000 

SBA ....... University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR .......... $225,000 

SBA ....... University of Arkansas Technology Development Foundation, Arkansas Research and Technology 

Park, Fayetteville, AR.

$225,000 

SBA ....... University of Connecticut for the Avery Point Technology Center, Groton, CT ............................... $200,000 

SBA ....... University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business and Technology Development Center, Newark, 

DE.

$350,000 

SBA ....... University of Maryland-Baltimore BioPark, Baltimore, MD ............................................................. $100,000 

SBA ....... University of Northern Iowa for MyEntreNet, a national rural entrepreneurship development system, IA.$250,000 

SBA ....... University of Southern Maine for the Science Technology Research Center, Portland, ME ........... $850,000 

SBA ....... Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, economic development center expansion, Boston, 

MA.

$200,000 

SBA ....... Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA .................................... $50,000 

SBA ....... Valencia County IT program, upgrade and training, Valencia County, NM ................................... $145,000 

SBA ....... Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the 50 for 25 Demonstration Project, Burlington, 

VT.

$50,000 

SBA ....... Vermont Farms Association for an agritourism best practices and standards project, Rochester, VT.$50,000 

SBA ....... Vermont Small Business Development Center, technical assistance to high-tech small businesses and emerging businesses, Randolph, VT.$250,000 

SBA ....... Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology, Mine safety technology and communication improvements, Herndon, VA.$200,000 

SBA ....... Wayne State University for the Law School’s Small Business Clinic, Detroit, MI ......................... $200,000 

SBA ....... West Virginia Northern Community College, Center for Economic and Workforce Advancement, 

Weirton, WV.

$137,500 

SBA ....... Western Illinois University for the Small Business Development Center, Macomb, IL .................. $400,000 

SBA ....... Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY .............................. $1,100,000 

SBA ....... Women’s Business Development Center, for entrepreneurial small business training & assistance, Stamford, CT.$100,000 

SBA ....... World Trade Center Institute Delaware, for the export assistance webinar series for business 

education, Wilmington, DE.

$50,000 

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE

PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $111,831,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 118,328,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 118,328,000 

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, reli-
129 

able, and efficient services to patrons in all areas and render postal 

services to all communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends appropriations totaling $118,328,000 for payment to the Postal Service Fund, an increase 

of $6,497,000 above the fiscal year 2009 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 $89,328,000 as an advance appropriation for fiscal year 2011, which includes $68,776,000 for 2010 costs 

and $20,552,000 for 2007 and 2008 reconciliation adjustments. 

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 

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 2010. These are services that must be maintained in 

fiscal year 2010 and beyond. 

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. 

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 

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 remains concerned about the fiscal health of the 

Postal Service. In June 2009, the Postal Service indicated that it 

anticipates a net loss of about $7,000,000,000 by the end of fiscal 

year 2009. Significant declines in mail volume, exacerbated by the 

struggling economy, have contributed to the most recent Postal 

Service financial crisis. In its unaudited monthly financial report to 

the Postal Regulatory Commission [PRC], the Postal Service 

claimed a total net loss of $677,000,000 for the month of May, 

bringing actual year-to-date losses to over $3,300,000,000. Com-
130 

pared to the same year-to-date time period for 2008, total volume 

was down by 19.9 percent and total revenues had declined by about 

$1,000,000,000. 

The Postal Service has made efforts to reduce costs, primarily by 

cutting work hours and capturing processing efficiencies. Through 

May 2009, the Postal Service had cut roughly $3,600,000,000 in expenses compared to the same period last year. In June 2009, the 

Postal Service indicated that cost savings could reach as much as 

$6,100,000,000 in fiscal year 2009, exceeding expectations by 

$200,000,000. 

Despite its efforts to cut costs, the Postal Service fiscal prospects 

are still dire, and the Postmaster General has sought the aid of 

Congress. In particular, the Postal Service has requested that Congress moderate the requirement, included in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 [PAEA], which directs the 

Postal Service to pre-fund a significant portion of its future retiree 

health benefits through the end of fiscal year 2016. Under the 

PAEA, the Postal Service is required to pay into the Postal Service 

Retiree Health Benefits Fund (the Fund) between $5,200,000,000 

and $5,800,000,000 for each fiscal year, through fiscal year 2016. 

After fiscal year 2016, any residual unliquidated liability must be 

amortized through fiscal year 2046 and paid down through regular 

future payments. Separately, the Postal Service is required to pay 

premiums to the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] for current retiree health benefits. 

Under its relief proposal, the Postal Service would continue to 

make annual payments to the Fund as required by the PAEA, but 

it would be permitted to use the Fund to pay for its current retiree 

health benefits, instead of making these separate payments from 

other operating funds. According to the Postal Service, this proposal could yield a savings of between $2,000,000,000 and 

$4,200,000,000 for each of the affected years. Nonetheless, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] has expressed concern about 

this proposal because it unravels fiscally responsible requirements 

that Congress established in the PAEA. 

To provide a limited measure of relief that maintains the fiscally 

responsible requirement to pre-fund a significant portion of future 

retiree health benefits, the Committee considered a proposal that 

would have reduced the amount of the required payments to the 

Fund and would have provided a benchmark for unliquidated Fund 

liabilities as of September 30, 2017. If the modified stream of payments would not have exceeded this liabilities benchmark, then the 

Postal Service, in coordination with OPM and the Office of Management and Budget [OMB], would have been authorized to cut the 

amount of the required payment to the Fund for any given fiscal 

year through 2016. To maintain fiscal soundness, the provision also 

would have required an increase in payments if the stream of payments failed to liquidate the enumerated benchmark for the Fund. 

The Committee was willing to consider this proposal based on 

the results of a recent Inspector General [IG] report, which indicated that the stream of payments under PAEA would result in a 

6 percent overpayment to the Fund by the end of fiscal year 2016. 

Under the IG’s analysis, the current stream of payments required 

by PAEA would yield approximately $5,600,000,000 more than the 
131 

Postal Service would need by the end of fiscal year 2016 to fully 

pre-fund its retiree health benefits. 

Because some experts, including OPM, have expressed concerns 

about the assumptions made in the Postal Service IG report, the 

Committee directs the Postal Service, in coordination with OPM 

and OMB, to develop a fiscally responsible legislative proposal to 

grant a limited measure of relief from the PAEA requirements to 

pre-fund retiree health benefits. These proposals should consider: 

(1) whether the PAEA-mandated stream of future payments 

overfunds through fiscal year 2016 the anticipated liability of the 

Postal Service for future retiree health benefits, (2) whether modifications to the mandated payments could meet the unliquidated liability goals contained in the PAEA, and (3) whether a decrease in 

mandated payments will reduce the incentive of the Postal Service 

to continue to cut additional costs, including the labor costs that 

account for the most significant portion of annual total costs. Additionally, these proposals should take into account the result of the 

PRC’s study of the PAEA payments. 

Consolidation of Mail Processing Facilities.—The Committee understands that the Postal Service has undertaken initiatives to develop a mail processing network conducive to current and future 

needs, to reduce inefficiencies and redundancies, and increase operational flexibility without impacting service. One such initiative 

has been the realignment of area mail processing [AMP] facilities. 

The Committee is aware that the Quincy, Illinois AMP is among 

the facilities for which a possible realignment feasibility study has 

been announced. The Committee is concerned about the impact on 

the community and postal customers of eliminating jobs or transferring functions. The Committee directs the Postal Service to provide the Committee with a detailed explanation of the criteria used 

to select the Quincy AMP for a study no later than 30 days after 

enactment. The Committee further directs the Postal Service to not 

proceed with the Quincy AMP study or any other related actions 

to implement that study during fiscal year 2010. 

Idaho Rural Airmail Delivery.—The Committee directs the Postmaster General to continue rural airmail delivery service in Idaho. 

The level of service shall be no less than the January 2009 level. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $239,356,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 244,397,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 244,397,000 

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 
132 

other reviews. In fiscal year 2008, the OIG efforts resulted in 455 

audits and evaluations being completed identifying potential monetary benefits of nearly $1,200,000,000, 7,679 completed investigative cases, 928 arrests and indictments, 3,699 administrative actions referred, $25,700,000 in monetary recoveries to the Postal 

Service, and over $207,000,000 in workers’ compensation and contract fraud cost avoidance. As a result the return-on-investment 

was $7.54, up from $5.85 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 $5,041,000 above the fiscal 

year 2009 funding level and the same as the budget request. The 

funds will support 1,194 FTEs and enable the Office of Inspector 

General to concentrate on its fiscal year 2010 goals of reviewing 

field financial areas, audit work in response to Sarbanes-Oxley requirements, audits of data collection systems and procedures, and 

increasing total investigative financial, criminal, and administrative outcomes. 

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $48,463,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 49,241,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 49,241,000 

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 

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 $49,241,000 for 

the U.S. Tax Court. This amount is $778,000 above the fiscal year 

2009 enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee notes that the increased funding is expected to help the Tax 

Court comply with the Court Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110– 
133 

177) which authorizes the United States Marshals Service to provide protective services to the Tax Court at the same level as such 

services are provided to other Federal Courts on a reimbursable 

basis. This level of protection includes the presence of United 

States Marshals Service security personnel in courtrooms where 

the Tax Court presides. In addition, the funds will enable the Tax 

Court to fill necessary staff vacancies to fulfill its statutory mission. 

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 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 continues 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. 

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 but modifies the provision prohibiting the 

government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing nonU.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 agencies to 

transfer funds to or reimburse the Government-wide Policy account 

of the General Services Administration to finance an appropriate 

share of various government-wide boards and councils. 

Section 724 continues the provision authorizing breastfeeding at 

any location in a Federal building or on Federal property. 

Section 725 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 726 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 727 continues the provision prohibiting the use of funds 

to monitor personal information relating to the use of Federal 

Internet sites. 

Section 728 continues the provision regarding contraceptive coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. 

Section 729 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 730 continues the provision allowing departments and 

agencies to use official travel funds to participate in the fractional 

aircraft ownership pilot programs. 

Section 731 continues the provision prohibiting funds for implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to the legislative 
138 

branch and placing certain limitations on the Coast Guard Congressional Fellowship program. 

Section 732 continues the provision prohibiting the expenditure 

of funds for the acquisition of certain additional Federal law enforcement training facilities. 

Section 733 continues 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 is a new provision requiring agencies to submit annual inventories of activities performed pursuant to contracts for 

services and specifying other government reporting responsibilities 

relating to contracted work. 

Section 736 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 2010 shall be an increase of 2.9 percent. 

Section 737 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 738 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 739 continues the provision requiring each department 

and agency to evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before 

issuing the individual a Government purchase charge card or travel card. 

Section 740 includes a provision prohibiting funds from being 

used for any Federal Government contract with any foreign incorporated entity which is treated as an inverted domestic corporation. 

Section 741 includes a provision requiring improvements to enhance public access to information on agency Inspector General 

websites. 

Section 742 requires the Office of Management and Budget to 

provide a report no later than 120 days after enactment on the status of a pilot program to develop and implement an inventory to 

track the cost and size of service contracts in at least three cabinetlevel departments, as required by section 748 of division D of Public Law 110–161. 

Section 743 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 744 repeals section 748 of the Financial Services and 

General Government Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111–8, 

Division D) relating to making permanent Executive Order 13423 
139 

on strengthening the environmental, energy, and transportation 

management of Federal agencies. 

Section 745 continues a provision requiring reports on executive 

branch workforce composition. 

Section 746 declares the inapplicability of these general provisions to title IV and title VIII. 
(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 modifies 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 any 

Federal funds in this act to carry out any program of distributing 

sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug. 

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. 

Section 813 continues the provision prohibiting use of funds to 

change the legality of marijuana use. 
141 

Section 814 modifies the provision relating to abortion to restrict 

the use of Federal funds. 

Section 815 continues a provision to mitigate the necessity for 

dual budgeting of local funds when such funds are transferred but 

not expended. 

Section 816 is a new 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 817 is a new 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 818 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 2010 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 for Consolidated Laboratory Facility 

Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 

Columbia 

Independent Agencies 

Election Assistance Commission 

Federal Communications Commission 

Federal Election Commission 

Federal Trade Commission 

General Services Administration: 

Federal Building Fund 
143 

GSA E-government Fund 

Office of Government Ethics 

Office of Special Counsel 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

National Credit Union Administration: Community Development 

Revolving Loan Fund 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE 

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 9, 2009, the 

Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 1432) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the 

fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, subject to amendment and 

consistent with the budget allocation, 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 29–1, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Mr. Voinovich 

Ms. Murkowski 
144 

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 

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 40—PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS 

SUBTITLE I—FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE 

SERVICES 

CHAPTER 33—ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND ALTERATION

§ 3314. Delegation 

(a) * * * 

(1) shall, except for the authority contained in section 3305(b) 

of this title, be delegated on request to the appropriate øexecutive¿ 

federal agency when the estimated cost of the project does not exceed $100,000; and 

(2) may be delegated to the appropriate øexecutive¿ federal 

agency when the Administrator determines that delegation will 

promote efficiency and economy. 

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1992, 

PUBLIC LAW 102–550 

TITLE XIII—GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES 

SUBTITLE A—SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF 

ENTERPRISES 

PART 2—AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY

SUBPART B—HOUSING GOALS

SEC. 1338. EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSITION GOALS. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1339. CAPITAL MAGNET FUND. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(h) * * * 
145 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) LEVERAGE OF FUNDS.—Each grant from the Capital 

Magnet Fund awarded under this section shall be reasonably 

expected to result in eligible housing, or economic and community development projects that support or sustain an affordable 

housing project funded by a grant under this section whose aggregate costs total øat least 10 times the grant amount¿ at 

least 10 times the grant amount or such other amount (including none) that the Secretary may require. 

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 ø11 years¿ 12 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. 

UNIVERSAL SERVICE ANTIDEFICIENCY TEMPORARY 

SUSPENSION ACT, PUBLIC LAW 108–494 

TITLE III—UNIVERSAL SERVICE 

SEC. 302. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN TITLE 31 PROVISIONS TO UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—During the period beginning on the date of 

enactment of this Act and ending on øDecember 31, 2009¿ December 31, 2010, section 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 

31, United States Code, do not apply— 

* * * * * * * 

(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, 2009¿ December 31, 2010, 

to an expenditure or obligation described in subsection (a)(2) made 

or authorized during the period described in subsection (a). 
146 

OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, PUBLIC LAW 

111–8 

DIVISION D—FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL 

GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009 

TITLE VII 

GENERAL PROVISIONS—GOVERNMENT-WIDE 

DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND CORPORATIONS

øSEC. 748. Executive Order 13423 (72 Fed. Reg. 3919; Jan. 24, 

2007) shall remain in effect hereafter except as otherwise provided 

by law after the date of the enactment of this Act.¿ 

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 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2010: Subcommittee on Financial Services and General 

Government: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ 20,702 20,702 20,699 1 20,699 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 23,510 24,400 25,049 1 25,857 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 39,749 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,618 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 689 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 301 

2014 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 258 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2009 ......................................................................................... NA 711 NA 505 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

NOTE: Consistent with the funding recommended in the bill for tax enforcement and in accordance with section 401(c)(2)(B) of Senate Concurrent Resolution 13 (111th Congress), the Committee anticipates that the Budget Committee will file a revised section 302(a) allocation for 

the Committee on Appropriations reflecting an upward adjustment of $890,000,000 in budget authority and associated outlays. 

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 
147 

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. 
148 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

DC ..................... Children’s National Medical Center ................................................................................................................................................................. $1,000,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Richard 

Durbin 

SBA ................... Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership for the AMBIT Youth Entrepreneurship Curriculum, Anchorage, AK ...................................... $200,000 Senator Lisa Murkowski SBA ................... Alcorn State University for the Systems Research Institute, MS .................................................................................................................... $250,000 Senator Thad Cochran SBA ................... Amoskeag Business Incubator, Manchester, NH ............................................................................................................................................. $120,000 Senator Jeanne Shaheen SBA ................... Bennett College for Women, The Center for Women’s Entrepreneurship, Greensboro, NC ............................................................................. $100,000 Senator Kay Hagan SBA ................... Boise State University for a research, economic development and entrepreneurial initiative, ID ................................................................ $200,000 Senators Mike Crapo, James Risch SBA ................... Brewer Business and Commerce Park, Brewer, ME ........................................................................................................................................ $1,050,000 Senators Susan Collins, Olympia 

Snowe 

SBA ................... Center for Economic Growth, Watervliet Innovation Center, Albany, NY ........................................................................................................ $117,500 Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles 

Schumer 

SBA ................... Central Connecticut State University, for a manufacturing workforce initiative and technical assistance program, New Britain, CT ....... $100,000 Senator Christopher Dodd SBA ................... Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, Chittenden Emergency Food Shelf’s Community Kitchen Expansion Project, Burlington, VT. $100,000 Senator Bernard Sanders SBA ................... City of Buffalo, Buffalo clean energy incubator, Buffalo, NY ......................................................................................................................... $117,500 Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles 

Schumer 

SBA ................... City of Jal, renovation of Burke Junior High School to house business ventures, Jal, NM ........................................................................... $85,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... City of Los Angeles, Port of Los Angeles Technology Advancement Program and Clean Technology Development Center, Los Angeles, 

CA.

$250,000 Senator Dianne Feinstein 

SBA ................... City of Providence, Department of Planning and Development, Rhode Island Center for Life Sciences, research, development and commercialization, Providence, RI. $300,000 Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon White- house SBA ................... City of Salem, downtown revitalization ‘‘toolbox’’ program, Salem, OR ......................................................................................................... $200,000 Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden SBA ................... City of Santa Rosa, Ilfeld Warehouse business incubator, Santa Rosa, NM ................................................................................................. $170,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... College of Notre Dame of Maryland, for lab facilities, Baltimore, MD .......................................................................................................... $100,000 Senator Benjamin Cardin SBA ................... Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Fort Collins, CO ................................................................................ $200,000 Senator Mark Udall SBA ................... Community College of Philadelphia, Northeast Regional Center for small business education, growth, and training, Philadelphia, PA ... $100,000 Senator Robert Casey SBA ................... Community Economic Development Fund Foundation, Small Business Institute, for training and technical assistance to stabilize small 

business operations, Meriden, CT.

$100,000 Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph 

Lieberman 

SBA ................... Community Links Hawaii for planning and development of Oahu Technology and Innovation Park, Oahu, HI ........................................... $250,000 Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel 

Inouye 

SBA ................... Community Service Society of New York, financial education project, New York, NY ................................................................................... $117,500 Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles 

Schumer 

SBA ................... Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement, Entrepreneurial Development and Government Procurement Center, Honolulu, HI .................. $300,000 Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel 

Inouye 

SBA ................... Cuyahoga Community College, veterans outreach and business development program, Cleveland, OH ...................................................... $200,000 Senators Sherrod Brown, George 

Voinovich 
149 

SBA ................... Delaware Valley Industrial Resource Center [DVIRC] for small business succession planning services, Philadelphia, PA ......................... $175,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Department of Community Affairs, Division on Women, New Jersey Women’s Microbusiness Credit Program, for training and mentoring 

activities, Trenton, NJ.

$100,000 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... Detroit Renaissance, Detroit Creative Corridor Center, Detroit, MI ................................................................................................................ $200,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow SBA ................... Eastern Washington University for accelerating economic development in rural and underserved communities of the Inland Pacific 

Northwest, Spokane, WA.

$200,000 Senators Maria Cantwell, Patty 

Murray 

SBA ................... Entrepreneurial Development Center Program, College Park, GA ................................................................................................................... $125,000 Senators Saxby Chambliss, Johnny 

Isakson 

SBA ................... Fitzsimons Redevelopment Authority, Colorado Drug, Device, and Diagnostic Development Institute, Aurora, CO ...................................... $220,000 Senator Michael Bennet SBA ................... Florida Institute of Technology, Florida Advanced Combustion Center, Brevard County, FL ......................................................................... $200,000 Senator Bill Nelson SBA ................... Great Falls Development Authority, to support the administrative costs of the Central Montana Growth Fund, Great Falls, MT .............. $137,500 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester SBA ................... Greater Syracuse Chamber of Commerce, Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program [SATOP], Syracuse, NY ....................................... $117,500 Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles 

Schumer 

SBA ................... Hannah Grimes Center, business incubator renovation and expansion, Keene, NH ...................................................................................... $80,000 Senator Jeanne Shaheen SBA ................... Haymarket Center for a workforce development initiative, Chicago, IL ......................................................................................................... $700,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... HOPE Community Development Corporation for an economic development initiative, Charleston, WV ........................................................ $137,500 Senator Robert Byrd SBA ................... Illinois Eastern Community Colleges for the Small Business Development Center, Olney, IL ....................................................................... $200,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Illinois Institute of Technology for University Technology Park, Chicago, IL .................................................................................................. $600,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Illinois State Library to expand access to Illinois public libraries, Springfield, IL ........................................................................................ $300,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Illinois State University for the McLean County Business Incubator, Normal, IL .......................................................................................... $500,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development through Heritage Tourism, MS ......................................................... $500,000 Senator Thad Cochran SBA ................... Kansas World Trade Center for the Wichita EcoPartnership, Wichita, KS ...................................................................................................... $400,000 Senators Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts SBA ................... Kelley Road Business Park, Orono, ME ............................................................................................................................................................ $200,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... Latin Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Leadership Program, Las Vegas, NV ............................................................................................... $213,333 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... Lawrence CommunityWorks, Union Crossing Mill Redevelopment, Lawrence, MA .......................................................................................... $200,000 Senators Edward Kennedy, John 

Kerry 

SBA ................... Leavenworth Technology and Research Park, Leavenworth, KS ...................................................................................................................... $300,000 Senator Sam Brownback SBA ................... Loring Commerce Centre Infrastructure Development for the Loring Development Authority, Limestone, ME .............................................. $975,700 Senators Susan Collins, Olympia 

Snowe 

SBA ................... Louisiana Office of Social Entrepreneurship for administrative costs of a business planning initiative, Baton Rouge, LA ....................... $137,500 Senator Mary Landrieu SBA ................... Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota, Credit Counseling Capacity Building, St. Paul, MN ......................................................................... $200,000 Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar SBA ................... McNeese State University, Southwest Louisiana Entrepreneurial and Economic Development Center [SEED], Lake Charles, LA ................ $137,500 Senator Mary Landrieu SBA ................... Minot State University-Bottineau, Entrepreneurial Center for Horticulture, Bottineau, ND ............................................................................ $250,000 Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan SBA ................... Mississippi Biotechnology Association for Capacity Building for the Mississippi Biotechnology Industry, Ridgeland, MS .......................... $250,000 Senator Thad Cochran 
150 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

SBA ................... Mississippi State University for the Entrepreneurship Center to Develop New Entity Creation [ECDEC], MS .............................................. $500,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... Mississippi Technology Alliance for the Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, MS ........................................................................... $850,000 Senators Thad Cochran, Roger 

Wicker 

SBA ................... Missouri Chamber Education Foundation to develop a small business technology, training and outreach center, Jefferson City, MO ...... $1,000,000 Senator Christopher Bond SBA ................... Montana Technology Venture Center, for expansion and operations of the TechRanch next step program, Bozeman, MT ......................... $137,500 Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester SBA ................... Nebraska Community Foundation, HomeTown Competitiveness, Lincoln, NE ................................................................................................. $275,000 Senator Ben Nelson SBA ................... Neighborhood Development Center, Midtown Global Market business technical assistance, St. Paul, MN .................................................. $200,000 Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar SBA ................... Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology [NCET], small business and entrepreneurship development, NV .............................. $213,333 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... Nevada Small Business Development Center, for Imagine 2012, an Hispanic business development initiative, Reno, NV ........................ $213,334 Senator Harry Reid SBA ................... North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center for a Rural Business Finance Program, Raleigh, NC ................................................. $250,000 Senators Richard Burr, Kay Hagan SBA ................... North Carolina School of the Arts/Winston-Salem State University, The Center for Design Innovation, Winston-Salem, NC ...................... $100,000 Senator Kay Hagan SBA ................... Northern Virginia Community College for retraining displaced workers in Geographic Information Systems, Richmond, VA ...................... $200,000 Senators Mark Warner, James Webb SBA ................... Northwest Pennsylvania Incubator Association for an incubator project, Erie County, PA ............................................................................ $100,000 Senator Robert Casey SBA ................... Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN ................................................................................................................ $750,000 Senators Lamar Alexander, Bob 

Corker 

SBA ................... Phillips County Economic Development for a Entrepreneur Business Enhancement Program [EBEP], Phillips County, KS ......................... $300,000 Senator Sam Brownback SBA ................... Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse for the Tech Belt Biosciences Initiative, Pittsburgh, PA .................................................................... $50,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Port of Clarkston, Asotin County Industrial Park infrastructure completion, Asotin County, WA .................................................................. $300,000 Senator Patty Murray SBA ................... Portland Community College, sustainable careers for a green economic recovery, Portland, OR ................................................................. $200,000 Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden SBA ................... Prospera (Gallatin Valley Development Corporation), Accelerated Entrepreneur Program, Bozeman, MT ..................................................... $200,000 Senator Max Baucus SBA ................... Rhode Island School of Design and Brown University, Partnership for Sustainable Development/Rhode Island Center for Innovation and 

Entrepreneurship [RI–CIE], for technical assistance to small businesses on green product design and marketing and on developingand commercializing innovative products and services, Providence, RI.

$150,000 Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse 

SBA ................... Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME .......................................................................................................................................... $150,000 Senators Susan Collins, Olympia 

Snowe 

SBA ................... Rural Enterprises of Oklahoma, Inc, for a Women and Veteran’s Business Resource Center at Seminole State College, Durant, OK ....... $200,000 Senator James Inhofe SBA ................... Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey urban entrepreneurship development initiative, New Brunswick, NJ .................. $271,050 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... Shawnee Community College for the Small Business Development Center, Ullin, IL .................................................................................... $200,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Souris Basin Regional Planning Center, North Dakota REAP Zones, ND ....................................................................................................... $250,000 Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan SBA ................... South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Dakota Rising for an entrepreneur development system, SD ..................................................................... $250,000 Senator Tim Johnson 
151 

SBA ................... The Cuban American National Council [CNC] New Jersey Regional Office, Latino financial education, foreclosure prevention, and home 

ownership program, Union City, NJ.

$100,000 Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert 

Menendez 

SBA ................... The University of Mississippi for the Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS .......................................................................... $250,000 Senator Thad Cochran SBA ................... The University of Southern Mississippi for the Early Stage Entrepreneur and Commercialization Development, Hattiesburg, MS ............. $500,000 Senator Thad Cochran SBA ................... Uhlich Children’s Advantage Network for job training, placement and retention services, Chicago, IL ...................................................... $400,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water technologies, Milwaukee, WI ................................... $250,000 Senator Herb Kohl SBA ................... University of Alabama for a Business Development Research Project, Tuscaloosa, AL ................................................................................ $1,000,000 Senators Jeff Sessions, Richard 

Shelby 

SBA ................... University of Alaska, Small Business Development Center, Ketchikan, AK .................................................................................................... $300,000 Senators Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski SBA ................... University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR .......................................................................... $225,000 Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark 

Pryor 

SBA ................... University of Arkansas Technology Development Foundation, Arkansas Research and Technology Park, Fayetteville, AR ........................... $225,000 Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark 

Pryor 

SBA ................... University of Connecticut for the Avery Point Technology Center, Groton, CT ............................................................................................... $200,000 Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph 

Lieberman 

SBA ................... University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business and Technology Development Center, Newark, DE ......................................................... $350,000 Senators Thomas Carper, Edward 

Kaufman 

SBA ................... University of Maryland-Baltimore BioPark, Baltimore, MD .............................................................................................................................. $100,000 Senator Benjamin Cardin SBA ................... University of Northern Iowa for MyEntreNet, a national rural entrepreneurship development system, IA .................................................... $250,000 Senators Charles Grassley, Tom 

Harkin 

SBA ................... University of Southern Maine for the Science Technology Research Center, Portland, ME ........................................................................... $850,000 Senator Susan Collins SBA ................... Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts, economic development center expansion, Boston, MA ................................................................ $200,000 Senators Edward Kennedy, John 

Kerry 

SBA ................... Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA .................................................................................................... $50,000 Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter SBA ................... Valencia County IT program, upgrade and training, Valencia County, NM .................................................................................................... $145,000 Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall SBA ................... Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, the 50 for 25 Demonstration Project, Burlington, VT .......................................................... $50,000 Senator Bernard Sanders SBA ................... Vermont Farms Association for an agritourism best practices and standards project, Rochester, VT ........................................................ $50,000 Senator Bernard Sanders SBA ................... Vermont Small Business Development Center, technical assistance to high-tech small businesses and emerging businesses, Randolph, VT. $250,000 Senator Patrick Leahy SBA ................... Virginia’s Center for Innovative Technology, Mine safety technology and communication improvements, Herndon, VA .............................. $200,000 Senators Mark Warner, James Webb SBA ................... Wayne State University for the Law School’s Small Business Clinic, Detroit, MI .......................................................................................... $200,000 Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow SBA ................... West Virginia Northern Community College, Center for Economic and Workforce Advancement, Weirton, WV ............................................. $137,500 Senator Robert Byrd SBA ................... Western Illinois University for the Small Business Development Center, Macomb, IL .................................................................................. $400,000 Senator Richard Durbin SBA ................... Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY ............................................................................................... $1,100,000 Senator Mitch McConnell SBA ................... Women’s Business Development Center, for entrepreneurial small business training & assistance, Stamford, CT .................................... $100,000 Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph 

Lieberman 
152 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

SBA ................... World Trade Center Institute Delaware, for the export assistance webinar series for business education, Wilmington, DE ....................... $50,000 Senators Thomas Carper, Edward 

Kaufman 

Treasury ............ Financial Education and Pre-home Ownership Counseling Demonstration Project, HI .................................................................................. $3,150,000 Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel 

Inouye 

JUDICIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

GSA ................... Georgia, Savannah, United States Courthouse ............................................................................................................................................... $7,900,000 The Judiciary, Senator Saxby Chambliss GSA ................... Texas, San Antonio, United States Courthouse ............................................................................................................................................... $4,000,000 The Judiciary, Senator Kay Bailey 

Hutchison 

GSA ................... Utah, Salt Lake City, United States Courthouse ............................................................................................................................................. $211,000,000 The Judiciary, Senators Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch 

PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

GSA ................... California, Calexico, West Land Port of Entry ................................................................................................................................................. $9,437,000 The President GSA ................... Colorado, Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation .............................................................................................................................. $9,962,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Southeast Federal Center Remediation ........................................................................................................................ $15,000,000 The President GSA ................... Florida, Miami, Federal Bureau of Investigation Field Office Consolidation .................................................................................................. $190,675,000 The President GSA ................... Maine, Madawaska, Land Port of Entry .......................................................................................................................................................... $50,127,000 The President GSA ................... Maryland, White Oak, Food and Drug Administration Consolidation .............................................................................................................. $137,871,000 The President, Senators Barbara 

Mikulski, Benjamin Cardin, Orrin Hatch 

GSA ................... Pennsylvania, Lancaster United States Courthouse ........................................................................................................................................ $6,500,000 The President, Senator Arlen Specter GSA ................... Texas, El Paso, Tornillo-Guadalupe, Land Port of Entry ................................................................................................................................. $91,565,000 The President, Senator Kay Bailey 

Hutchison 

GSA ................... District of Columbia, East Wing Infrastructure Systems Replacement .......................................................................................................... $114,500,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Eisenhower Executive Office Building Courtyard Replacement .................................................................................... $10,000,000 The President GSA ................... District of Columbia, Eisenhower Executive Office Building Roof Replacement ............................................................................................ $15,000,000 The President 
153 

GSA ................... District of Columbia, New Executive Office Building ...................................................................................................................................... $30,276,000 The President NARA ................. FDR Presidential Library and Museum Renovation ......................................................................................................................................... $17,500,000 The President, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand ONDCP .............. National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws ................................................................................................................................................. $1,250,000 The President ONDCP .............. National Drug Court Institute .......................................................................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 The President 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Departmental Offices 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 278,870 302,388 305,712 ∂26,842 ∂3,324 

Executive direction ...................................................................................................................................................... (21,619 ) (22,383 ) (22,383 ) (∂764 ) ..........................Economic policies and programs ................................................................................................................................ (45,910 ) (44,749 ) (47,249 ) (∂1,339 ) (∂2,500 ) Financial policies and programs ................................................................................................................................ (36,039 ) (47,580 ) (48,580 ) (∂12,541 ) (∂1,000 ) Terrorism and Financial Intelligence .......................................................................................................................... (62,098 ) (64,611 ) (64,611 ) (∂2,513 ) ..........................Treasury-wide management ........................................................................................................................................ (21,600 ) (22,779 ) (22,779 ) (∂1,179 ) ..........................Administration ............................................................................................................................................................. (91,604 ) (100,286 ) (100,110 ) (∂8,506 ) (¥176 ) 

Department-wide systems and capital investments programs ........................................................................................... 26,975 9,544 9,544 ¥17,431 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 26,125 26,700 29,700 ∂3,575 ∂3,000 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ............................................................................................................. 146,083 149,000 152,000 ∂5,917 ∂3,000 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 153,083 149,000 152,000 ¥1,083 ∂3,000 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ............................................................................................................................... 91,465 102,760 104,260 ∂12,795 ∂1,500 Treasury forfeiture fund (rescission) .................................................................................................................................... ¥30,000 ¥50,000 ¥50,000 ¥20,000 ..........................

Total, Departmental Offices .................................................................................................................................... 546,518 540,392 551,216 ∂4,698 ∂10,824 

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (569,518 ) (590,392 ) (601,216 ) (∂31,698 ) (∂10,824 ) Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (7,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥7,000 ) ..........................
154 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Financial Management Service ............................................................................................................................................ 239,785 244,132 244,132 ∂4,347 ..........................Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 99,065 105,000 103,000 ∂3,935 ¥2,000 Offsetting collections .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... ¥75,000 .......................... .......................... ∂75,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 99,065 30,000 103,000 ∂3,935 ∂73,000 

Bureau of the Public Debt ................................................................................................................................................... 177,352 182,244 182,244 ∂4,892 ..........................Community development financial institutions fund program account .............................................................................. 107,000 243,600 246,750 ∂139,750 ∂3,150 

Capital Magnet Fund .................................................................................................................................................. .......................... (80,000 ) (80,000 ) (∂80,000 ) ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 100,000 .......................... .......................... ¥100,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 207,000 243,600 246,750 ∂39,750 ∂3,150 

Payment of Government losses in shipment ....................................................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, Department of the Treasury, non-IRS .......................................................................................................... 1,271,720 1,242,368 1,329,342 ∂57,622 ∂86,974 

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (1,194,720 ) (1,292,368 ) (1,379,342 ) (∂184,622 ) (∂86,974 ) Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (107,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥107,000 ) ..........................

Internal Revenue Service 

Taxpayer services ................................................................................................................................................................. 2,293,000 2,269,830 2,275,830 ¥17,170 ∂6,000 Enforcement .......................................................................................................................................................................... 5,117,267 4,904,000 5,504,000 ∂386,733 ∂600,000 Enhanced tax enforcement activities ................................................................................................................................... .......................... 600,000 .......................... .......................... ¥600,000 Operations support ............................................................................................................................................................... 3,867,011 4,082,984 4,082,984 ∂215,973 ..........................Business systems modernization ......................................................................................................................................... 229,914 253,674 274,119 ∂44,205 ∂20,445 Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration ........................................................................................................................ 15,406 15,512 15,512 ∂106 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 80,000 .......................... .......................... ¥80,000 ..........................
155 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 95,406 15,512 15,512 ¥79,894 ..........................Total, Internal Revenue Service .............................................................................................................................. 11,602,598 12,126,000 12,152,445 ∂549,847 ∂26,445 Total, title I, Department of the Treasury .............................................................................................................. 12,874,318 13,368,368 13,481,787 ∂607,469 ∂113,419 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (12,717,318 ) (13,418,368 ) (13,531,787 ) (∂814,469 ) (∂113,419 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥30,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥20,000 ) ..........................Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (187,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥187,000 ) ..........................

(Mandatory) ............................................................................................................................................................. (2,000 ) (2,000 ) (2,000 ) .......................... ..........................(Discretionary less emergencies) ............................................................................................................................ (12,685,318 ) (13,366,368 ) (13,479,787 ) (∂794,469 ) (∂113,419 ) 

TITLE II—EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT 

The White House 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 53,899 59,319 59,319 ∂5,420 ..........................

Compensation of the President ................................................................................................................................... 450 450 450 .......................... ..........................

Total, Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................................................. 54,349 59,769 59,769 ∂5,420 ..........................

Executive Residence at the White House: 

Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 13,363 13,838 13,838 ∂475 ..........................White House repair and restoration ............................................................................................................................ 1,600 2,500 2,500 ∂900 ..........................

Council of Economic Advisers .............................................................................................................................................. 4,118 4,200 4,200 ∂82 ..........................Office of Policy Development ............................................................................................................................................... 3,550 .......................... .......................... ¥3,550 ..........................National Security Council ..................................................................................................................................................... 9,029 12,231 12,231 ∂3,202 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–32) ........................................................................................................ 2,936 .......................... .......................... ¥2,936 ..........................

Office of Administration ....................................................................................................................................................... 101,333 115,280 115,280 ∂13,947 ..........................

Total, The White House ........................................................................................................................................... 190,278 207,818 207,818 ∂17,540 ..........................

Office of Management and Budget ..................................................................................................................................... 87,972 92,687 92,687 ∂4,715 ..........................

Office of National Drug Control Policy 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 27,200 27,575 28,575 ∂1,375 ∂1,000 Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center ....................................................................................................................... 3,000 1,000 1,000 ¥2,000 ..........................High intensity drug trafficking areas program ................................................................................................................... 234,000 220,000 234,000 .......................... ∂14,000 Other Federal drug control programs .................................................................................................................................. 174,700 174,000 174,750 ∂50 ∂750 

Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy ......................................................................................................... 438,900 422,575 438,325 ¥575 ∂15,750 

Unanticipated needs ............................................................................................................................................................ 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ..........................
156 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Partnership fund for program integrity innovation ............................................................................................................. .......................... 175,000 40,000 ∂40,000 ¥135,000 Presidential transition administrative support .................................................................................................................... 8,000 .......................... .......................... ¥8,000 ..........................Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the Vice President: 

Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................................................ 4,496 4,604 4,604 ∂108 ..........................Operating expenses ..................................................................................................................................................... 323 330 330 ∂7 ..........................

Total, title II, Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President ................................. 730,969 904,014 784,764 ∂53,795 ¥119,250 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (730,969 ) (904,014 ) (784,764 ) (∂53,795 ) (¥119,250 ) 

(Mandatory) ........................................................................................................................................... (450 ) (450 ) (450 ) .......................... ..........................(Discretionary) ....................................................................................................................................... (730,519 ) (903,564 ) (784,314 ) (∂53,795 ) (¥119,250 ) 

TITLE III—THE JUDICIARY 

Supreme Court of the United States 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of justices ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,119 2,166 2,166 ∂47 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 67,658 72,574 71,915 ∂4,257 ¥659 

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 69,777 74,740 74,081 ∂4,304 ¥659 

Care of the building and grounds ....................................................................................................................................... 18,447 14,568 14,525 ¥3,922 ¥43 

Total, Supreme Court of the United States ............................................................................................................ 88,224 89,308 88,606 ∂382 ¥702 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,356 2,491 2,491 ∂135 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 28,028 34,490 29,809 ∂1,781 ¥4,681 

Total, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit .............................................................................. 30,384 36,981 32,300 ∂1,916 ¥4,681 
157 

United States Court of International Trade 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges ....................................................................................................................................................... 1,696 1,715 1,715 ∂19 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 17,909 19,802 19,659 ∂1,750 ¥143 

Total, United States Court of International Trade ................................................................................................. 19,605 21,517 21,374 ∂1,769 ¥143 

Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services 

Salaries and expenses: 

Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges ................................................................................................................. 323,911 340,000 340,000 ∂16,089 ..........................Judges COLA ................................................................................................................................................................ 6,000 7,000 7,000 ∂1,000 ..........................Other salaries and expenses ....................................................................................................................................... 4,471,458 4,815,252 4,729,845 ∂258,387 ¥85,407 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–32) ............................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Subtotal, Salaries and expenses ................................................................................................................... 4,811,369 5,162,252 5,076,845 ∂265,476 ¥85,407 

Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................ 4,253 5,428 5,428 ∂1,175 ..........................Defender services ................................................................................................................................................................. 849,400 982,646 975,504 ∂126,104 ¥7,142 Fees of jurors and commissioners ....................................................................................................................................... 62,206 63,401 62,275 ∂69 ¥1,126 Court security ....................................................................................................................................................................... 428,858 463,642 457,353 ∂28,495 ¥6,289 

Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services ................................................................. 6,156,086 6,677,369 6,577,405 ∂421,319 ¥99,964 

Administrative Office of the United States Courts 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 79,049 83,963 83,075 ∂4,026 ¥888 

Federal Judicial Center 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 25,725 27,486 27,328 ∂1,603 ¥158 

Judicial Retirement Funds 

Payment to judiciary trust funds ......................................................................................................................................... 76,140 82,374 82,374 ∂6,234 ..........................

United States Sentencing Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 16,225 17,056 16,837 ∂612 ¥219 

Total, title III, the Judiciary .................................................................................................................................... 6,491,438 7,036,054 6,929,299 ∂437,861 ¥106,755 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (6,481,438 ) (7,036,054 ) (6,929,299 ) (∂447,861 ) (¥106,755 ) 

(Mandatory) ........................................................................................................................................... (406,222 ) (428,746 ) (428,746 ) (∂22,524 ) ..........................(Discretionary) ....................................................................................................................................... (6,075,216 ) (6,607,308 ) (6,500,553 ) (∂425,337 ) (¥106,755 ) 
158 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

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 .............................................. 39,177 15,000 15,350 ¥23,827 ∂350 Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts .......................................................................................................... 248,409 248,952 258,517 ∂10,108 ∂9,565 Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts ............................................................................................................... 52,475 52,475 55,000 ∂2,525 ∂2,525 Federal payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia .......................... 203,490 212,408 212,408 ∂8,918 ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service .............................................................................. 35,659 37,316 37,316 ∂1,657 ..........................Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority .......................................................................... 16,000 20,000 20,000 ∂4,000 ..........................Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council .......................................................................................... 1,774 1,774 1,774 .......................... ..........................Federal payment for Judicial Commissions ......................................................................................................................... .......................... 500 500 ∂500 ..........................Federal payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia ............................................... 4,888 .......................... 1,000 ¥3,888 ∂1,000 Federal payment for School Improvement ........................................................................................................................... 54,000 74,400 75,400 ∂21,400 ∂1,000 Federal payment to jump start public school reform ......................................................................................................... 20,000 .......................... .......................... ¥20,000 ..........................Federal payment for consolidated laboratory facility .......................................................................................................... 21,000 15,000 15,000 ¥6,000 ..........................Federal payment for the D.C. National Guard ..................................................................................................................... .......................... 2,000 .......................... .......................... ¥2,000 Federal payment for permanent supportive housing ........................................................................................................... .......................... 19,200 .......................... .......................... ¥19,200 Federal payment for reconnecting disconnected youth ....................................................................................................... .......................... 5,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,000 Federal payment for Central Library/branch locations ........................................................................................................ 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................Federal payment to the Executive Office of the Mayor ....................................................................................................... 3,388 .......................... .......................... ¥3,388 ..........................

Total, title IV, District of Columbia ........................................................................................................................ 742,360 739,125 727,365 ¥14,995 ¥11,760 

TITLE V—OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Administrative Conference of the United States ................................................................................................................. 1,500 2,625 1,500 .......................... ¥1,125 Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation ..................................................................................................................... 1,000 .......................... 1,000 .......................... ∂1,000 Commodity Futures Trading Commission ............................................................................................................................ 146,000 160,600 177,000 ∂31,000 ∂16,400 Consumer Product Safety Commission ................................................................................................................................ 105,404 107,000 115,000 ∂9,596 ∂8,000 
159 

Election Assistance Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 17,959 16,530 16,530 ¥1,429 ..........................Election reform programs ..................................................................................................................................................... 106,000 52,000 52,000 ¥54,000 ..........................

Total, Election Assistance Commission .................................................................................................................. 123,959 68,530 68,530 ¥55,429 ..........................

Federal Communications Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 341,875 335,794 335,794 ¥6,081 ..........................Transfer from USF for OIG audits ........................................................................................................................................ (25,480 ) .......................... .......................... (¥25,480 ) ..........................Offsetting fee collections—current year ............................................................................................................................. ¥341,875 ¥334,794 ¥335,794 ∂6,081 ¥1,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 1,000 .......................... .......................... ¥1,000 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General (by transfer) ............................................................. (27,495 ) (37,942 ) (37,942 ) (∂10,447 ) ..........................Federal Election Commission ............................................................................................................................................... 63,618 64,000 67,000 ∂3,382 ∂3,000 Federal Labor Relations Authority ........................................................................................................................................ 22,674 24,773 24,773 ∂2,099 ..........................

Federal Trade Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 259,200 287,200 289,300 ∂30,100 ∂2,100 Offsetting fee collections—current year ............................................................................................................................. ¥168,000 ¥102,000 ¥102,000 ∂66,000 ..........................Offsetting fee collections, telephone database ................................................................................................................... ¥21,000 ¥19,000 ¥21,000 .......................... ¥2,000 

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 70,200 166,200 166,300 ∂96,100 ∂100 

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–32) ................................................................................................................. 8,000 .......................... .......................... ¥8,000 ..........................

General Services Administration 

Federal Buildings Fund 

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................................................... (651,198 ) (525,000 ) (482,900 ) (¥168,298 ) (¥42,100 ) Limitations on availability of revenue: 

Construction and acquisition of facilities .................................................................................................................. 746,317 657,637 734,037 ¥12,280 ∂76,400 Repairs and alterations .............................................................................................................................................. 692,374 496,276 453,776 ¥238,598 ¥42,500 Installment acquisition payments ............................................................................................................................... 149,570 140,525 140,525 ¥9,045 ..........................Rental of space ........................................................................................................................................................... 4,642,156 4,879,871 4,829,871 ∂187,715 ¥50,000 Building operations ..................................................................................................................................................... 2,197,354 2,356,376 2,330,376 ∂133,022 ¥26,000 

Subtotal, Limitations on availability of revenue .................................................................................................... 8,427,771 8,530,685 8,488,585 ∂60,814 ¥42,100 

Repayment of debt ............................................................................................................................................................... 56,865 66,360 66,360 ∂9,495 ..........................
160 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Rental income to fund ......................................................................................................................................................... ¥8,134,239 ¥8,223,000 ¥8,223,000 ¥88,761 ..........................Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) ................................................................................................................... 5,550,000 .......................... .......................... ¥5,550,000 ..........................

Total, Federal Buildings Fund ................................................................................................................................ 5,900,397 374,045 331,945 ¥5,568,452 ¥42,100 

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (350,397 ) (374,045 ) (331,945 ) (¥18,452 ) (¥42,100 ) Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (5,550,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥5,550,000 ) ..........................

Energy-efficient Federal motor vehicle fleet procurement (emergency) (Public Law 111–5) ............................................. 300,000 .......................... .......................... ¥300,000 ..........................Government-wide policy ....................................................................................................................................................... 54,578 65,165 61,165 ∂6,587 ¥4,000 Operating expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 70,645 71,881 71,881 ∂1,236 ..........................Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 54,000 60,080 58,000 ∂4,000 ¥2,080 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 7,000 .......................... .......................... ¥7,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 61,000 60,080 58,000 ¥3,000 ¥2,080 

Electronic Government Fund ................................................................................................................................................ .......................... 33,000 35,000 ∂35,000 ∂2,000 Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents ............................................................................................................ 2,934 3,756 3,756 ∂822 ..........................Expenses, Presidential transition ......................................................................................................................................... 8,520 .......................... .......................... ¥8,520 ..........................Federal Citizen Services Fund .............................................................................................................................................. 36,096 36,515 36,515 ∂419 ..........................

Total, General Services Administration .................................................................................................................. 6,434,170 644,442 598,262 ¥5,835,908 ¥46,180 

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (577,170 ) (644,442 ) (598,262 ) (∂21,092 ) (¥46,180 ) Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (5,857,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥5,857,000 ) ..........................

Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation ............................................................................................................................. 500 .......................... 660 ∂160 ∂660 

Merit Systems Protection Board 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 38,811 40,339 40,339 ∂1,528 ..........................Limitation on administrative expenses ................................................................................................................................ 2,579 2,579 2,579 .......................... ..........................

Total, Merit Systems Protection Board ................................................................................................................... 41,390 42,918 42,918 ∂1,528 ..........................
161 

Morris K. Udall Foundation 

Morris K. Udall Trust Fund ................................................................................................................................................... 3,750 2,200 3,850 ∂100 ∂1,650 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund .............................................................................................................................. 2,100 3,800 3,000 ∂900 ¥800 

Total, Morris K. Udall Foundation ........................................................................................................................... 5,850 6,000 6,850 ∂1,000 ∂850 

National Archives and Records Administration 

Operating expenses .............................................................................................................................................................. 330,308 339,770 339,770 ∂9,462 ..........................

Reduction of debt ........................................................................................................................................................ ¥11,842 ¥13,000 ¥13,000 ¥1,158 ..........................

Office of the Inspector General ............................................................................................................................................ .......................... 4,100 4,100 ∂4,100 ..........................Electronic records archive .................................................................................................................................................... 67,008 85,500 85,500 ∂18,492 ..........................Repairs and restoration ....................................................................................................................................................... 50,711 27,500 27,500 ¥23,211 ..........................National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants program ..................................................................... 11,250 10,000 12,000 ∂750 ∂2,000 

Total, National Archives and Records Administration ........................................................................................... 447,435 453,870 455,870 ∂8,435 ∂2,000 

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 ................................................................................................. 1,000 1,000 1,000 .......................... ..........................Office of Government Ethics ................................................................................................................................................ 13,000 13,665 13,665 ∂665 ..........................

Office of Personnel Management 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 92,829 94,970 94,970 ∂2,141 ..........................

Limitation on administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................... 118,082 113,238 112,738 ¥5,344 ¥500 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 1,828 2,136 2,136 ∂308 ..........................

Limitation on administrative expenses ....................................................................................................................... 18,755 20,428 20,428 ∂1,673 ..........................

Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits .................................................................................................. 9,533,000 9,814,000 9,814,000 ∂281,000 ..........................Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance ..................................................................................................... 46,000 48,000 48,000 ∂2,000 ..........................Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund ........................................................................................................ 10,550,000 10,276,000 10,276,000 ¥274,000 ..........................

Total, Office of Personnel Management ................................................................................................................. 20,360,494 20,368,772 20,368,272 ∂7,778 ¥500 

Mandatory ...................................................................................................................................................... (20,129,000 ) (20,138,000 ) (20,138,000 ) (∂9,000 ) ..........................Discretionary .................................................................................................................................................. (231,494 ) (230,772 ) (230,272 ) (¥1,222 ) (¥500 ) 

Office of Special Counsel ..................................................................................................................................................... 17,468 18,495 18,495 ∂1,027 ..........................Postal Regulatory Commission ............................................................................................................................................. 14,043 14,333 14,333 ∂290 ..........................Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ........................................................................................................................ 1,500 2,000 1,500 .......................... ¥500 Recovery Act Accountability and Transparency Board (emergency appropriations Public Law 111–5) ............................. 84,000 .......................... .......................... ¥84,000 ..........................
162 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Securities and Exchange Commission 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 960,000 1,026,000 1,126,000 ∂166,000 ∂100,000 Prior year unobligated balances .......................................................................................................................................... ¥65,644 ¥10,220 ¥10,220 ∂55,424 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–32) ........................................................................................................ 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Direct appropriation ................................................................................................................................................ 904,356 1,015,780 1,115,780 ∂211,424 ∂100,000 

Selective Service System ...................................................................................................................................................... 22,000 24,400 24,400 ∂2,400 ..........................

Small Business Administration 

Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................................... 386,896 422,000 444,000 ∂57,104 ∂22,000 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 69,000 .......................... .......................... ¥69,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 455,896 422,000 444,000 ¥11,896 ∂22,000 

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 16,750 16,300 16,300 ¥450 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 10,000 .......................... .......................... ¥10,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 26,750 16,300 16,300 ¥10,450 ..........................

Surety bond guarantees revolving fund ............................................................................................................................... 2,000 1,000 1,000 ¥1,000 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) .......................................................................................................... 15,000 .......................... .......................... ¥15,000 ..........................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................................... 17,000 1,000 1,000 ¥16,000 ..........................

Business Loans Program Account: 

Direct loans subsidy .................................................................................................................................................... 2,500 3,000 3,000 ∂500 ..........................

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) ................................................................................................. 6,000 .......................... .......................... ¥6,000 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 8,500 3,000 3,000 ¥5,500 ..........................

Guaranteed loans subsidy ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... 80,000 80,000 ∂80,000 ..........................
163 

Emergency appropriations (Public Law 111–5) ................................................................................................. 630,000 .......................... .......................... ¥630,000 ..........................

Subtotal .......................................................................................................................................................... 630,000 80,000 80,000 ¥550,000 ..........................

Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. 138,480 153,000 153,000 ∂14,520 ..........................

Total, Business loans program account ................................................................................................................. 776,980 236,000 236,000 ¥540,980 ..........................

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (140,980 ) (236,000 ) (236,000 ) (∂95,020 ) ..........................Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (636,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥636,000 ) ..........................

Disaster Loans Program Account: 

Guaranteed loans subsidy ........................................................................................................................................... .......................... 1,690 1,690 ∂1,690 ..........................Administrative expenses .............................................................................................................................................. .......................... 102,310 102,310 ∂102,310 ..........................

Total, Disaster loans program account .................................................................................................................. .......................... 104,000 104,000 ∂104,000 ..........................

Sec. 525. Salaries and expenses ......................................................................................................................................... 65,654 .......................... 59,604 ¥6,050 ∂59,604 

Total, Small Business Administration .................................................................................................................... 1,342,280 779,300 860,904 ¥481,376 ∂81,604 

Non-emergency ............................................................................................................................................... (612,280 ) (779,300 ) (860,904 ) (∂248,624 ) (∂81,604 ) Emergency ...................................................................................................................................................... (730,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥730,000 ) ..........................

United States Postal Service 

Payment to the Postal Service Fund .................................................................................................................................... 29,000 29,000 29,000 .......................... ..........................

Advance appropriations ............................................................................................................................................... 82,831 89,328 89,328 ∂6,497 ..........................

Total, Payment to the Postal Service Fund ............................................................................................................ 111,831 118,328 118,328 ∂6,497 ..........................

Office of Inspector General .................................................................................................................................................. 239,356 244,397 244,397 ∂5,041 ..........................

Total, United States Postal Service ........................................................................................................................ 351,187 362,725 362,725 ∂11,538 ..........................

United States Tax Court ....................................................................................................................................................... 48,463 49,241 49,241 ∂778 ..........................

Total, title V, Independent Agencies ...................................................................................................................... 30,631,491 24,391,669 24,555,978 ¥6,075,513 ∂164,309 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (23,859,660 ) (24,302,341 ) (24,466,650 ) (∂606,990 ) (∂164,309 ) Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (6,689,000 ) .......................... .......................... (¥6,689,000 ) ..........................Advances ........................................................................................................................................................ (82,831 ) (89,328 ) (89,328 ) (∂6,497 ) ..........................(by transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (52,975 ) (37,942 ) (37,942 ) (¥15,033 ) ..........................

(Mandatory) ............................................................................................................................................................. (20,129,000 ) (20,138,000 ) (20,138,000 ) (∂9,000 ) ..........................(Discretionary less emergencies) ............................................................................................................................ (3,813,491 ) (4,253,669 ) (4,417,978 ) (∂604,487 ) (∂164,309 ) 
164 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation 

compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 

appropriation Budget estimate 

Grand total .............................................................................................................................................................. 51,470,576 46,439,230 46,479,193 ¥4,991,383 ∂39,963 

Appropriations ................................................................................................................................................ (44,528,809 ) (46,399,902 ) (46,439,865 ) (∂1,911,056 ) (∂39,963 ) Rescissions .................................................................................................................................................... (¥30,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥50,000 ) (¥20,000 ) ..........................Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (6,888,936 ) .......................... .......................... (¥6,888,936 ) ..........................Advances ........................................................................................................................................................ (82,831 ) (89,328 ) (89,328 ) (∂6,497 ) ..........................(by transfer) ................................................................................................................................................... (52,975 ) (117,942 ) (117,942 ) (∂64,967 ) ..........................

Æ