[Senate Report 111-238]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 497
111th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     111-238

======================================================================



 
  FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2011

                                _______
                                

                 July 29, 2010.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

           Mr. Durbin, from the Committee on Appropriations, 
                        submitted the following

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 3677]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3677) 
making appropriations for financial services and general 
government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and 
for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends 
that the bill do pass.



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

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $48,295,857,000
Amount of 2010 appropriations\1\........................  46,433,993,000
Amount of 2011 budget estimate..........................  48,219,254,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2010 appropriations.................................  +1,861,864,000
    2011 budget estimate................................     +76,603,000

\1\Includes $125,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in 
Public Law 111-118, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010; 
$60,000,000 in emergency appropriations appropriated in Public Law 111-
144, the Temporary Extension Act of 2010; and $80,000,000 in emergency 
appropriations appropriated in Public Law 111-157, the Continuing 
Extension Act of 2010.


                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Overview and Summary of Bill.....................................     5
Title I: Department of the Treasury:
    Departmental Offices.........................................     9
        Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs.    13
        Office of the Inspector General..........................    14
        Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration........    15
        Special Inspector General for Troubled Asset Relief 
          Program................................................    16
    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.........................    18
    Treasury Forfeiture Fund.....................................    19
    Financial Management Service.................................    19
    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.....................    20
    United States Mint...........................................    21
    Bureau of the Public Debt....................................    21
    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund............    22
    Bureau of Engraving and Printing.............................    23
    Internal Revenue Service.....................................    24
        Taxpayer Services........................................    26
        Enforcement..............................................    30
        Operations Support.......................................    32
        Business Systems Modernization...........................    33
        Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration...............    34
        Administrative Provisions--Internal Revenue Service......    34
    Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury........    35
Title II: Executive Office of the President and Funds 
  Appropriated to the President:
    Compensation of the President................................    37
    The White House..............................................    37
    Executive Residence at the White House.......................    38
    White House Repair and Restoration...........................    38
    Council of Economic Advisers.................................    39
    National Security Council and Homeland Security Council......    39
    Office of Administration.....................................    39
    Office of Management and Budget..............................    40
    Government-wide Management Councils..........................    41
    Office of National Drug Control Policy.......................    42
        Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center.................    43
    Funds Appropriated to the President:
        High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas....................    43
        Other Federal Drug Control Programs......................    45
    Unanticipated Needs..........................................    47
    Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation............    47
    Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information 
      Technology.................................................    48
    Special Assistance to the President..........................    49
    Official Residence of the Vice President.....................    49
    Administrative Provisions--Executive Office of the President 
      and Funds Appropriated to the President....................    49
Title III: The Judiciary:
    Supreme Court of the United States...........................    51
    Care of the Building and Grounds.............................    52
    United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.......    53
    United States Court of International Trade...................    54
    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 
      Services...................................................    54
    Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund.............................    56
    Defender Services............................................    56
    Fees of Jurors and Commissioners.............................    57
    Court Security...............................................    57
    Administrative Office of the United States Courts............    57
    Federal Judicial Center......................................    58
    Judicial Retirement Funds....................................    58
    United States Sentencing Commission..........................    59
    Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary.....................    59
Title IV--District of Columbia:
    Federal Funds:
        Federal Payment for Resident Tuition Support.............    60
        Federal Payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs 
          in the District of Columbia............................    61
        Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Courts.......    62
        Defender Services in District of Columbia Courts.........    63
        Federal Payment to the Court Services and Offender 
          Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia........    64
        Federal Payment to the Public Defender Service for the 
          District of Columbia...................................    65
        Federal Payment to the District of Columbia Water and 
          Sewer Authority........................................    65
        Federal Payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating 
          Council................................................    66
        Federal Payment for Judicial Commissions.................    67
        Federal Payment to the Office of the Chief Financial 
          Officer of the District of Columbia....................    68
        Federal Payment for School Improvement...................    69
        Federal Payment to Jump Start Public School Reform.......    74
        Federal Payment for Consolidated Laboratory Facility.....    74
        Federal Payment for the D.C. National Guard..............    75
        Federal Payment for Housing for the Homeless.............    76
        Federal Payment for Reconnecting Disconnected Youth......    76
        Federal Payment for Redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths 
          Hospital Campus........................................    77
        Federal Payment for HIV/AIDS Prevention..................    77
    District of Columbia Funds...................................    78
Title V--Independent Agencies:
    Administrative Conference of the United States...............    79
    Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation...................    79
    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.........................    80
    Consumer Product Safety Commission...........................    82
    Election Assistance Commission...............................    83
    Federal Communications Commission............................    84
    Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector 
      General....................................................    85
    Federal Election Commission..................................    86
    Federal Labor Relations Authority............................    86
    Federal Trade Commission.....................................    87
    General Services Administration..............................    89
    Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation........................   100
    Merit Systems Protection Board...............................   101
    Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation..............   101
    National Archives and Records Administration.................   102
    National Credit Union Administration.........................   107
    Office of Government Ethics..................................   108
    Office of Personnel Management...............................   109
    Office of Special Counsel....................................   113
    Postal Regulatory Commission.................................   114
    Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board..................   116
    Securities and Exchange Commission...........................   116
    Selective Service System.....................................   120
    Small Business Administration................................   121
    United States Postal Service.................................   129
        Office of Inspector General..............................   131
    United States Tax Court......................................   132
Title VI--General Provisions--This Act...........................   134
Title VII--General Provisions--Government-wide...................   136
Title VIII--General Provisions--District of Columbia.............   140
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   142
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   143
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Senate.....................................................   143
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   156
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............   157
Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority....................   163

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Financial Services and General Government 
appropriations bill provides funding for the Department of the 
Treasury, including the Internal Revenue Service; the Executive 
Office of the President; the Judiciary; the District of 
Columbia; and more than two dozen independent Federal agencies.
    The Committee recommends $48,295,857,000 in discretionary 
and mandatory appropriations. This represents an increase of 
$1,861,864,000 over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and an 
increase of $76,603,000 over the budget request. Of the total, 
$25,400,000,000 is provided in discretionary appropriations 
consistent with Committee spending guidance, and $117,751,000 
below the budget request of $25,517,751,000. Mandatory 
appropriations total $22,895,857,000.
    The Committee-recommended bill is consistent with the 
approved subcommittee allocation guidance for the Financial 
Services and General Government appropriations bill. The 
Committee has made difficult but necessary decisions to craft a 
bill that is within strict fiscal limitations.

                             PROJECT FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Items in Senate
                                         bill at        Congressionally
              Agency                   President's     directed spending
                                         request         in Senate bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of the Treasury........  .................         $2,400,000
District of Columbia..............  .................          1,000,000
General Services Administration...       $997,532,000         92,000,000
Office of National Drug Control             2,187,500  .................
 Policy...........................
Small Business Administration.....  .................         28,600,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        999,719,500        124,000,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Combined Total Project
       Funding in bill............              1,123,719,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Small Business Administration account includes 
congressionally directed spending totaling $28,600,000 for 117 
projects. The President did not request any specific projects. 
The Committee includes one congressionally directed spending 
item for the District of Columbia and one for the Department of 
the Treasury. Within the funds provided for the General 
Services Administration, the President requested $997,532,000, 
of which $676,362,000 is for construction of designated Federal 
buildings and $321,170,000 is for repair of designated Federal 
buildings. The Committee includes $92,000,000 for one Federal 
building construction project not included in the President's 
request but which is the top priority of the judiciary. The 
Committee includes funding for two drug programs within the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy that were requested by 
the President.

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2011, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' [PPA] shall mean any item for which a dollar amount 
is contained in appropriations acts (including joint 
resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or 
accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint 
explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

                        REPROGRAMMING GUIDELINES

    The Committee includes a provision (sec. 608) establishing 
the authority of agencies to reprogram funds and the limitation 
on that authority. The provision specifically requires the 
advance approval of the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations of any proposal to reprogram funds that: (1) 
creates a new program; (2) eliminates a program, project, or 
activity [PPA]; (3) increases funds or personnel for any PPA 
for which funds have been denied or restricted by the Congress; 
(4) proposes to redirect funds that were directed in such 
reports for a specific activity to a different purpose; (5) 
augments an existing PPA in excess of $5,000,000 or 10 percent, 
whichever is less; (6) reduces an existing PPA by $5,000,000 or 
10 percent, whichever is less; or (7) creates, reorganizes, or 
restructures offices different from the congressional budget 
justifications or the table at the end of the Committee report, 
whichever is more detailed.
    The Committee retains the requirement that each agency 
submit an operating plan to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not later than 60 days after enactment of this 
act to establish the baseline for application of reprogramming 
and transfer authorities provided in this act. Specifically, 
each agency should provide a table for each appropriation with 
columns displaying the budget request; adjustments made by 
Congress; adjustments for rescissions, if appropriate; and the 
fiscal year enacted level. The table shall delineate the 
appropriation both by object class and by PPA. The report must 
also identify items of special congressional interest.
    The Committee expects the agencies and bureaus to submit 
reprogramming requests in a timely manner and to provide a 
thorough explanation of the proposed reallocations, including a 
detailed justification of increases and reductions and the 
specific impact the proposed changes will have on the budget 
request for the following fiscal year. Except in emergency 
situations, reprogramming requests should be submitted no later 
than June 30.
    The Committee expects each agency to manage its programs 
and activities within the amounts appropriated by Congress. The 
Committee reminds agencies that reprogramming requests should 
be submitted only in the case of an unforeseeable emergency or 
a situation that could not have been anticipated when 
formulating the budget request for the current fiscal year. 
Further, the Committee notes that when a Department or agency 
submits a reprogramming or transfer request to the Committees 
on Appropriations and does not receive identical responses from 
the House and the Senate, it is the responsibility of the 
Department to reconcile the House and the Senate differences 
before proceeding, and if reconciliation is not possible, to 
consider the request to reprogram funds unapproved.

                    RELATIONSHIP WITH BUDGET OFFICES

    Through the years, the Committee has channeled most of its 
inquiries and requests for information and assistance through 
the budget offices of the various departments, agencies, 
offices, and commissions. The Committee has often pointed to 
the natural affinity and relationship between the budget 
offices and the Committee which makes such a relationship 
workable. The Committee reiterates its longstanding position 
that while the Committee reserves the right to call upon any 
office or officer in the departments, agencies, and 
commissions, the primary conjunction between the Committee and 
these entities must be through the budget offices. To help 
ensure the Committee's ability to perform its responsibilities, 
the Committee insists on having direct, unobstructed, and 
timely access to the budget offices and expects to be able to 
receive forthright and complete responses from those offices 
and their employees.
    The Committee has encountered growing difficulties in 
securing timely agency compliance with mandated reporting 
requirements and has experienced several situations in which 
deadlines for submission of reports were disregarded entirely. 
The Committee expects and directs all agencies from which 
reports are required to allow sufficient time to secure any 
necessary internal and external clearances of reports in order 
to satisfy congressional deadlines. The Committee strongly 
urges agencies to alert the Committee as far as possible in 
advance of any expected slippage in meeting a report delivery 
due date.

                  CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS

    Budget justifications are prepared not for the use of the 
agency, but instead are the primary tool used by the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations to evaluate the resource 
requirements and fiscal needs of agencies. The Committee is 
aware that the format and presentation of budget materials is 
largely left to the agency within presentation objectives set 
forth by OMB. In fact, OMB Circular A-11, part 6 specifically 
states that the ``agency should consult with your congressional 
committees beforehand to ensure their awareness of your plans 
to modify the format of agency budget documents.'' The 
Committee expects all the budget justifications to adhere to 
this directive and provide the data needed to make appropriate 
and meaningful funding decisions.
    The Committee directs that justifications submitted with 
the fiscal year 2012 budget requests by agencies funded under 
this act must contain the customary level of detailed data and 
explanatory statements to support the appropriations requests 
at the level of detail contained in the funding table included 
at the end of the report. Among other items, agencies shall 
provide a detailed discussion of proposed new initiatives, 
proposed changes in the agency's financial plan from prior year 
enactment, and detailed data on all programs and comprehensive 
information on any office or agency restructurings. At a 
minimum, each agency must also provide adequate justification 
for funding and staffing changes for each individual office and 
materials that compare programs, projects, and activities that 
are proposed for fiscal year 2012 to the fiscal year 2011 
enacted level.
    The Committee is aware that the analytical materials 
required for review by the Committee are unique to each agency 
in this act. Therefore, the Committee expects that each agency 
will coordinate with the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations in advance on its planned presentation for its 
budget justification materials in support of the fiscal year 
2012 budget request.

                                TITLE I

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          Departmental Offices

                         salaries and expenses

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $304,888,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     346,401,000
Committee recommendation................................     334,900,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Departmental Offices consist of the Office of the 
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, the Office of International 
Affairs, the Office of Domestic Finance, the Office of 
Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, the Office of Tax Policy, 
the Office of Economic Policy, the Office of the General 
Counsel, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of 
Public Affairs, the Office of the Treasurer, and the Office of 
Management. The Secretary of the Treasury has the primary role 
in formulating and managing the domestic and international tax 
and financial policies of the Federal Government. The 
Secretary's responsibilities funded by the Salaries and 
Expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing 
U.S. domestic and international economic and tax policy; 
formulating fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of 
the Government; executing the Nation's financial sanction 
policies; disrupting and dismantling terrorist financial 
infrastructure; protecting the United States and international 
financial system from terrorist financing, money laundering, 
and other financial crimes; managing the public debt; managing 
international development policy; representing the United 
States on international monetary, trade and investment issues; 
overseeing Department of the Treasury overseas operations; and 
directing the administrative operations of the Department of 
the Treasury. The majority of the Salaries and Expenses 
appropriation provides resources for policy formulation and 
implementation in the areas of domestic and international 
finance, terrorist financing and financial crimes, tax, 
economic, trade, financial operations and general fiscal 
policy. This appropriation also provides resources to support 
the Secretary, policy components, and departmental 
administrative policies in financial and personnel management, 
procurement operations, and information systems and 
telecommunications.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $334,900,000 for the Salaries and 
Expenses appropriation of the Departmental Offices account of 
the Department of the Treasury for fiscal year 2011. This 
amount is $11,501,000 below the budget request and $30,012,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The funding 
recommendations are made based on information included in the 
budget justification. The Committee notes that funds previously 
provided to this account for ``Administration'' have been 
allocated by budget activity as proposed in the budget request. 
Language is included allowing the Department to transfer up to 
4 percent between activities upon notification. Transfers may 
be made in excess of 4 percent upon approval of the House and 
Senate Appropriations Committees.
    The following table compares the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level to the fiscal year 2011 budget estimate and the 
Committee's recommendation for each office:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2011 budget      Committee
                                                                   2010 enacted      estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive direction (including General counsel).................          21,983          38,587          35,587
Economic policies and programs..................................          47,249          70,562          68,362
Financial policies and programs.................................          48,580          91,212          84,912
Terrorism and financial intelligence............................          64,611         102,613         102,613
Treasury-wide management and programs...........................          22,679          43,426          43,426
Administration\1\...............................................          99,786  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental offices...............................         304,888         346,401         334,900
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Funds provided in fiscal year 2010 for ``Administration'' are recommended to be allocated by budget activity
  in fiscal year 2011 as proposed in the budget request.

    Major initiatives funded within recommended levels include 
increased staffing in order to support the response to the 
global financial crisis, the increasingly complicated financial 
markets, and a changing regulatory landscape. Funding will also 
support additional staff for coordinating efforts to disrupt 
terrorist and other illicit financing.
    The Committee recommends the following increases to the 
budget request:
    National Academy of Sciences Study (Economic Policies and 
Programs): +$1,000,000.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 
for the Department to transfer to the National Academy of 
Sciences for a study on the long-term economic effects of the 
aging population in the United States. This demographic shift 
will impact the Nation's economic and financial state, 
affecting individuals, Government programs, such as Social 
Security and Medicare, and many economic and business sectors, 
including private mechanisms supporting retirees. The study 
will provide a basis for identifying potential policy 
recommendations for addressing the impacts of this demographic 
change. This funding will be sufficient to complete the study.
    Office of Financial Education (Financial Policies and 
Programs): +$1,000,000.--The Committee recommends an increase 
of $1,000,000 above the budget request for the Office of 
Financial Education. The Office of Financial Education 
administers the National Financial Literacy Challenge and 
develops strategies to combat predatory lending. The Office of 
Financial Education also coordinates the efforts of the 
Financial Literacy and Education Commission, a group chaired by 
the Secretary of the Treasury and composed of representatives 
from 20 Federal departments, agencies, and commissions. The 
Commission works to improve financial literacy and education 
for people throughout the United States. The recommended 
increase shall be utilized to enhance financial education 
efforts, including to support the revision of the national 
strategy on financial literacy and the development of 
measurable goals and objectives for the Financial Literacy and 
Education Commission.
    The Committee makes the following findings:
    Departmental Responsiveness.--The Committee continues to be 
dissatisfied with the responsiveness of the Department of the 
Treasury to questions and requests for information from the 
Committee. For example, the Department submitted hearing 
testimony less than 25 hours prior to the commencement of an 
April 2010 hearing on the foreclosure crisis and less than 24 
hours prior to the commencement of a June 2009 hearing on the 
Federal Government's payment of interchange fees.
    The Committee notes that included in the recommended 
funding level for Departmental Offices for fiscal year 2011 is 
$2,274,000 for the Office of Legislative Affairs. The primary 
responsibility of this office, and the intended purpose of the 
Committee's recommended funding, is to serve as the principal 
contact and coordinator for all Departmental interaction with 
the Congress, including responding to congressional inquiries, 
facilitating replies from other offices in the Department, 
monitoring the flow of congressional correspondence to ensure 
accurate and prompt response, and coordinating Departmental 
testimony before congressional committees. The Committee 
directs the Department and the Office of Legislative Affairs to 
respond promptly and completely to all requests for information 
from the Committee and also to keep the Committee promptly and 
fully informed of the status of all requests from the 
Committee.
    Management of the Financial Crisis.--The Committee 
appreciates the Department's efforts to stabilize the economy 
during such uncertain economic and financial conditions. The 
Committee notes that the Treasury Office of Inspector General 
continues to identify the management of the Treasury's new 
authorities related to distressed financial markets as a major 
management challenge facing the Department. Under these 
programs, the Department has an unprecedented role in managing 
billions in taxpayer dollars. The Committee directs the 
Department to ensure that these programs are administered 
soundly and efficiently in order to minimize risks to the 
taxpayer. The Committee also directs management to maintain 
focus on the Treasury's other critical missions--including 
terrorism and financial intelligence and assistance to 
community development financial institutions--in addition to 
management of policies and programs related to stabilizing the 
economy.
    Foreclosure Crisis.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned that the Department's strategy to reduce mortgage 
foreclosures and keep American families in their homes has 
fallen far short of the goal of modifying 3 to 4 million 
mortgages. The Committee notes that the Department has 
announced changes to the Home Affordable Modification Program 
[HAMP] that will provide some relief for unemployed homeowners 
and provide servicers more incentives to assist homeowners who 
owe more than their home is worth. In implementing these 
changes and making future improvements to the program, the 
Committee directs the Department to focus on how to best induce 
servicers to consider and implement principal reductions when 
it is financially beneficial to the borrower and lender. The 
Committee also directs the Department to ensure mortgage 
servicers are properly complying with HAMP agreements and to 
provide ample technical assistance and outreach to properly 
educate servicers about their responsibilities under the 
program.
    Economic Sanctions and Divestments.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $102,613,000 for Terrorism and 
Financial Intelligence programs. With these funds, the 
Department will continue to issue and enforce economic and 
trade sanctions consistent with national security and foreign 
policy goals. These sanctions are a key tool for asserting U.S. 
policy toward countries and entities under sanction. The 
Committee directs the Department to fully implement all 
sanctions and divestment measures, particularly those 
applicable to North Korea, Burma, Iran, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. 
The Committee directs the Department to promptly notify the 
Committee of any resource constraints that adversely impact the 
implementation of any sanctions program.
    Proceeds of Corruption.--Corrupt politicians, terrorists 
and those involved in organized crime are often able to hide 
their identity behind a corporate veil, allowing them to enjoy 
the proceeds of corruption and bribery, including on U.S. soil. 
The Committee directs the Department of Treasury to use its 
rulemaking authority to strengthen customer due diligence 
requirements for U.S. financial institutions, consistent with 
applicable statutory authorities and international standards, 
including by identifying the beneficial owner of corporate 
vehicles, where appropriate.
    The Committee also directs the Department, in consultation 
with the other members of the United States delegation to the 
Financial Action Task Force [FATF], to take a leadership role 
in prioritizing prevention of the illicit flow of corrupt 
funds, including by strengthening FATF anti-corruption 
requirements and by conducting an extensive typology exercise 
on foreign corruption. The typology exercise will inform 
financial institutions on how to recognize the proceeds of 
corruption and therefore help prevent the flow of illicit funds 
into the United States. The Committee also urges the U.S. 
delegation to work with other member states to assess the 
implementation of the FATF's 40+9 Recommendations in practice, 
as well as in law, to ensure that the task force's 
recommendations are being effectively implemented and enforced 
by all countries.
    The Committee directs the Department to provide a written 
report to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs within 180 days of 
enactment on activities related to preventing the flow of 
proceeds of corruption into the United States, specifically 
including activities related to identifying the beneficial 
ownership of corporate vehicles, where appropriate, and 
participation in FATF activities and initiatives.
    Stored Value Cards.--Pursuant to the Credit Card 
Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 
(Public Law 111-24), the Department was required to issue 
regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act regarding the 
sale, issuance, redemption, or international transport of 
stored value, including stored value cards. The Committee 
directs the Department to address the issue of international 
transport of stored value devices, which continues to be a 
major concern for law enforcement agencies. The Committee 
directs the Department, in coordination with the Department of 
Homeland Security, to submit a written report to the Committee 
on the status of the regulations on the international 
transportation of stored value devices not later than 90 days 
after enactment of this act.
    Management of Capital Investments and Information 
Security.--The Treasury Office of Inspector General continues 
to cite the Department's management of capital investments and 
information security as top management challenges. Treasury is 
currently planning and managing several capital investments, 
including the transition to a new telecommunications contract, 
the implementation of enhanced information security 
requirements, and a modernization of systems supporting the 
implementation of the Bank Secrecy Act. The Committee 
recognizes efforts the Department has made to emphasize capital 
investment management Department-wide.
    The Committee directs the Department to continue improving 
the management of capital investments, specifically focusing on 
integrating all of the Department's bureaus into improvement 
efforts and institutionalizing improvements so that taxpayers 
will benefit from better management of future capital projects. 
The Committee notes that section 119 of the bill requires the 
Secretary of the Treasury to develop an annual Capital 
Investment Plan, to be submitted to the Committees on 
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
within 30 days following submission of the President's annual 
budget request. The Committee directs the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer to ensure that adequate resources are 
devoted both to projects in the capital phase and to proper 
maintenance and modernization of existing systems and to ensure 
that all projects are tracked properly and described completely 
in the annual Capital Investment Plan.

        DEPARTMENT-WIDE SYSTEMS AND CAPITAL INVESTMENTS PROGRAMS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $9,544,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      13,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The 1997 Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
established this account, which is authorized to be used by or 
on behalf of Treasury bureaus at the Secretary's discretion to 
modernize business processes and increase efficiency through 
technology investments, as well as other activities that 
involve more than one Treasury bureau or Treasury's interface 
with other Government agencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,000,000 
for Department-wide systems and capital investments programs 
[DSCIP]. This amount is $9,000,000 below the budget request and 
$3,456,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
    The following table compares the Committee recommendation 
with the budget request and the fiscal year 2009 and 2010 
enacted levels.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                DSCIP Initiative                    Fiscal year     2010 budget     2011 budget      Committee
                                                   2009 enacted      estimate        estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-Government Initiatives........................      $2,057,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
Enterprise Content Management...................       6,000,000  ..............      $5,000,000      $5,000,000
Treasury Secure Data Network....................       4,400,000  ..............  ..............  ..............
Cyber Security--Information Security............       3,000,000      $3,000,000  ..............  ..............
Annex Repair and Renovation.....................      11,518,000       4,544,000  ..............  ..............
Treasury Foreign Intelligence Network...........  ..............       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
Financial Innovation and Transformation.........  ..............  ..............      17,000,000       8,000,000
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................      26,975,000       9,544,000      22,000,000      13,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee notes that the DSCIP account has been 
utilized to fund a wide variety of multi-year initiatives. 
Given the complexity of these initiatives, the bill includes 
language in section 119 directing the Department of the 
Treasury to submit an annual Capital Investment Plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations within 30 days after the 
President's budget submission.
    The recommendation includes $8,000,000 for the Financial 
Innovation and Transformation Program instead of $17,000,000 
included in the budget request. The Committee is supportive of 
the concept of the program, which the Committee understands is 
supported by the administration due to its potential to provide 
Government-wide solutions for processing financial 
transactions. However, the budget justifications for this 
program were not sufficiently detailed for the Committee to 
make a recommendation for the full amount of funding requested. 
The Committee directs the Department to provide a detailed 
justification within 60 days of enactment including specific 
cost estimates for each portion or discrete project within the 
program. The Committee looks forward to learning more about the 
Department's and the administration's proposals for activities 
under this program and will make future funding recommendations 
based on detailed funding estimates.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $29,700,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      30,269,000
Committee recommendation................................      33,269,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    As a result of the 1988 amendments to the Inspector General 
[IG] Act, the Secretary of the Treasury established the Office 
of Inspector General [OIG] in 1989.
    The OIG conducts and supervises audits, evaluations, and 
investigations designed to: (1) promote economy, efficiency, 
and effectiveness and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in 
departmental programs and operations; and (2) keep the 
Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of problems 
and deficiencies in the administration of departmental programs 
and operations. The audit function provides program audit, 
contract audit, and financial statement audit services. 
Contract audits provide professional advice to agency 
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters 
relative to negotiation, award, administration, repricing, and 
settlement of contracts. Program audits review and audit all 
facets of agency operations. Financial statement audits assess 
whether financial statements fairly present the agency's 
financial condition and results of operations, the adequacy of 
accounting controls, and compliance with laws and regulations. 
These audits contribute significantly to improved financial 
management by helping Treasury managers identify improvements 
needed in their accounting and internal control systems. The 
evaluations function reviews program performance and issues 
critical to the mission of the Department. The investigative 
function provides for the detection and investigation of 
improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, 
and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,269,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General. 
This amount is an increase of $3,000,000 over the budget 
request and $3,569,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level. Additional funds are provided to support additional 
audits and investigations beyond the limited scope supportable 
within current resources given the Inspector General's 
increased workload resulting from required reviews of certain 
bank failures. The Committee directs that the highest priority 
for such additional audits shall be the Bank Secrecy Act 
Information Technology Modernization project currently being 
planned and implemented by Treasury's Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network. The Committee directs that the Inspector 
General shall submit a written report to the Committee 
regarding this project, including contractor oversight and 
progress regarding budget and schedule, on March 31, 2011 and 
semiannually thereafter. In addition, the Committee directs the 
Inspector General to perform audits on Treasury's anti-money 
laundering and terrorist financing activities, capital 
investment spending and planning, the Community Development 
Financial Institutions Fund, and areas identified by the 
Inspector General as presenting a high risk to taxpayer-funded 
spending.

           TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $152,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     155,452,000
Committee recommendation................................     155,452,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration 
[TIGTA] was established by the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act 
of 1998 (Public Law 105-206). TIGTA was created to provide 
independent audit and investigative services necessary to 
improve the quality and credibility of oversight of the 
Internal Revenue Service [IRS]. Funding was first appropriated 
for this account in the fiscal year 2000 Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act (Public Law 106-58).
    TIGTA conducts audits, investigations, and evaluations to 
assess the operations and programs of the IRS and related 
entities, the IRS Oversight Board and the Office of Chief 
Counsel to (1) promote the economic, efficient and effective 
administration of the Nation's tax laws and to detect and deter 
fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations; and (2) 
recommend actions to resolve fraud and other serious problems, 
abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and operations, and 
keep the Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed of 
these issues and the progress made in resolving them. TIGTA 
reviews existing and proposed legislation and regulations 
relating to the programs and operations of the IRS and related 
entities and makes recommendations concerning the impact of 
such legislation and regulations on the economy and efficiency 
in the administration of programs and operations of the IRS and 
related entities. The audit function provides program audit, 
limited contract audit, and financial audit services. Program 
audits review and audit all facets of the IRS and related 
entities in an effort to improve IRS systems and operations, 
while ensuring fair and equitable treatment of taxpayers. 
Contract audits focus on invoices/vouchers submitted to the IRS 
to determine whether charges are valid and to identify 
erroneous and improper payments. The investigative function 
provides for the detection and investigation of improper and 
illegal activities involving IRS programs and operations and 
protects the IRS and related entities against external attempts 
to corrupt or threaten the administration of the tax laws.
    During fiscal year 2009, TIGTA's combined audit and 
investigative efforts recovered, protected, and identified 
monetary benefits totaling more than $14,700,000,000. TIGTA's 
Office of Audit completed 142 reports and its Office of 
Investigations closed 3,527 investigations. Enactment of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-
5) spurred the immediate need for increased oversight of 
economic stimulus funding throughout all levels of government. 
TIGTA serves a critical role in promoting integrity and 
efficiency in the use of funds, particularly through its work 
in scrutinizing the IRS's administration of various tax credits 
and other economic stimulus provisions in the Recovery Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $155,452,000 
for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. This 
amount is an increase of $3,452,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee 
appreciates the challenges TIGTA faces in adapting its 
oversight activities to address increasingly complex and high-
risk issues associated with IRS operations, including detection 
and investigation of fraud and electronic crime, review of 
procurement activities, and safeguarding of taxpayer privacy. 
The Committee recognizes that growth in the size and workload 
of the IRS generates concomitant increased work for TIGTA. The 
Committee expects that the increased funding provided will be 
devoted to critical oversight of the administration's renewed 
emphasis on addressing illegal overseas tax evasion and closing 
tax loopholes so as to make it more profitable for companies to 
create jobs in the United States. In addition, the funding will 
support TIGTA's role in coordinated Government-wide activities 
that identify and review weaknesses and vulnerabilities that 
expose Federal programs and operations to waste, fraud, abuse, 
and mismanagement.
    The Committee commends TIGTA for its ongoing review of the 
IRS's business systems modernization program and other 
information technology projects. The Committee also 
acknowledges the critical importance of the priorities TIGTA 
has identified in its strategic plan, including adapting to the 
IRS's continuously evolving operations and mitigating 
intensified risks associated with modernization, security, 
addressing the tax gap, and human capital challenges facing the 
IRS. In addition, TIGTA plays a pivotal role in responding to 
threats and attacks against IRS employees, property, and 
sensitive information. Furthermore, the Committee appreciates 
and expects TIGTA's vigilance in monitoring IRS efforts to 
implement the 56 tax provisions of the Recovery Act.
    The Committee shares TIGTA's ongoing concern that the IRS 
is developing and launching its modernized systems without 
adequately contemplating the security implications. The 
Committee urges continued TIGTA oversight of tax gap issues, 
including data reliability, tax law enforcement, and taxpayer 
assistance, to ensure that the IRS enhances voluntary 
compliance by balancing taxpayer services and enforcement 
without jeopardizing taxpayer rights. The Committee would 
welcome future TIGTA work to evaluate the IRS's volunteer and 
low-income taxpayer assistance programs; study the 
misclassification of employees as independent contractors and 
its impact on the tax gap; examine ``phishing'' schemes and 
other external and electronic attempts that expose taxpayers to 
surrendering private information that could be used for 
identity theft and undermine tax administration; and identify 
best practices and safeguards to reduce and mitigate threats to 
the security of IRS employees and its data infrastructure and 
facilities.

    SPECIAL INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE TROUBLED ASSET RELIEF PROGRAM

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $23,300,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      49,600,000
Committee recommendation................................      49,600,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (Public Law 110-
343) established the Office of the Special Inspector General 
for the Troubled Asset Relief Program [SIGTARP] to perform 
audits and investigations of the Troubled Asset Relief Program 
[TARP].

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $49,600,000 for the SIGTARP for 
fiscal year 2011, equal to the budget request. This amount is 
$26,300,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, which 
funded only the latter portion of that fiscal year. The 
Committee is pleased with the quality of the audits and 
investigations conducted by the SIGTARP, particularly with 
regard to written materials provided to the Congress and 
public.

                  Financial Crimes Enforcement Network


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $111,010,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     100,419,000
Committee recommendation................................     121,669,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN], a bureau 
within the Treasury Department's Office of Terrorism and 
Financial Intelligence, is the largest overt collector of 
financial intelligence in the United States. FinCEN's mission 
is to safeguard the financial system from the abuses of 
financial crime, including terrorist financing, money 
laundering, and other illicit activity. FinCEN accomplishes its 
mission by administering the Bank Secrecy Act, a collection of 
statutes that form the Nation's anti-money laundering/counter-
terrorist financing regulatory regime. As the delegated 
administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN is responsible 
for the development and implementation of regulations, rules, 
and guidance issued under the Bank Secrecy Act. FinCEN also 
oversees the work of eight Federal agencies that have been 
delegated responsibility to examine various sectors of the 
financial industry for compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act's 
requirements. FinCEN is responsible for collecting, 
maintaining, and disseminating the information reported by 
financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act through a 
Government-wide access service. FinCEN is the United States' 
Financial Intelligence Unit [FIU] and a founding member of the 
Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units. As the United 
States' FIU, FinCEN routinely shares information and cooperates 
with other FIUs around the world to address the global problems 
of terrorist financing, money laundering, and other illicit 
activity.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $121,669,000 for the Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network [FinCEN]. This amount is $10,659,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $21,250,000 above 
the budget request. The Committee rejects the proposal to fund 
a portion of the Bank Secrecy Act Information Technology 
Modernization project using proceeds from the Treasury 
Forfeiture Fund. Of the amount recommended above the request, 
$19,750,000 reflects the Committee's recommendation to fund the 
project exclusively through the account designated for FinCEN 
Salaries and Expenses.
    The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above 
the budget request to enhance efforts to fight fraud and 
illicit financing by expanding FinCEN's analytical support to 
the network of more than 300 law enforcement and regulatory 
authorities comprised of Federal, State, and local agencies, 
United States Attorneys offices, State attorneys general, and 
local district attorneys.
    Information Technology Modernization.--The Committee 
recommends a total of $45,835,000 to support FinCEN's efforts 
to modernize the technical environment for implementation of 
the Bank Secrecy Act [BSA] in accordance with the estimate 
provided for that project for fiscal year 2011. The 
modernization will re-engineer the BSA data architecture, 
update antiquated infrastructure required to support data 
capture and dissemination, implement innovative Web services 
and enhanced electronic filing, and provide enhanced analytical 
tools. This system is used by banks, Federal law enforcement, 
State and local law enforcement, and other Federal intelligence 
agencies to report, gather, and analyze data to identify money 
laundering, terrorist financing, tax evasion, and 
vulnerabilities in the financial industry. The current 
infrastructure is outdated and limits the capabilities of these 
users, which ultimately limits the capability of the Treasury 
and its partners to pursue money laundering, terrorist 
financing, and tax evasion.
    The Committee is pleased with the steps FinCEN has taken to 
strengthen its acquisition and project management competencies 
and directs the agency to continue to pursue employee education 
and training efforts in this area, including training on proper 
budget execution practices. The Committee also directs FinCEN 
to place a top priority on contractor oversight and on 
involving its wide variety of stakeholders in the development 
of the modernized system. FinCEN is directed to submit a 
semiannual report to the Committee on Appropriations 
summarizing the agency's progress regarding the modernization 
effort, including milestones planned and achieved, progress on 
cost and schedule, management of contractor oversight, 
strategies to involve stakeholders, and acquisition management 
efforts.
    The Committee also directs FinCEN to focus efforts on 
improving the completeness and reliability of BSA data in 
accordance with recommendations by the Treasury Inspector 
General and the Government Accountability Office. The Committee 
notes that while a new BSA infrastructure will improve the 
capabilities of processing and analyzing BSA data, the 
accuracy, reliability, and timeliness of the data itself will 
ultimately determine the effectiveness of the system and 
related processes.

                        Treasury Forfeiture Fund


                              (RESCISSION)

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

                      Financial Management Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $244,132,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     235,253,000
Committee recommendation................................     235,253,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    In 1940, the Department of the Treasury established the 
Fiscal Service, which consisted of the Bureau of Accounts, the 
Bureau of the Public Debt, and the Office of the Treasurer. A 
1974 reorganization of the Fiscal Service created the Bureau of 
Government Financial Operations, which was formed from a merger 
of the Bureau of Accounts and most functions of the Office of 
the Treasurer. In 1984, the Bureau of Government Financial 
Operations was renamed the Financial Management Service [FMS].
    FMS implements payment policy and procedures for Federal 
agencies, issues and distributes payments, promotes the use of 
electronics in the payment process, and assists agencies in 
converting payments from paper checks to electronic funds 
transfer [EFT]. FMS provides debt collection operational 
services to client agencies, implements collections policy, 
regulations, standards, and procedures for the Federal 
Government, and assists agencies in converting collections from 
paper to electronic media.
    FMS provides financial accounting, reporting, and financing 
services to the Federal Government and the Government's agents 
who participate in the payments and collections process by 
generating a series of daily, monthly, quarterly, and annual 
Government-wide reports. FMS also works directly with agencies 
to help reconcile reporting differences.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $235,253,000 for salaries and 
expenses for FMS. This amount is the same as the budget request 
and $8,879,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. An 
additional amount of $80,036,000 is also estimated to be 
available to FMS from reimbursable resources for debt 
collection activities.

                Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $103,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     106,168,000
Committee recommendation................................     101,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Homeland Security Act created the Alcohol and Tobacco 
Tax and Trade Bureau [TTB] within the Department of the 
Treasury and charged TTB with collecting revenue and protecting 
the public.
    TTB enforces certain Federal laws and regulations relating 
to alcohol and tobacco. TTB works directly and in cooperation 
with others to maintain a sound revenue management and 
collection system that continues to reduce the regulatory 
burden, improve service, collect the revenue due, and prevent 
tax evasion and other criminal conduct. TTB is also responsible 
for preventing consumer deception, ensuring that regulated 
products comply with Federal commodity, safety, and 
distribution requirements, and providing customer service.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $101,000,000 for TTB for fiscal 
year 2011. This amount is $5,168,000 below the budget request 
and $2,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The 
Committee does not recommend, for the second year in a row, 
assessing fees on producers, distributors, and retailers of 
alcohol in order to offset TTB's operating costs, as proposed 
in the budget. The recommended funding level for TTB is 
decreased by the cost assumed in the budget for implementing 
the proposed collections.
    The Committee reminds the Department of Treasury and TTB 
that the fiscal year 2010 enacted level included $3,000,000, to 
remain available until September 30, 2011, for hiring, 
training, and equipping of special law enforcement agents to 
target tobacco smuggling and other criminal diversion 
activities. The Committee directs the Department and TTB to 
place a high priority on hiring these positions and conducting 
robust criminal enforcement activities at TTB.

                           United States Mint


               UNITED STATES MINT PUBLIC ENTERPRISE FUND

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Mint manufactures coins, sells numismatic 
and investment products, and provides for security and asset 
protection. Public Law 104-52 established the U.S. Mint Public 
Enterprise Fund (the Fund). The Fund encompasses the previous 
Salaries and Expenses, Coinage Profit Fund, Coinage Metal Fund, 
and the Numismatic Public Enterprise Fund. The Mint submits 
annual audited business-type financial statements to the 
Secretary of the Treasury and to Congress in support of the 
operations of the revolving fund.
    The operations of the Mint are divided into two major 
activities: Manufacturing and sales (including circulating 
coinage and numismatic and investment products); and 
protection. The Mint is credited with receipts from its 
circulating coinage operations, equal to the full cost of 
producing and distributing coins that are put into circulation, 
including depreciation of the Mint's plant and equipment on the 
basis of current replacement value. Those receipts pay for the 
costs of the Mint's operations, which include the costs of 
production and distribution. The difference between the face 
value of the coins and these costs is a profit, which is 
deposited as seigniorage to the general fund. In fiscal year 
2009, the Mint transferred $475,000,000 to the general fund. 
Any seigniorage used to finance the Mint's capital acquisitions 
is recorded as budget authority in the year that funds are 
obligated for this purpose and as receipts over the life of the 
asset.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a spending level of $25,000,000 
for circulating coinage and protective service capital 
investments for the Mint. This amount is a decrease of 
$1,700,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is 
equal to the budget request.

                       Bureau of the Public Debt


                     ADMINISTERING THE PUBLIC DEBT

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $182,244,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     175,985,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,985,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Public Debt Service was formed in 1919 with the 
appointment of the first Commissioner of the Public Debt. The 
Public Debt Service took general charge of debt operations 
including debt accounting and securities issue and retirement, 
which had been conducted by several independent divisions 
within the Treasury. Acting under the authorization of the 
Reorganization Act of 1939, the President created the Bureau of 
the Public Debt, which was established as part of the Fiscal 
Service in the Department of the Treasury effective June 30, 
1940 (31 U.S.C. 306). In 1993, the Savings Bonds Division, a 
separate organization, was made part of the Bureau.
    This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all 
public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. 
savings-type securities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $175,985,000 for the Bureau of the 
Public Debt for fiscal year 2011. This amount is a decrease of 
$6,259,0000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is 
equal to the budget request.

           Community Development Financial Institutions Fund


   COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $246,750,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     250,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     302,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund makes 
investments in the form of grants, loans, equity investments, 
deposits, and technical assistance grants to new and existing 
community development financial institutions [CDFIs] through 
the CDFI program. CDFIs include community development banks, 
credit unions, venture capital funds, revolving loan funds, and 
microloan funds, among others. Recipient institutions engage in 
lending and investment for affordable housing, small business, 
and community development within underserved communities. The 
CDFI Fund administers the Bank Enterprise Award [BEA] Program, 
which provides a financial incentive to insured depository 
institutions to undertake community development financing 
activities. The CDFI Fund also administers the New Markets Tax 
Credit Program, a program that provides an incentive to 
investors in the form of a tax credit, which is expected to 
stimulate private community and economic development 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $302,400,000 for the CDFI Fund, 
which is $55,650,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 
and $52,400,000 above the budget request.
    Bank on USA.--The Committee recommends $52,400,000 for the 
Bank on USA program to promote access to affordable financial 
services and basic consumer credit products for households 
without access to such products and services. These households 
face a number of problems, including high fees for alternative 
financial services such as check-cashing, barriers to saving 
and building credit, and increased exposure to risks such as 
fraud and theft. Many of these households also lack access to 
reasonably priced short-term consumer credit to meet emergency 
or regular needs, often turning to payday loans, refund 
anticipation loans, pawn shops and other high-priced 
alternatives for credit needs. Of funding recommended for the 
Bank on USA program, $2,400,000 is provided for an eligible 
entity or entities located in Hawaii. The Committee directs the 
CDFI Fund to submit a detailed spending plan on the Bank on USA 
program to the Committee within 120 days of enactment.
    Healthy Food Financing Initiative.--The Committee 
recommends $25,000,000 for the Healthy Food Financing 
Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to increase the 
availability of affordable, healthy foods in underserved urban 
and rural communities. Currently, many of these communities are 
only served by fast food restaurants and convenience stores 
that offer few healthy food options. Recommended funding will 
increase the availability of affordable financing for grocery 
store development, supplies and equipment to improve food 
production technology, and improvements and modernization of 
food distribution mechanisms and infrastructure.
    Small Dollar Loan Program.--The Committee recommends 
$7,500,000 for grants to qualified CDFIs for the purpose of 
building sufficient capital to support loans of $2,500 or less 
pursuant to section 1206 of Public Law 111-203. Such ``small 
dollar loans'' will provide consumers access to mainstream 
financial institutions and alternatives to payday loans and 
other predatory lending.
    Native Programs.--The Committee recommends a set-aside of 
$12,000,000 for grants, loans, and technical assistance and 
training programs to benefit Native American, Alaskan Natives, 
and Native Hawaiian communities in the coordination of 
development strategies, increased access to equity investments, 
and loans for development activities.
    The Committee understands that many CDFIs are experiencing 
difficulty obtaining non-Federal funding due to the economic 
downturn. The Committee recommends continuing the temporary 
waiver of matching fund requirements for CDFI programs so that 
CDFIs can continue to invest in and assist underserved 
communities during the economic crisis. The Committee intends 
to reinstate matching fund requirements when capital markets 
return to normal function.
    The Department is directed to fund the Bank Enterprise 
Award program at a level of $25,000,000.

                    Bureau of Engraving and Printing


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Bureau of Engraving and Printing [BEP] has been the 
sole manufacturer of U.S. paper currency for almost 150 years. 
The origin of the BEP is traced to an act of Congress passed on 
February 25, 1862, 12 Stat. 345, authorizing the Secretary of 
the Treasury to issue a new currency--United States notes. 
While this law was the cornerstone authority for the operations 
of the engraving and printing division of the Treasury for many 
years, it was not until an Act of June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 100, 
that the Congress first referred to this division as the 
``Bureau of Engraving and Printing.'' The Bureau's status as a 
distinct bureau within the Department of the Treasury was 
solidified by section 1 of the Act of June 4, 1897, 30 Stat. 
18, which placed all of the business of the BEP under the 
immediate control of a director, subject to the direction of 
the Secretary of the Treasury. The 1897 law is now codified in 
31 U.S.C. 303.
    The BEP designs, manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve 
notes and other security documents issued by the Federal 
Government.
    The operations of the BEP are currently financed by means 
of a revolving fund established in accordance with the 
provisions of Public Law 656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), 
which requires the BEP to be reimbursed by customer agencies 
for all costs of manufacturing products and services performed. 
The BEP is also authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital 
equipment and provide for working capital needs.
    No direct appropriation is required to cover the activities 
of the BEP.

                        Internal Revenue Service


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Internal Revenue Service [IRS] administers the Nation's 
tax laws and collects the revenue that funds over 96 percent of 
the Federal Government's operations and public services. The 
IRS's mission is to provide taxpayers with quality service by 
helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and 
by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all. The 
IRS focuses its enforcement programs toward increasing 
voluntary tax compliance by deterring taxpayers inclined to 
evade their tax obligations while vigorously pursuing those who 
violate the law. Each year, IRS employees deal directly with 
more American taxpayers than any other institution, public or 
private.
    During fiscal year 2009, the IRS processed more than 236 
million returns, provided nearly 127 million refunds, and 
collected over $2,300,000,000,000 for the Federal Government. 
Of the 144 million individual income tax returns processed, 66 
percent were filed electronically. This marks a significant 
increase in electronically filed returns compared to the 31 
percent in fiscal year 2001. The IRS provided taxpayer 
assistance through over 296 million visits to the IRS.gov Web 
site and through nearly 68 million telephone calls. The IRS 
employed a total work force of 105,814, including seasonal and 
part-time employees. In fiscal year 2009, the average cost of 
collecting $100 in tax revenue was 50 cents. An important focus 
for the IRS in recent years has been to undertake a major 
modernization of its systems, including expanding its Internet 
services, and business operations to better serve taxpayers and 
enforce the law.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $12,508,243,000 for the Internal 
Revenue Service for fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of 
$362,120,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 
$125,027,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports 
the requested additional funding, and expects the IRS to devote 
these resources to reducing the tax gap by investing in a 
strong compliance program and initiatives to address 
international tax evasion, as well as needed upgrades to IRS 
information technology systems to streamline tax 
administration, protect taxpayer information, and replace aging 
infrastructure.
    Tax Gap.--The vast majority of Americans pay their fair 
share of taxes, yet there is still a ``tax gap.'' The tax gap 
is the difference between what taxpayers are supposed to pay 
and what they actually do pay. In its update of the results of 
a 3-year study, the IRS found that for tax year 2001, about 84 
percent of owed taxes were paid voluntarily and timely. 
However, a significant number of taxpayers do not comply with 
the Tax Code resulting in an estimated gross tax gap of 
$345,000,000,000. The IRS estimates that after enforcement and 
other late payments are factored into the gross tax gap, the 
net tax gap is about $290,000,000,000. The most current 
estimate of the tax gap remains largely unchanged from the 
IRS's initial update conducted in 2006, and has remained 
relatively stable for the past three decades based on previous 
IRS studies. The accuracy of the tax gap, however, is uncertain 
given the use of outdated and incomplete information and 
questionable methodology. Some experts, including the GAO and 
TIGTA, believe that the tax gap may actually be higher than 
estimated by the IRS. The Committee strongly believes that the 
IRS can and must reduce the tax gap if the IRS is given 
additional resources and is able to improve its operational 
capabilities (most notably through the Business Systems 
Modernization program).
    To reduce the tax gap, experts recommend a number of 
approaches. These include: improving information reporting, 
improving taxpayer services, increasing research on 
noncompliance, improving the partnership between the IRS and 
the tax administration community, and leveraging technology to 
improve IRS's systems. The Committee supports all of these 
approaches in combination.
    The Committee remains concerned that absent a better 
understanding of the current sources of noncompliance, efforts 
to improve compliance may be hampered, misdirected, and 
difficult to measure. To gain meaningful insights into taxpayer 
behavior, the Committee strongly supports the work of the 
National Research Program.
    Operating Plan and Notification.--In addition to the normal 
operating plan requirements detailed in the introduction in 
this report, the Committee directs the IRS to include details 
on any planned reorganization, job reductions or increases to 
offices or activities within the agency, and modifications to 
any service or enforcement activity. The Committee also directs 
the IRS to obtain and include comments of the IRS Oversight 
Board as part of its operating plan submission to the 
Committee. Further, the IRS should promptly notify the 
Committee and the IRS Oversight Board of any substantial 
changes to these plans.
    The Committee remains concerned about any efforts to reduce 
specific taxpayer services, including face-to-face services. 
Therefore, the Committee directs that if the IRS proposes 
reductions in taxpayer services, such reductions must be 
consistent with the budget justification, operating plan, and 
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint, and the IRS must demonstrate 
that such reductions will not result in a decline in voluntary 
compliance. Where such reductions involve a reduction in face-
to-face service, the IRS must demonstrate that the proposed 
reductions do not adversely impact compliance by taxpayers who 
are dependent on such services, by showing, through such means 
as a successful pilot program, survey, or other empirical 
study, that there is an effective and viable service 
alternative available.
    IRS Staffing Plans.--The Committee continues to support 
adequate staffing levels for effective tax administration and 
supports the staffing plans for the IRS facilities in the 
communities of Martinsburg and Beckley, West Virginia. 
Therefore, the Committee urges the IRS, within the constraints 
of the fiscal year 2011 funding levels, to make no staffing 
reductions at the Martinsburg National Computing Center and the 
programmed level at the Finance Center in Beckley, West 
Virginia. Further, the Committee directs the IRS to provide an 
annual report to the Committee on its efforts to protect and 
increase staffing levels at the Martinsburg and Beckley IRS 
facilities.
    Taxpayer Services in Alaska and Hawaii.--Given the remote 
distance of Alaska and Hawaii from the U.S. mainland and the 
difficulty experienced by Alaska and Hawaii taxpayers in 
receiving needed tax assistance by the national toll-free line, 
it is imperative that the Taxpayer Advocate Service Centers in 
these States are fully staffed and capable of resolving 
taxpayer problems of the most complex nature. The Committee 
directs the IRS to continue to staff each Taxpayer Advocate 
Service Center in each of these States with a Collection 
Technical Advisor and an Examination Technical Advisor in 
addition to the current complement of office staff. Staffing 
should be increased if, as the result of the IRS Restructuring 
and Reform Act of 1998, subsequent legislation, or other 
factors, the volume of cases or their complexity increases.

                           TAXPAYER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $2,278,830,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   2,321,975,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,331,468,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Taxpayer Services appropriation provides for taxpayer 
services, including forms and publications; processing tax 
returns and related documents; filing and account services; 
taxpayer advocacy services; and assisting taxpayers to 
understand their tax obligations, correctly file their returns, 
and pay taxes due in a timely manner.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,331,468,000 for Taxpayer 
Services, which is $52,638,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level, and $9,493,000 above the budget request. Bill 
language is included providing not less than $6,100,000 for the 
tax counseling for the elderly program, not less than 
$10,000,000 for low-income taxpayer clinic [LITC] grants, not 
less than $14,000,000, to be available for 2 years, for a 
community volunteer income tax assistance [VITA] matching grant 
program for tax return preparation assistance and $212,888,178 
for the Taxpayer Advocate Service.
    The Committee supports the program increases of 
$45,900,000, comprised of the planned $25,000,000 initiative to 
improve www.IRS.gov and the planned $20,900,000 initiaitve to 
raise the level of service on IRS toll-free telephones. The 
Committee does not support decreasing funding that would roll 
back services to low income taxpayers served by the VITA and 
LITC grant programs or the activities of the Taxpayer Advocate 
Service to assist taxpayers in resolving tax filing and 
compliance issues.
    The Committee strongly believes that ``Service + 
Enforcement = Compliance'' and that, as outlined in the IRS 
Strategic Plan 2009-2013, the IRS must improve service to make 
voluntary compliance easier.
    The Committee recognizes the significant service challenges 
the IRS faces as a result of new tax law provisions designed to 
assist taxpayers in difficult economic times. These provisions 
required rapid implementation, including a series of first-time 
home-buyers tax credits, Making Work Pay credits, and a 
recovery rebate credit relating to the Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008. As a result, telephone call volume to the IRS remained 
high, and the level of service on the IRS' toll-free telephone 
lines in fiscal year 2009 was 70 percent. This service level 
was a significant improvement over the previous year's 53 
percent, but far below the annual levels achieved during fiscal 
years 2003 through 2007, when service levels ranged between 82 
and 87 percent. The Committee notes that the IRS launched 
several efforts to help increase the telephone service levels 
for the 2010 filing season, including increasing the number of 
assistors available during the fiscal year, establishing six 
applications to handle Recovery Act call volume, and developing 
a Web-based application for taxpayers who needed confirmation 
of their prior year adjusted gross income or personal 
identification number.
    The Committee acknowledges the tremendous resource 
challenges facing the IRS in sustaining efficient and effective 
core taxpayer service delivery in the face of expanded new 
responsibilities for administering an increasing number of 
social benefit programs. The Committee appreciates the concerns 
detailed in the June 2010 report to Congress of the National 
Taxpayer Advocate and reiterates the Committee's long-held 
belief that reliable investments in pre-filing taxpayer 
assistance programs as well as outreach and education 
initiatives that decipher complex rules and complicated 
material will help drive tax compliance.
    Impact on IRS of Healthcare Implementation.--As a prime 
example of the expanding tasks tied to legislative enactments, 
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-
148) includes several provisions that could significantly 
impact the IRS over the course of the next several years. IRS's 
new responsibilities include implementing a Medicare payroll 
tax on investment income, collecting an excise tax on high-cost 
insurance plans, and delivering hundreds of billions in 
subsidies for low-income Americans to buy insurance.
    The IRS potentially faces the challenge of responding by 
shifting resources and altering established plans. The IRS may 
need to recruit new and different professional skill sets to 
match the nature of the work. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office [CBO], costs to the IRS of implementing the 
eligibility determination, documentation, and verification 
processes for premium and cost-sharing credits could total 
between $5,000,000,000 and $10,000,000,000 over 10 years.
    The Committee strongly urges the administration, the 
Secretary of the Treasury, and the IRS Commissioner to evaluate 
the impact of healthcare mandates on the IRS's overall mission 
and take all appropriate actions to prevent any decline in the 
quality and effectiveness of service or taxpayer perception. 
The Committee directs the IRS to specifically identify in its 
fiscal year 2012 budget submission and operating plan any 
proposed increases in spending to be designated to implement 
the healthcare mandates, as well as any proposed changes in 
spending or prioritization in other mission-critical IRS 
programs as a result of the healthcare responsibilities.
    Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint.--In response to the 
Committee's directive in the fiscal year 2006 Treasury 
Appropriations Act, the IRS, in consultation with the IRS 
Oversight Board and the National Taxpayer Advocate, developed a 
``Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint'' to institute a 5-year 
strategic plan for taxpayer services. The Committee expects the 
Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint to be an integral and guiding 
component of delivering services. The Committee supports 
ongoing efforts to conduct research on taxpayer needs and 
taxpayer service performance.
    The Committee directs the IRS, the IRS Oversight Board, and 
the National Taxpayer Advocate to submit to Congress annual 
updates to the Taxpayer Assistance Blueprint identifying any 
changes to its strategic plan for taxpayer service, including 
the results of any new research and relevant findings, and any 
open issues requiring additional research.
    E-Filing.--The Committee is heartened by the IRS's improved 
performance in increasing the number of tax filers who submit 
their returns electronically and without additional cost. 
Electronic filing benefits taxpayers and promotes effective tax 
administration because it decreases processing errors, 
expedites processing and payment of refunds, and allows the IRS 
to efficiently maintain up-to-date records. A total of 144 
million individual tax returns were filed electronically during 
the 2009 filing season, representing more than 66 percent of 
all returns. The Committee directs the IRS, in consultation 
with stakeholders, including the National Taxpayer Advocate, to 
implement a strategy to achieve an 80 percent e-file goal.
    The Committee believes that the IRS will deliver better 
taxpayer service, achieve improved compliance, and reduce the 
tax gap if taxpayer behavior is better understood and applied 
research is integrated into the development of taxpayer service 
and enforcement initiatives. Toward that end, the Committee 
supports the work of the National Taxpayer Advocate and the IRS 
Office of Research to examine factors that influence taxpayer 
compliance behavior, including how and the extent to which 
various factors influence such behavior, and how the 
establishment of a cognitive learning and applied research 
laboratory might facilitate continued evaluation.
    Community Volunteer Income Tax Assistance.--The Volunteer 
Income Tax Assistance [VITA] program is an important aspect of 
IRS efforts to provide income tax preparation assistance 
programs for low-income taxpayers. The Committee provides that, 
within funds provided, $14,000,000 shall be available for 2 
years for exclusive use as part of continuing a matching grant 
program established and administered by the IRS, in 
consultation with the Taxpayer Advocate Service, for not for 
profit organizations which provide volunteer income tax return 
preparation services for lower income individual taxpayers.
    The Committee notes that in 2009, 111 organizations were 
awarded VITA grants, representing more than 350 unique local 
partnerships and coalitions. The IRS estimates that more than 
2,500 VITA sites will benefit from this initiative, including 
522 new locations. The Committee recognizes that the 
applications for these grants far exceed the available 
resources.
    This program shall provide direct funds to enable VITA 
programs to extend services to underserved populations and 
hardest-to-reach areas, both urban and nonurban, as well as to 
increase the capacity to file returns electronically, heighten 
quality control, enhance training of volunteers, and 
significantly improve the accuracy rate of returns prepared by 
VITA sites. The Committee reinforces its expectation that the 
IRS should employ an equitable selection methodology which 
takes into account geographic diversity, and include an 
evaluation component to measure the overall effectiveness of 
the program and the results achieved. The Committee strongly 
urges the IRS to make every effort to expand the quantity and 
funding level of VITA grants focused on serving persons with 
disabilities proportional to the growing disability population 
requiring tax assistance.
    The Committee understands that entities that are currently 
increasing their outreach efforts to better serve the needs of 
the disability population have experienced difficulty in 
applying for Federal grant assistance due to a lack of 
resources at the local level needed to complete the 
application. The Committee urges the IRS to allow national 
coalitions responsible for the coordination of local community 
partnerships focused specifically on the expanded provision of 
tax services for individuals with disabilities to compete in 
future VITA community matching grant processes.
    The IRS is not permitted to treat any in-kind contributions 
from the IRS as counting toward the $14,000,000 appropriation 
nor shall the IRS reduce any current contributions toward tax 
return preparation services.
    Oversight of First Time Homebuyer Tax Credit.--Congress has 
enacted a series of legislative provisions that have enabled 
first-time homebuyers to claim a refundable credit on their 
2008, 2009, or 2010 individual Federal tax returns. According 
to the IRS, 1.8 million taxpayers received $12,600,000 in 
homebuyer credits through the end of February 2010. The 
Committee acknowledges that the IRS has taken steps, including 
installing filters to intercept fraud, to improve its oversight 
of the program, since a TIGTA report issued in September 2009 
identified deficiencies. However, a new TIGTA report issued in 
June 2010 found a significant and disturbing level of 
fraudulent and erroneous payments in the First-Time Homebuyer 
Credit Program. Specifically, TIGTA estimates that 14,132 
individuals received erroneous credits totaling at least 
$26,700,000. These erroneous credits included taxpayers 
receiving credits purchased prior to the dates allowed by law; 
prisoners, including some serving life sentences, receiving 
credits for homes purchased at a time when they were 
incarcerated; and taxpayers receiving credits for homes that 
were also used by other taxpayers to claim the credit. The 
Committee directs the IRS to intensify its scrutiny of 
questionable claims for this credit to reduce the incidence of 
fraud and erroneous payments under this beneficial program.

                              ENFORCEMENT

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $5,504,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   5,797,400,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,682,880,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Enforcement appropriation provides for the examination 
of tax returns, both domestic and international; the 
administrative and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of 
examination findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee 
pension plans; determining qualifications of organizations 
seeking tax-exempt status; examining tax returns of exempt 
organizations; enforcing statutes relating to detection and 
investigation of criminal violations of the internal revenue 
laws; identifying underreporting of tax obligations; securing 
unfiled tax returns; and collecting unpaid accounts.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $5,682,880,000 for enforcement 
activities for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $178,880,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $114,520,000 below 
the budget request. Bill language is included to transfer not 
less than $60,257,000 to the Interagency Crime and Drug 
Enforcement [ICDE] program and to transfer up to $10,000,000 
from the Enforcement account to the Operations Support account 
to support the ICDE program.
    The Committee supports the use and prioritization of 
enforcement resources to address business and individual 
international tax compliance by building upon steady multi-year 
investments in initiatives and activities to reduce offshore 
tax evasion, increasing coverage of the most strategically 
important international issues, including complex enterprise 
structures and transactions, and promoting compliance in high-
wealth individuals and large enterprises, including those with 
international components, operated by businesses and investors 
through multiple interrelated financial and tax entities. The 
Committee further endorses proposals to reduce the reporting 
compliance tax gap through increased examinations of business 
and high-income individual returns, increased coverage of the 
Automated Underreporter [AUR] Program, and increased audits 
involving flow-through entities.
    The IRS has projected a substantial return on investment of 
9.3 to 1 to be realized over the next 3 years from enforcement 
initiatives proposed for fiscal year 2011. The Committee shares 
the concerns outlined by the Government Accountability Office 
[GAO] that the IRS needs to be prepared to monitor, document, 
and report on the extent to which the projected revenue 
forecasts actually yield the intended results. The Committee 
strongly believes that evaluating what occurs as a result of 
these targeted investments would be a helpful indicator of 
success and useful in making future spending decisions and 
resource allocation plans. The Committee directs the IRS to 
provide the Committees on Appropriations with detailed 
information about the actual costs, revenues, and return on 
investment after the first and successive years of the 
implementation of the new enforcement initiatives.
    National Research Program.--As noted previously, the 
Committee strongly supports the work of the National Research 
Program [NRP] to increase understanding of the tax gap. The 
Committee acknowledges that the IRS and others have expressed 
concerns with the certainty of the overall tax gap estimate in 
part because some aspects of the estimate rely on data from the 
1970s and 1980s and in other areas, no estimates are available. 
The Committee agrees with GAO, TIGTA, the National Taxpayer 
Advocate, and the IRS Oversight Board, which have all 
recommended greater and more frequent data collection and 
studies of the tax gap including the portion of the tax gap 
attibutable to international transactions.
    Misclassification of Contractors.--The Committee continues 
to be highly concerned with the misclassification of workers as 
independent contractors rather than as employees. This 
misclassification leads to the underreporting and underpayment 
of employment and payroll taxes by employers and individuals, 
which accounts for a substantial portion of the gross tax gap. 
The Committee notes that a TIGTA report issued in 2009 
recommended that IRS develop an agency-wide employment tax 
program to specifically address the issue of worker 
misclassification to improve coordination among the business 
divisions, improve compliance, and reduce the tax gap. The 
Committee is encouraged by IRS actions to develop such a plan 
and a worker classification team to assist external 
stakeholders. TIGTA further recommended a formal research 
effort to study worker classification and other employment tax 
issues, including the safe harbor provision. The Committee 
understands that IRS has begun the random sampling selection to 
undertake such a study. The Committee looks forward to the 
findings once the 3 years of examinations are complete.
    The Committee is concerned that staffing within the IRS's 
SS-8 program, responsible for making determinations as to a 
worker's Federal employment tax status, has not kept pace with 
the record and sustained SS-8 filings during the past three 
filing seasons. The Committee believes that the IRS SS-8 
program is critical to ensuring that workers are classified 
correctly, identifying leads for employment tax exams and 
criminal investigations, and combating the underreporting of 
employment taxes that contributes significantly to the tax gap. 
The Committee believes it is crucial, given the growing 
workload, that the IRS maintain sufficient staffing at SS-8 
processing locations. Prior to making any staffing reductions 
at the SS-8 processing locations, the Committee directs the IRS 
to provide a report to the Committee that details the past 5 
years of staffing levels and employee productivity, SS-8 
receipt volumes, and rationale for the proposed workforce 
changes.

                           OPERATIONS SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $4,083,884,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   4,108,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   4,088,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,088,000,000 for Operations 
Support for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $4,116,000 above 
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $20,000,000 below the 
budget request. Bill language is included allowing up to 
$75,000,000 of these funds to remain available until September 
30, 2012, for information technology support and not to exceed 
$1,000,000 to remain available until September 30, 2013, for 
research; not less than $2,000,000 for the Internal Revenue 
Oversight Board; and $25,000 for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Information Technology [IT] Management and Oversight.--The 
IRS has made significant strides in improving the management 
and oversight of its business systems modernization [BSM] 
program. The IRS needs to vigilantly address major systemic 
problems with its non-BSM portfolio of information technology 
projects. TIGTA has identified problems in several areas of IT 
management and oversight including, but not limited to, such 
areas as classification of investment projects, oversight and 
governance structure, risk management, contingency planning, 
and contractor performance and accountability.
    The Committee expects the IRS to monitor its entire non-BSM 
IT portfolio (regardless of tier classification) and make any 
changes as necessary to ensure that each project has (1) been 
properly classified for investment decision and management 
purposes, (2) the appropriate governance structure in place 
(such as an executive steering committee), (3) a risk 
management plan, (4) a contingency plan in case of breakdowns 
or failures in scheduled deliverables, (5) adequate provisions 
in the contracts to ensure penalties and repayment to the 
agency if performance is not met, (6) adequate contractor 
staffing and management in place to fulfill the contract terms 
and deliverables, and (7) been certified by the head of the 
relevant IRS business unit that the project is deemed necessary 
for its operations and meets its requirements.
    The Committee directs the administration and the IRS to 
include within the fiscal year 2012 budget request a proposed 
long-term multiyear funding strategy within the Operations 
Support account to upgrade and modernize the aging legacy IRS 
information technology infrastructure.

                     BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $263,897,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     386,908,000
Committee recommendation................................     386,908,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Business Systems Modernization account provides 
resources for revamping business practices and acquiring new 
technology. The IRS has undertaken a multi-year, multi-billion 
dollar effort to migrate from its antiquated legacy system to 
bring the IRS tax administration system to a level of public 
and private sector best practices. The IRS is using a formal 
methodology to prioritize, approve, fund, and evaluate its 
portfolio of business systems modernization investments. This 
methodology is designed to enforce a documented, repeatable, 
and measurable process for managing investments throughout 
their life cycle. The process is reviewed by the Government 
Accountability Office on a regular basis as part of the 
submission requirements for expenditure plans to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations. The expenditure plan 
approval process prior to the use of appropriated funds 
continues for fiscal year 2011.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $386,908,000 for Business Systems 
Modernization [BSM] for fiscal year 2011. This amount is 
$123,011,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. The Committee continues to believe 
that BSM is the IRS's highest management and administrative 
priority. As one of the Federal Government's largest, most 
visible, and sensitive modernization efforts, managing the 
risks inherent in BSM will require vigilant management 
attention for several years. To the IRS's credit, the program 
has made steady progress over the past few years. The 
replacement of the aging, vintage 1969 individual master file 
with the new customer account data engine will permit daily, 
rather than weekly, updating of individual tax accounts. With 
this relational database as its centerpiece, systems 
modernization by the IRS promotes enhanced customer service, 
more expeditious refund processing, and better administration 
of the tax system.
    The Committee underscores the critical importance of the 
continued migration from the aging tax administration system to 
a sophisticated relational platform, and understands that the 
requested funding increase for Business Systems Modernization 
[BSM] is a top national priority. Completion of the core 
taxpayer account database is the cornerstone of modernization 
and a foundational prerequisite upon which the success of other 
major initiatives depends. It will fundamentally transform the 
IRS's relationship with its accounts, and promote opportunities 
for both taxpayer service delivery and enforcement.
    The Committee recognizes that the BSM program is presently 
at a critical juncture in its evolution, and recommends full 
funding of $152,119,000 for CADE 2 to allow the IRS to complete 
the new taxpayer account database for the 2012 filing season. 
CADE 2 will feature a daily processing cycle that will generate 
more timely, accurate, and complete data resulting in more 
rapid direct deposit of refunds for electronic filers, faster 
account adjustments, and expedited resolution of taxpayer 
account issues and transactions. The Committee's recommended 
funding will also support investments of $40,000,000 for 
Current CADE, $39,100,000 for Modernized E-file, $38,500,000 
for Core Infrastructure, $37,000,000 for Architecture, 
Integration, and Management, $10,000,000 as Management Reserve, 
and $70,189,000 for labor expenses in conjunction with Business 
Systems Modernization.
    The Committee acknowledges that the IRS has made progress 
in addressing information security risks confronting the IRS 
modernization environment, but that weaknesses continue to 
place IRS systems at risk. The Committee expects the IRS to 
continue its efforts to fully address its information security 
weaknesses, including promptly instituting corrective action in 
response to recommendations of GAO and TIGTA in this area.

               HEALTH INSURANCE TAX CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $15,512,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      18,987,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,987,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides operating funds to administer 
the advance payment feature of a refundable trade adjustment 
assistance health insurance tax credit program to assist 
dislocated workers with their health insurance premiums. The 
tax credit program was enacted by the Trade Act of 2002 (Public 
Law 107-210) and became effective in August 2003.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $18,987,000 for the 
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration in fiscal year 2011. 
This amount is $3,475,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level and the same as the budget request.

          ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

    The Committee has included five administrative provisions 
carried in prior appropriations acts as follows:
    Section 101 continues a provision allowing the IRS to 
transfer up to 5 percent of any appropriation made available to 
the agency in fiscal year 2011 to any other IRS account, with 
the exception of the Enforcement account, which is limited to 3 
percent. The IRS is directed to follow the Committee's 
reprogramming procedures outlined earlier in this report.
    Section 102 continues a provision maintaining a training 
program in taxpayers' rights and cross-cultural relations.
    Section 103 continues a provision requiring the IRS to 
institute and enforce policies and procedures, which will 
safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
    Section 104 continues a provision directing that funds 
shall be available for improved facilities and increased 
staffing to support a 1-800 help line service for taxpayers.
    Section 105 continues a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds in this act to enter into, renew, extend, administer, 
implement, enforce, provide oversight of, or make any payment 
related to any qualified tax collection contract.

         Administrative Provisions--Department of the Treasury

    The Committee includes 13 administrative provisions carried 
over from prior appropriations acts. The administrative 
provisions are as follows:
    Section 107 authorizes certain basic services within the 
Treasury Department in fiscal year 2011, including purchase of 
uniforms; maintenance, repairs, and cleaning; purchase of 
insurance for official motor vehicles operated in foreign 
countries; and contracts with the Department of State for 
health and medical services to employees and their dependents 
serving in foreign countries.
    Section 108 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between 
Departmental Offices, Office of Inspector General, Special 
Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, 
Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of 
the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances.
    Section 109 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between 
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration under certain circumstances.
    Section 110 requires that the purchase of law enforcement 
vehicles be consistent with departmental vehicle management 
principles.
    Section 111 prohibits the Department of the Treasury and 
the Bureau of Engraving and Printing from redesigning the $1 
Federal Reserve Note.
    Section 112 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to 
transfer funds from Salaries and Expenses, Financial Management 
Service, to the Debt Collection Fund as necessary to cover the 
costs of debt collection. Such amounts shall be reimbursed to 
the Salaries and Expenses account from debt collections 
received in the Debt Collection Fund.
    Section 113 extends for 1 year the authority to conduct a 
personnel management demonstration project.
    Section 114 requires prior approval for the construction 
and operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
    Section 115 prohibits the merger of the United States Mint 
and the Bureau of Engraving and Printing without prior approval 
of the committees of jurisdiction.
    Section 116 authorizes the Department's intelligence 
activities.
    Section 117 permits the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to 
use $5,000 from the Industrial Revolving Fund for reception and 
representation expenses.
    Section 118 requires prior approval for certain spending 
from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund.
    Section 119 requires the Secretary of the Treasury to 
develop an annual Capital Investment Plan.

                                TITLE II

    EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE 
                               PRESIDENT

                     Compensation of the President

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $450,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................         450,000
Committee recommendation................................         450,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 
compensation of the President, including an expense allowance 
of $50,000. This is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level and the same as the budget request. The expense account 
is for official use as authorized by title 3, United States 
Code and is not considered taxable to the President. The bill 
specifies that any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury 
consistent with 31 U.S.C. 1552.

                            The White House


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $59,143,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      59,859,000
Committee recommendation................................      59,859,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The ``Salaries and Expenses'' account of The White House 
provides staff assistance and administrative services for the 
direct support of the President. The office also serves as the 
President's representative before the media. In accordance with 
3 U.S.C. 105, the office also supports and assists the 
activities of the spouse of the President.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,859,000 
for The White House, Salaries and Expenses. The recommendation 
is $716,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is 
equal to the budget request.
    Of the total funding, the Committee recommends $1,400,000 
for the Office of National AIDS Policy. The Committee directs 
the administration to continue to coordinate a Government-wide 
effort to develop and implement a domestic AIDS strategy, 
including the development of targets for improved prevention 
and treatment outcomes.
    The Committee expects officials employed in whole or in 
part by the Executive Office of the President, and designated 
by the President to coordinate policy agendas across executive 
departments and agencies, to keep Congress fully and currently 
informed of such activities. The Committee directs each 
official designated by the President to serve in a position not 
recognized by statute and who is responsible for interagency 
development or coordination of any rule, regulation, or policy 
to submit a semiannual report describing the activities of the 
official and the office of such official, including a detailed 
explanation of the development or issuance of any rule, 
regulation, directive or policy on which that official or the 
office of such official participated or assisted. The first 
such report shall be submitted not later than March 31, 2011.

                 Executive Residence at the White House


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $13,838,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      14,006,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,006,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    These funds provide for the care, maintenance, repair, 
alteration, refurnishing, improvement, air-conditioning, 
heating, and lighting of the White House and the official and 
ceremonial functions of the President.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,006,000 
for the Executive Residence at the White House. The Committee 
recommendation is $168,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and is equal to the budget request. The bill also 
continues certain restrictions on reimbursable expenses for use 
of the Executive Residence.

                   White House Repair and Restoration

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $2,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       2,005,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,005,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account funds the repair, alteration, and improvement 
of the Executive Residence at the White House. A separate 
account was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and 
track expenditures for the capital improvement projects at the 
Executive Residence at the White House.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,005,000 for 
White House Repair and Restoration, equal to the budget request 
and $495,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

                      Council of Economic Advisers


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $4,200,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       4,403,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,403,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national 
economy and its various segments, advises the President on 
economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth 
and stability, appraises economic programs and policies of the 
Federal Government, and assists in the preparation of the 
annual Economic Report of the President to Congress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,403,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers. This 
amount is equal to the budget request and is $203,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level.

        National Security Council and Homeland Security Council


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $12,231,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      14,134,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,134,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Security Council advises the President in 
integrating domestic, foreign, and military policies related to 
national security and the Homeland Security Council advises the 
President in coordinating homeland security-related policies 
across the Government.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,134,000 
for the salaries and expenses of the National Security Council 
and the Homeland Security Council. This amount is equal to the 
budget request and $1,903,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level.
    The budget requests that funding for the Homeland Security 
Council, previously funded within The White House Office 
account, be combined with funding for the National Security 
Council. The Committee does not oppose the proposed 
reorganization and recommends funding for the Homeland Security 
Council together with the National Security Council within a 
new account titled ``National Security Council and Homeland 
Security Council.''

                        Office of Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $115,280,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     115,280,000
Committee recommendation................................     115,280,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Administration's mission is to provide high-
quality, cost-effective administrative services to the 
Executive Office of the President. These services, defined by 
Executive Order 12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel, 
library and records services, information management systems 
support, and general office services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $115,280,000 
for the Office of Administration for fiscal year 2011, equal to 
both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes $12,777,000 to 
stabilize and modernize the information technology 
infrastructure within the Executive Office of the President. 
This funding supports the continuation of a major initiative 
that will refresh the aging information technology 
infrastructure, strengthen disaster recovery capabilities, and 
expand the capabilities of the Executive Office of the 
President to electronically communicate with citizens and 
provide information to the public.
    The Committee directs the Office of Administration to place 
a top priority on the implementation of comprehensive policies 
and procedures for the preservation of all records, including 
electronic records such as e-mails, videos, and social 
networking communication, consistent with the requirements of 
the Presidential Records Act, the Federal Records Act, and 
other pertinent laws. The Office of Administration shall work 
closely with the National Archives and Records Administration 
[NARA] to ensure the full and complete maintenance and 
formatting of electronic records that will eventually be turned 
over to NARA. The Committee expects the Office of 
Administration to keep the Committee fully apprised of funding 
needs related to record preservation and retention.

                    Office of Management and Budget


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $92,863,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      92,863,000
Committee recommendation................................      94,863,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $94,863,000 
for the Office of Management and Budget which is $2,000,000 
above both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget 
request.
    The recommended increase above the budget request is 
provided to maintain and enhance the career civil service 
workforce at OMB and to make critical investments in 
modernizing the Federal Government's core budgeting system.
    The Committee relies on all entities receiving Federal 
funds, including OMB, to provide detailed information about 
budget requests and activities conducted using previously 
appropriated funds. The Committee expects OMB to provide timely 
and complete responses to the Committee to all requests for 
information, including requests related to the budget request 
for OMB and the Executive Office of the President.
    The Committee directs OMB to submit a quarterly personnel 
census to the Committee specifying the number of full-time and 
part-time career staff and the number of full-time and part-
time non-career Presidential appointees. The personnel census 
shall be arrayed by specific program activity and include 
specific detail for each OMB-wide support office, the number of 
Federal agency detailees, and the number of contractor staff.
    The Committee directs OMB to submit a written report to the 
Committee within 120 days of enactment specifying a plan to 
modernize the Federal Government's core budgeting system. This 
system is used Government-wide by all Federal agencies for 
documenting and estimating budget activities, ensuring data 
integrity with other financial and accounting systems, and 
transmitting a detailed budget request to the Congress. The 
report shall specify a timeline and a detailed budget estimate 
for designing and implementing the modernized system as well as 
a description of enhanced capabilities.
    Pursuant to the presidential memorandum regarding disposal 
of unneeded Federal real estate, the Committee directs that OMB 
summarize the results, by agency, of the real property cost 
savings and innovation plans in a report due to the Committee 
not later than 45 days after enactment of this act. As these 
agency plans were due to OMB by July 23, 2010, any updated 
information related to this effort should be included in the 
report.

                  Government-wide Management Councils


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Government-wide Management Councils provide forums for 
improving government performance by facilitating experience 
exchange and identification of best practices among leaders in 
Federal agencies. Interagency groups funded under this account 
include the President's Management Council for overall 
management improvement initiatives, the Chief Financial 
Officers Council for financial management initiatives, the 
Chief Information Officers Council for information technology 
initiatives, the Chief Human Capital Officers Council for human 
capital initiatives, the Chief Acquisition Officers Council for 
procurement initiatives, and the Performance Improvement 
Council for performance improvement initiatives. Funding is 
derived via transfer from the head of each executive department 
and agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for Government-wide 
Management Councils which is equal to the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and $3,000,000 below the budget request. Funding 
for these activities was provided for in fiscal year 2010 in 
section 723 of Public Law 111-117. The Committee directs the 
Executive Office of the President to continue to include a 
budgetary justification for each council in the annual budget 
request and to clearly note in the budget justification any 
items requested in the budget for Government-wide initiatives 
led or coordinated through the councils (for example, the 
Financial Innovation and Transformation project proposed for 
fiscal year 2011 through the Department of the Treasury).
    The Committee supports the activities of the Government-
wide Management Councils and recognizes that regular 
communication among agency leaders can lead to improved 
performance. The Committee does not recommend requested funding 
of $3,000,000 for pilot programs to be initiated through the 
councils in fiscal year 2011. The Committee will evaluate 
specific proposals for pilot programs in the future but cannot 
make recommendations on funding without specific budgetary 
justification.

                 Office of National Drug Control Policy


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $29,575,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      26,196,000
Committee recommendation................................      29,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of National Drug Control Policy [ONDCP], 
established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and 
reauthorized by Public Law 109-469, is charged with developing 
policies, objectives, and priorities for the National Drug 
Control Program. In addition, ONDCP administers the Counterdrug 
Technology Assessment Center, the High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Areas program, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media 
Campaign, the Drug-Free Communities Program, and several other 
related initiatives.
    This account provides funding for personnel compensation, 
travel, and other basic operations of the Office, and for 
general policy research to support the formulation of the 
National Drug Control Strategy.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,000,000 
for ONDCP's salaries and expenses. This amount is $575,000 
below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $2,804,000 above 
the budget request. The funding level is provided to 
accommodate staffing hired during fiscal year 2010.
    The Committee has received ONDCP's report about steps taken 
during the past year to address the recommendations of the 
study conducted by the National Academy of Public 
Administration [NAPA]. Some positive steps have been taken; 
however, room for improvement still exists. Among other 
recommendations named in the NAPA report, the Committee remains 
particularly interested in fostering openness and participation 
by staff at ONDCP, ensuring that qualified individuals hold 
leadership positions, and reducing the number of political 
positions at ONDCP. The Committee applauds efforts by top 
leadership to listen to stakeholders and applauds efforts with 
interagency working groups and their task forces. The Committee 
directs ONDCP to provide an updated report by May 13, 2011 on 
further actions and improvements taken.
    The Committee is aware that the administration's new drug 
strategy places an increased emphasis on demand reduction; 
however, this commitment is not reflected within program 
staffing allocations. The Office of Supply Reduction remains 
more than three times the size of the Office of Demand 
Reduction. The Committee is concerned that positive efforts 
undertaken by the Deputy Director of ONDCP may cease with his 
impending departure and urges ONDCP to ensure that Office of 
Demand Reduction staff--both current and new--have expertise in 
prevention and making comprehensive community action a focal 
point.
    The Committee recognizes efforts by ONDCP to improve the 
quality of some reports required by Congress; however, several 
reports remain late, such as the staffing and Counterdrug 
Technology Assessment Center reports. In some cases, a lengthy 
clearance process delays submission of information required by 
Congress in a timely manner.

                COUNTERDRUG TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT CENTER

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center [CTAC] was 
established by the Counter-Narcotics Technology Act of 1990 
(Public Law 101-510) and reauthorized in 1998 (Public Law 105-
277) to serve as the central counterdrug technology research 
and development organization for the United States Government.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided no funding for this program, 
consistent with the budget request.

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                     FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

                 HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $239,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     209,950,000
Committee recommendation................................     239,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas [HIDTA] program 
was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 
100-690) and the Office of National Drug Control Policy's 
reauthorization (Public Law 109-469) to provide assistance to 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement entities operating in 
those areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $239,000,000 
for the HIDTA program, the same as the fiscal year 2010 level 
and $29,050,000 above the budget request. The Committee expects 
that the fiscal year 2010 program adjustment be added to the 
baseline operating budget for each HIDTA. The Committee directs 
that funding shall be provided for the existing HIDTAs at no 
less than the fiscal year 2010 level.
    ONDCP is directed to consult with the HIDTAs in advance of 
deciding programmatic spending allocations for discretionary 
(supplemental) funding.
    The Committee recommendation specifies that up to 
$2,700,000 may be used for auditing services and associated 
activities, and up to $500,000 shall be used to ensure the 
continued operation and maintenance of the Performance 
Management System.
    The Committee directs that the HIDTA funds be transferred 
to the appropriate drug control agencies expeditiously and 
includes provisions in the bill to help prevent delay.
    The Committee recognizes the National HIDTA Assistance 
Center for providing programmatic support to the HIDTA program 
to include training, financial management/audit review, and 
other essential services.
    The Committee retains a provision allowing unexpended funds 
obligated prior to 2 years ago for programs addressing the 
treatment or prevention of drug use to be used for other 
approved HIDTA activities.
    The HIDTA funds should not be used to supplant existing 
support for ongoing Federal, State, or local drug control 
operations normally funded out of the operating budgets of each 
agency. ONDCP is directed to withhold all HIDTA funds from a 
State until such time as a State or locality has met its 
financial obligation.
    The Committee is concerned about the delay that has 
occurred with discretionary (supplemental) funding. Previous 
annual bill language directed that this funding be allocated 
not later than 120 days after enactment, and this language has 
been softened since timely transactions have been occurring. 
However, for fiscal year 2010, the HIDTAs have not received all 
of their discretionary funding (which is added to the budget 
request by Congress). Distribution of these funds is overdue, 
and the Committee reminds the Executive Office of the President 
that this is not acceptable and that the clearance process 
needs to be expedited.

                  OTHER FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $154,400,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     165,300,000
Committee recommendation................................     175,825,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690), and 
the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act 
(Public Law 109-469) established this account to be 
administered by the Director of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy. The funds appropriated to the program support 
high-priority drug control programs and may be transferred to 
drug control agencies.
    This account includes the following programs: National 
Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, Drug-Free Communities Support 
Program, National Drug Court Institute, U.S. Anti-Doping 
Agency, World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA] membership dues, 
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, and Performance 
Measures Development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $175,825,000 
for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, which is $21,425,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,525,000 above 
the budget request. Within this amount, the Committee provides 
the following funding levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.................     $66,500,000
Drug-Free Communities Support Program...................      95,000,000
    National Community Anti-Drug Coalition training.....       2,000,000
National Drug Court Institute...........................       1,000,000
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.................................      10,000,000
World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA].........................       1,900,000
National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws.............       1,187,500
Performance Measures Development........................         237,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Youth Anti-drug Media Campaign.--Since its initial 
funding in fiscal year 1998, the Media Campaign has been viewed 
at times positively and negatively. It has received mostly 
negative reviews when analyzed by independent entities and GAO, 
and its results have not been--and perhaps cannot be--proven. 
As a result, funding has decreased over time. However, the 
Committee believes that it is important to maintain anti-drug 
messaging to the Nation's youth. The Committee is aware of 
ONDCP's new approach of emphasizing ads toward a subset of the 
target audience; customizing messages at the local level; using 
digital media, and using culturally sensitive advertising. The 
Committee continues to be supportive of continued ads aimed at 
methamphetamine abuse. The Committee provides $66,500,000 for 
the Media Campaign, which should include methamphetamine 
prevention ads. The Committee directs that no more than 10 
percent of the funding provided for the Media Campaign be used 
for administrative costs.
    Drug-free Communities Support Program.--ONDCP directs the 
Drug-Free Communities Support Program [DFCSP] in partnership 
with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration. DFCSP provides dollar for dollar matching 
grants of up to $125,000 to local coalitions that mobilize 
their communities to prevent youth alcohol, tobacco, illicit 
drug, and inhalant abuse. Such grants support coalitions of 
youth; parents; media; law enforcement; school officials; 
faith-based organizations; fraternal organizations; State, 
local, and tribal government agencies; healthcare 
professionals; and other community representatives. The DFCSP 
enables these coalitions to strengthen their coordination and 
prevention efforts, encourage citizen participation in 
substance abuse reduction efforts, and disseminate information 
about effective programs. The Committee provides $95,000,000 
for the continuation of the DFCSP.
    The Committee includes a provision in the bill directing 
ONDCP to provide $2,000,000 of DFCSP funds for training and 
related purposes as authorized by section 4 of Public Law 107-
82, as amended by Public Law 109-469.
    National Drug Court Institute.--The National Drug Court 
Institute facilitates the growth of the drug court movement by 
promoting and disseminating education, research, and 
scholarship concerning drug court programs and providing a 
comprehensive drug court training series for practitioners. 
Drug courts provide an effective means to fight drug-related 
crime through the cooperative efforts of State and local law 
enforcement, the judicial system, and the public health 
treatment network. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the 
National Drug Court Institute.
    United States Anti-doping Agency.--The United States Anti-
Doping Agency [USADA] is the independent anti-doping agency for 
Olympic sports in the United States, and is responsible for 
managing the testing and adjudication process for U.S. Olympic, 
Pan Am and Paralympic athletes. As a nonprofit corporation 
under the leadership of an independent Board of Directors, 
USADA has the authority to set forth guiding principles in 
anti-doping policy and to enforce any doping violations. In 
addition to managing collection and testing procedures, USADA 
is also responsible for enhancing research efforts and 
promoting educational programs to inform athletes of the rules 
governing the use of performance enhancing substances, as well 
as the ethics of doping and its harmful health effects. The 
Committee provides $10,000,000 for USADA.
    World Anti-doping Agency.--ONDCP represents the United 
States in the World Anti-doping Agency [WADA], which promotes 
and coordinates international activities against doping in all 
forms of sports. The Committee provides $1,900,000 for 
membership dues to the WADA.
    National Alliance For Model State Drug Laws.--The National 
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws [NAMSDL] is a national 
organization that drafts, researches, and analyzes model drug 
and alcohol laws and related State statutes, provides access to 
a national network of drug and alcohol experts, and facilitates 
working relationships among State and community leaders and 
drug and alcohol professionals. In doing so, NAMSDL encourages 
States to adopt and implement laws, policies, and regulations 
to reduce drug trafficking, drug use, and their related 
consequences. The Committee provides $1,187,500 to NAMSDL and 
directs ONDCP to provide the entire amount directly to NAMSDL 
within 30 days after enactment of this act.
    National Drug Control Performance Measures Development.--
Performance Measures funding is used to conduct evaluation 
research for assessing the effectiveness of the National Drug 
Control Strategy. The Committee provides $237,500 for this 
program.

                          Unanticipated Needs

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated 
exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or 
defense.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is equal to the 
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010 and the same as the 
budget request.

           Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $37,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation 
(Partnership Fund) is a new program initiated in fiscal year 
2010. The Committee understands that the Partnership Fund will 
support pilot programs designed to reduce errors and improve 
efficiency and service of Federal programs administered by 
States. The Partnership Fund pilot programs will focus on 
coordinating State-administered Federal programs both within 
States and between State and Federal officials and on 
technology solutions that may serve as best practices in the 
future. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget 
[OMB] chairs an interagency council consisting of 
representatives of appropriate Federal agencies, States, and 
other stakeholders. The council analyzes and will select pilot 
programs for funding, develop strategies and goals for the 
overall program as well as for each pilot program, and develop 
methodologies for assessing the performance of the overall 
program and the pilot programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee does not recommend additional funding for the 
Partnership Fund in fiscal year 2011, consistent with the 
budget request. Funds provided in fiscal year 2010 will be 
sufficient to continue the initiative during fiscal year 2011. 
The Committee reminds the interagency council of the semiannual 
progress reports that are required to be submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee is pleased with the proposed initiative to 
improve the operations of State-administered Federal programs. 
Efficiencies can be gained by better coordinating Federal 
programs, and technology may play a significant role in such 
improvements.
    The Committee notes that OMB does not administer or execute 
Federal programs. While the Committee expects OMB to continue 
to play a coordinating role in designing pilot programs, 
developing performance measures, and allocating funds, the 
Committee directs that the interagency council be the exclusive 
decisionmaking body for such activities. As Chair of the 
Interagency Council, the Committee directs the Director of OMB 
to seek consensus and input to the maximum extent possible from 
council members and participating Federal and State agencies.

  Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of Information Technology


                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     $50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Integrated, Efficient, and Effective Uses of 
Information Technology [IEEUIT] program is a new program 
recommended by the President in fiscal year 2011. The Committee 
understands that the IEEUIT will be used as a central 
Government fund to establish common hosting for centralized IT 
services in order to create a set of common platforms for 
universal tasks, potentially including citizen engagement 
capabilities, collaboration capabilities, and accountability 
tracking. The goal of the IEEUIT is to centralize key 
information technology services for Government agencies, saving 
taxpayer dollars in the future that would otherwise be spent on 
duplicative and inefficient information technology services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 
for the IEEUIT. The IEEUIT is a new program and was not funded 
in fiscal year 2010. Although the recommended funding is 
$10,000,000 below the budget request, the Committee believes 
that the recommended amount represents sufficient resources to 
initiate the IEEUIT program in fiscal year 2011.
    The Committee is pleased with the proposed initiative and 
welcomes the comprehensive, innovative approach to modernizing 
and streamlining common information technology services within 
the Federal Government. The Committee reminds the Executive 
Office of the President, however, that the Committee expects to 
be regularly apprised of how Government-wide efforts under the 
IEEUIT affect agency-specific projects and missions on a case-
by-case basis. The Committee directs that the IEEUIT shall not 
be a substitute for the Committee's routine consideration of 
agency needs in accordance with the regular budget process. 
Finally, the Committee directs the Executive Office of the 
President to notify the Committee immediately upon any change 
in an agency spending plan pursuant to the IEEUIT or any other 
effort to modernize, streamline, or improve Federal information 
technology projects.

                  Special Assistance to the President


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $4,604,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       4,657,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,657,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for staff and expenses to 
enable the Vice President to provide assistance to the 
President in connection with the performance of executive 
duties and responsibilities. The Vice President also has a 
staff funded by the Senate to assist him in the performance of 
his legislative duties. These funds also support the official 
activities of the spouse of the Vice President.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,657,000 for 
special assistance to the President. This amount is the same as 
the budget request and $53,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level.

                Official Residence of the Vice President


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $330,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................         335,000
Committee recommendation................................         335,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account supports the care and operation of the Vice 
President's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory. 
These funds specifically support equipment, furnishings, dining 
facilities, and services required to perform and discharge the 
Vice President's official duties, functions, and obligations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $335,000 for 
the official residence of the Vice President. This amount is 
the same as the budget request and $5,000 above the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level.

Administrative Provisions--Executive Office of the President and Funds 
                     Appropriated to the President

    Section 201 continues a provision that provides flexibility 
in the use of funds in accounts under the Executive Office of 
the President.
    Section 202 requires a detailed financial plan by the 
Director of ONDCP prior to the obligation of funds in fiscal 
year 2011.
    Section 203 allows for the transfer of up to 2 percent 
among programs within ONDCP.
    Section 204 establishes reprogramming requirements for 
ONDCP.

                               TITLE III

                             THE JUDICIARY

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Established under Article III of the Constitution, the 
judicial branch of Government is a separate but equal branch. 
The Federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, United 
States Courts of Appeals, District Courts, Bankruptcy Courts, 
Court of International Trade, Court of Federal Claims, and 
several other entities and programs. The organization of the 
judiciary, the district and circuit boundaries, the places of 
holding court, and the number of Federal judges are legislated 
by the Congress and signed into law by the President.
    The Committee's recommended funding levels support the 
Federal judiciary's role of providing equal justice under the 
law and include sufficient funds to support this critical 
mission. The recommended funding level includes the salaries of 
judges and support staff and the operation and security of our 
Nation's courts.
    The judicial branch is subject to the same funding 
constraints facing the executive and legislative branches. It 
is imperative that the Federal judiciary devote its resources 
primarily to the retention of staff. Further, it is also 
important that the judiciary contain controllable costs such as 
travel, construction, and other expenses.

                   Supreme Court of the United States

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $74,034,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      77,758,000
Committee recommendation................................      77,758,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Supreme Court consists of nine justices 
appointed under Article III of the Constitution of the United 
States, one of whom is appointed as Chief Justice of the United 
States. The Supreme Court acts as the final arbiter in the 
Federal court system.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,758,000 
for the Justices, their supporting personnel, and the costs of 
operating the Supreme Court, excluding the care of the building 
and grounds. The recommendation is $3,724,000 above the fiscal 
year 2010 funding level and consistent with the budget request.
    The Committee has encountered difficulties securing 
information relating to budgetary matters. On several 
occasions, responses relating to how funds had been spent were 
incomplete or unaddressed.
    Specifically, for the past several years, the Committee has 
directed the Court to report on its $122,300,000 construction 
and modernization plan. While summaries have been provided, the 
level of detail and specificity the Committee needs to 
accurately assess the progress of the modernization project and 
make determinations regarding the resources needed to complete 
the project has not been forthcoming. Court officials have 
recently indicated that security improvements are part of the 
modernization project; however, the reports have not included 
sufficient detail for the Committee to review how the resources 
have been allocated between security improvements and other 
aspects of the project. Questions from the Committee for 
specific data regarding these expenditures have not been 
addressed. Without more information, the Committee's ability to 
assess the project management, and track and document prior 
spending is hampered. In order to gain a better budgetary 
understanding of ongoing projects, directive language has been 
included under the ``Care of Buildings and Grounds'' account.
    The Committee is charged with funding and overseeing 
agencies and entities under its jurisdiction and must ensure 
that scarce resources are being utilized in the most cost-
efficient manner. The Committee cannot allocate resources 
prudently without receiving detailed justifications for 
requests and plans for expenditures from any agency or entity 
requesting resources. As a result, certain fiscal year 2011 
funding will be available only upon receipt of a detailed 
report as required under the ``Care of Buildings and Grounds'' 
account.

                    CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $14,525,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      14,788,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,788,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Care of the Building and Grounds, for expenditure by the 
Architect of the Capitol, provides for the structural and 
mechanical care of the United States Supreme Court Building and 
Grounds, including maintenance and operation of mechanical, 
electrical, and electronic equipment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,788,000 
for personnel and other services related to the Supreme Court 
building and grounds, which is supervised by the Architect of 
the Capitol. The recommendation is $263,000 above the fiscal 
year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee is aware that numerous major capital 
improvement projects have been ongoing at the Court, but has 
not been presented with a clear understanding of the details of 
the projects and their budgets. The Court is directed to 
provide to the Committee a detailed report not later than 90 
days after enactment of this act, on each major capital 
project, including descriptions; timelines; milestones; and 
funding committed, obligated, and expended, as well as any 
unobligated balances. The report should include the complete 
modernization project and also address any additional capital 
enhancement projects planned for the future. The report shall 
be updated and provided to the Committee on June 15, 2011, and 
again on September 30, 2011.

         United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $32,560,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      35,859,000
Committee recommendation................................      33,920,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
was established on October 1, 1982 under Article III of the 
Constitution. The court was formed by the merger of the United 
States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate 
division of the United States Court of Claims. The court 
consists of 12 judges who are appointed by the President, with 
the advice and consent of the Senate. Judges are appointed to 
the court under Article III of the Constitution of the United 
States.
    The Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction in a 
variety of subject matter, including international trade, 
Government contracts, patents, certain claims for money from 
the United States Government, Federal personnel, and veterans' 
benefits. Appeals to the court come from all Federal district 
courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, the United 
States Court of International Trade, and the United States 
Court of Veterans Appeals. The court also takes appeals of 
certain administrative agencies' decisions, including the Merit 
Systems Protection Board, the Board of Contract Appeals, the 
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, and the Trademark 
Trial and Appeals Board. Decisions of the United States 
International Trade Commission, the Office of Compliance of the 
United States Congress, and the Government Accountability 
Office Personnel Appeals Board are also reviewable by the 
court.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $33,920,000. 
The recommendation is $1,360,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level, and $1,939,000 below the budget request. The 
Committee is aware that the Court hired staff during fiscal 
year 2010 without approval or funding provided by the 
Committee, therefore, the Committee has not included funding to 
support such staff. The funds provided equal the adjustments to 
base needed to maintain current services, with the exception of 
the annualization of the new fiscal year 2010 positions.

               United States Court of International Trade


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $21,350,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      22,268,000
Committee recommendation................................      22,268,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Court of International Trade, located in 
New York City, consists of nine Article III judges. The court 
has exclusive nationwide jurisdiction over civil actions 
brought against the United States, its agencies and officers, 
and certain civil actions brought by the United States, arising 
out of import transactions and the administration and 
enforcement of the Federal customs and international trade 
laws.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,268,000. 
The recommendation is $918,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

    Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $5,011,018,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   5,309,781,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,240,051,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Salaries and Expenses is one of four accounts that provide 
total funding for the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and 
Other Judicial Services. In addition to funding the salaries of 
judges and support staff, this account also funds the operating 
costs of appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, the Court 
of Federal Claims, and probation and pretrial services offices.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,240,051,000 
for salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $229,033,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and $69,730,000 below 
the budget request.
    This funding level incorporates the Judiciary's re-
estimates and funds requested adjustments to base as well as 
requested increases with the exception of the cost-of-living 
adjustment for judges and the telecommunications infrastructure 
increase.
    In addition, the Committee includes an appropriation of 
$40,000,000 for workload requirements resulting from increased 
immigration and other law enforcement initiatives on the 
Southwest border. These additional resources are needed to 
address the projected growth in criminal caseload associated 
with additional ICE, FBI, DEA, and ATF agents and Assistant 
U.S. Attorneys. The funds will be available to the Judicial 
Conference of the United States for additional Magistrate 
Judges, probation and pretrial services officers, clerk's 
office staff, fees of jurors, attorneys for indigent 
defendants, court security and related expenses. With these 
funds, as caseload grows, the Judicial Conference will be able 
to apply resources in a timely fashion to address the 
additional workload needs of the courts. Without these funds, a 
bottleneck in the judicial system will occur because the courts 
will lack the resources necessary to process the additional 
criminal cases brought by the Department of Justice.
    Capital Security Program.--A major effort of the Judiciary 
over the past several years has been revising and strengthening 
its long-range planning process for facility needs. Following 
Judicial Conference adoption of an unprecedented cost 
containment strategy in 2004, a national moratorium on 
courthouse construction was imposed. Thirty-five courthouse 
construction projects that had not yet received appropriated 
funding for site, design, or construction were subject to the 
moratorium. These courthouses, and others in their respective 
districts/circuits, have been re-evaluated by the Judiciary 
using a new asset management planning [AMP] methodology. The 
AMP focuses on cost, and places a greater emphasis on space 
availability in an existing facility rather than on security or 
structural condition when determining whether to recommend a 
new courthouse or a major renovation of an existing facility.
    Recognizing the impact of the Judiciary's rental expenses 
on its ability to maintain support of critical court 
requirements, the Committee supports the work of the Judiciary 
in revising its long-range planning process for facility needs. 
Budgetary realities, as well as new space design criteria for 
courtroom sharing, will result in fewer new courthouses 
recommended by the Judicial Conference for funding in the 
future. To date, 146 courthouses within 28 districts and 2 
circuits have been assessed by the Judiciary to measure 
existing conditions, and operational and security deficiencies 
against current space and security criteria. Using the new 
methodology, existing buildings will not be replaced with 
modern courthouses based on security deficiencies alone.
    However, the Committee believes that security deficiencies 
in existing courthouses still must be addressed which can be 
accomplished in most instances with considerably less funding 
than would be required for a new facility. Therefore, the 
Committee has included $35,000,000 within the General Services 
Administration's Federal Buildings Fund to establish a new 
Special Emphasis Program--the Judiciary Capital Security 
Program--which provides funding to address security 
deficiencies in existing buildings where physical, interior 
alterations are viable. While limited due to fiscal 
constraints, this funding will allow the program to begin its 
work. The Judiciary and the GSA shall work collaboratively to 
assess the building conditions, viability of long-term use, and 
structural capacity for these stand-alone architectural 
solutions. Such solutions may include: building additional 
corridors; adding or reconfiguring elevators; building visual 
barriers; moving air-intakes; and enlarging security screening 
areas. To date, the Judiciary's recent AMP analysis has 
identified as many as 45 buildings which could benefit from 
this initiative to improve the physical security in existing 
courthouses.

                 VACCINE INJURY COMPENSATION TRUST FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $5,428,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       4,785,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,785,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Enacted by the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 
1986 (Public Law 99-660), the Vaccine Injury Compensation 
Program is a Federal no-fault program designed to resolve a 
perceived crisis in vaccine tort liability claims that 
threatened the continued availability of childhood vaccines 
nationwide. The statute's primary intention is the creation of 
a more efficient adjudicatory mechanism that ensures a no-fault 
compensation result for those allegedly injured or killed by 
certain covered vaccines. This program protects the 
availability of vaccines in the United States by diverting a 
substantial number of claims from the tort arena.
    Not only did this act create a special fund to pay 
judgments awarded under the act, but it also created the Office 
of Special Masters within the United States Court of Federal 
Claims to hear vaccine injury cases. The act stipulates that up 
to eight special masters may be appointed for this purpose. The 
special masters expenditures are reimbursed to the judiciary 
for vaccine injury cases from a special fund set up under the 
Vaccine Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,785,000. 
The recommendation is $643,000 below the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

                           DEFENDER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $977,748,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   1,081,195,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,072,253,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Defender Services program ensures the right to counsel 
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, the Criminal Justice Act (18 
U.S.C. 3006A(e)) and other congressional mandates for those who 
cannot afford to retain counsel and other necessary defense 
services. The Criminal Justice Act provides that courts appoint 
counsel from Federal public and community defender 
organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established 
by the court. The Defender Services program helps to maintain 
public confidence in the Nation's commitment to equal justice 
under the law and ensures the successful operation of the 
constitutionally based adversary system of justice by which 
Federal criminal laws and federally guaranteed rights are 
enforced.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$1,072,253,000. The recommendation is $94,505,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 funding level and $8,942,000 below the budget 
request. Due to limited resources as well as the large increase 
provided last year, no increase in the panel attorney 
noncapital rate is provided.

                    FEES OF JURORS AND COMMISSIONERS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $61,861,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      64,108,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,590,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides for the statutory fees and allowances 
of grand and petit jurors and for the compensation of jury and 
land commissioners. Budgetary requirements depend primarily 
upon the volume and the length of jury trials demanded by 
parties to both civil and criminal actions and the number of 
grand juries being convened by the courts at the request of the 
United States Attorneys.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,590,000. 
The recommendation is $6,271,000 below the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the judiciary's re-estimate 
of fiscal year 2010 requirements.

                             COURT SECURITY

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $452,607,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     495,038,000
Committee recommendation................................     495,038,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Court Security appropriation was established in 1983 
and funds the necessary expenses incident to the provision of 
protective guard services, and the procurement, installation, 
and maintenance of security systems and equipment for United 
States courthouses and other facilities housing Federal court 
operations, including building access control, inspection of 
mail and packages, directed security patrols, perimeter 
security provided by the Federal Protective Service, and other 
similar activities as authorized by section 1010 of the 
Judicial Improvement and Access to Justice Act (Public Law 100-
702).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,038,000. 
The recommendation is $42,431,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

           Administrative Office of the United States Courts


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $83,075,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      87,255,000
Committee recommendation................................      87,255,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Administrative Office [AO] of the United States Courts 
was created in 1939 by an act of Congress. It serves the 
Federal judiciary in carrying out its constitutional mission to 
provide equal justice under the law. Beyond providing numerous 
services to the Federal courts, the AO provides support and 
staff counsel to the Judicial Conference of the United States 
and its committees, and implements Judicial Conference policies 
as well as applicable Federal statutes and regulations. The AO 
is the focal point for communication and coordination within 
the Federal judiciary and with Congress, the executive branch, 
and the public on behalf of the judiciary.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $87,255,000. 
This recommendation is $4,180,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

                        Federal Judicial Center


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $27,328,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      28,694,000
Committee recommendation................................      28,694,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Judicial Center, located in Washington, DC, 
improves the management of Federal judicial dockets and court 
administration through education for judges and staff, and 
research, evaluation, and planning assistance for the courts 
and the Judicial Conference. The Center's responsibilities 
include educating judges and other judicial branch personnel 
about legal developments and efficient litigation management 
and court administration. Additionally, the Center also 
analyzes the efficacy of case and court management procedures 
and ensures the Federal judiciary is aware of the methods of 
best practice.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,694,000. 
The recommendation is $1,366,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

                       Judicial Retirement Funds


                    PAYMENT TO JUDICIARY TRUST FUNDS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $82,374,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      90,361,400
Committee recommendation................................      90,361,400

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The funds in this account cover the estimated future 
benefit payments to be made to retired bankruptcy judges and 
magistrate judges, claims court judges, and spouses and 
dependent children of deceased judicial officers.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $90,361,400 
for payments to the Judicial Officers' Retirement Fund and the 
Claims Court Judges Retirement Fund. The recommendation is 
$7,987,400 above the fiscal year 2010 funding level and 
consistent with the budget request.

                  United States Sentencing Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $16,837,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      17,595,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,595,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Sentencing Commission establishes, 
reviews, and revises sentencing guidelines, policies, and 
practices for the Federal criminal justice system. The 
Commission is also required to monitor the operation of the 
guidelines and to identify and report necessary changes to the 
Congress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,595,000. 
The recommendation is $758,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
funding level and consistent with the budget request.

                Administrative Provisions--The Judiciary

    The Committee recommends the following administrative 
provisions for the judiciary.
    Section 301 allows the judiciary to expend funds for the 
employment of experts and consultative services.
    Section 302 allows the judiciary, subject to the 
Committee's reprogramming procedures, to transfer up to 5 
percent between appropriations, but limits to 10 percent the 
amount that may be transferred into any one appropriation.
    Section 303 limits official reception and representation 
expenses incurred by the Judicial Conference of the United 
States to no more than $11,000.
    Section 304 requires the Administrative Office to submit an 
annual financial plan for the judiciary within 90 days of 
enactment of this act.
    Section 305 grants the judicial branch the same tenant 
alteration authorities as the executive branch.
    Section 306 provides continued authority for a court 
security pilot program.

                                TITLE IV

                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                            Federal Payments

                             FEDERAL FUNDS

    A total of $738,999,000 in Federal funds are estimated to 
be available to the District of Columbia government, the 
District of Columbia Courts, the District of Columbia Court 
Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and other D.C. 
entities. This is $13,130,000 below the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and $9,326,000 above the budget request. A total 
of $2,611,497,000 in Federal funds will be received by the 
District government from the various Federal grant programs, 
including Federal reimbursements from such programs as Medicaid 
and Medicare.

              FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RESIDENT TUITION SUPPORT

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $35,100,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      35,100,000
Committee recommendation................................      35,100,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Resident Tuition Support program was created by the 
District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 (Public Law 
106-98), expanded through the District of Columbia College 
Access Improvement Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-157), and 
amended and reauthorized through Public Law 110-97. This 
program provides eligible college-bound District residents the 
opportunity to expand their higher education choices.
    Under the program, financial assistance is available to 
qualified District residents who attend public colleges outside 
of the District of Columbia, private postsecondary institutions 
in the District of Columbia, Maryland, or Virginia, or any 
historically black college or university. The private-school 
tuition grants are restricted to nonprofit institutions. 
Students who attend public schools receive assistance equal to 
the difference between the tuition paid by residents of the 
State in which the institution is located and the tuition 
charged to nonresident students, with an annual limit of 
$10,000 and a lifetime limit of $50,000. Private-school 
students receive a $2,500 maximum annual grant, with a lifetime 
limit of $12,500.
    Since its inception a decade ago, the program has disbursed 
more than $235,432,140 through December 31, 2009 for the 
benefit of more than 16,081 District of Columbia residents, 
with grants averaging $6,587 per year. Sixty-five percent of 
the program grantees are the first in their families to attend 
college. Program participants have attended 300 colleges and 
universities in 49 States. This has brought an infusion of the 
District's students as well as Federal dollars to State 
university systems nationwide.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $35,100,000 
for the resident tuition support [DC TAG] program, the same as 
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee understands that the program will have 
$15,497,003 in carryforward funds available in fiscal year 
2011.
    The Committee urges the Office of the State Superintendent 
of Education to continue its efforts to improve the student 
retention, persistence, and college graduation rate of program 
participants. The Committee acknowledges the challenges facing 
the students who do enroll in college to reach graduation. Data 
reveal that among program grantees, many students interrupt 
their enrollment or drop out entirely on their path to a 
degree, and just 41 percent graduate from college in 6 years. 
The Committee directs the State Superintendent to provide 
annual updates to the Committee of its efforts, including 
research findings, to enhance the retention, persistence, and 
graduation rates, including early awareness and readiness 
initiatives to promote academic college preparation, guidance, 
and other support mechanisms and partnerships. The Committee 
expects the program to work to improve its ability to meet its 
premise of a full return on investment wherein every program 
participant earns a college degree.
    Because program costs have the potential of growing beyond 
a level for which increased Federal funding may be available 
and sustainable, the Committee directs the Mayor and the Office 
of the State Superintendent of Education to continue the use of 
effective cost containment measures and regularly report to 
Congress on the effects of these efforts. The Committee further 
directs the District to fully explore non-Federal sources of 
additional funds to augment the Federal investment to meet 
program needs. As specified in Public Law 106-98 which 
established the program, the Committee directs the Mayor to 
address any insufficiency in funding through ratable reductions 
and other adjustments or prioritization considerations based on 
the income and need of eligible students.

   FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING AND SECURITY COSTS IN THE 
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      15,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      15,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Due to the fact that the District of Columbia is the seat 
of the Federal Government and headquarters of many 
international organizations, District police, fire, and 
emergency personnel have had to provide security for a number 
of events. As the need for the District of Columbia to provide 
security increases, overtime costs for personnel escalate and 
divert local police from neighborhood patrols. The complexity 
and costs associated with these events, including unique needs 
for crowd control, surveillance, and protection against unusual 
threats, are high and growing, and demand effective and 
efficient coordinated operations. The President has supported 
reimbursing the District for these costs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $15,000,000, 
for the District of Columbia for the costs of providing public 
safety at events related to the presence of the national 
capital in the District of Columbia, for the costs of providing 
support requested by the United States Secret Service Division 
in carrying out their protective duties under the direction of 
the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for the costs of 
providing support to respond to immediate and specific 
terrorist threats or attacks in the District of Columbia or 
surrounding jurisdictions. This is the same as the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request.
    In addition, the District may use any funds remaining from 
prior year appropriations under this heading. The District may 
use the payment to cover the costs of Executive transportation 
support including motorcades and helicopter landings. The 
Committee directs the District of Columbia to submit a detailed 
budget justification with its funding request for fiscal year 
2012. The Committee further directs the District of Columbia to 
submit, within 60 days of the end of fiscal year 2011, a report 
to the House and the Senate Committees on Appropriations 
detailing the purposes and amounts expended using the funds, 
particularly noting any deviation from the original proposed 
spending.

           FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $261,180,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     247,400,000
Committee recommendation................................     258,351,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, title 
XI), the Federal Government is required to finance the District 
of Columbia Courts. This Federal payment to the District of 
Columbia Courts funds the operations of the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals, Superior Court, the Court System, 
and the Capital Improvement Program. Capital improvements 
include a complete restoration of the historic Old Courthouse, 
as well as design and renovation work on the H. Carl Moultrie I 
Courthouse and several other buildings as part of a master plan 
for Judiciary Square. By law, the annual budget includes 
estimates of the expenditures for the operations of the Courts 
prepared by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration as 
well as the President's recommendation for funding the Courts' 
operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment to the District 
of Columbia Courts of $258,351,000, which is $2,829,000 below 
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $10,951,000 above the 
President's budget request. This amount includes $12,998,000 
for the Court of Appeals, $110,149,000 for the Superior Court, 
$65,554,000 for the Court System, and $69,650,000 for capital 
improvements to courthouse facilities.
    The Committee recommendation for the District of Columbia 
Court System is $301,000 above the President's recommended 
funding of $65,253,000, and will permit the Court System to 
pursue priority initiative to maintain a strong judiciary and 
workforce through enhanced recruitment, productivity, training, 
and staff development improvements.
    The Committee recommendation for capital improvements 
provides $10,650,000 above the President's recommendation of 
$59,000,000 to support continued implementation of the 
Facilities Master Plan, particularly renovation of space in the 
Moultrie Courthouse for the Court Reporting and Recording 
Division and completion of the security perimeter to ensure 
public safety in the Historic Courthouse and other newly 
renovated court buildings in Judiciary Square.
    The Committee supports the Courts' request to maintain the 
current level of funds available for its official reception and 
representation purposes. These resources enable the Courts to 
meet various community outreach responsibilities including 
supporting legal education in the District of Columbia as the 
home of six law schools; work with the D.C. Bar committees; and 
host the significant number of international guests who visit 
the D.C. Courts to learn about legal systems in democratic 
societies. The Committee acknowledges that the current amount 
of the Courts' reception and representation funds is 
commensurate with small Federal agencies and considerably less 
than the comparative representation funds available to other 
District officials.

            DEFENDER SERVICES IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURTS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $55,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      55,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The District of Columbia Courts appoint and compensate 
attorneys to represent persons who are financially unable to 
obtain such representation. The Defender Services programs 
provide counsel for indigent persons who are charged with 
criminal offenses, for family proceedings involving child 
abuse, neglect, and termination of parental rights, and for 
guardianship proceedings for protection of mentally 
incapacitated individuals and minors whose parents are 
deceased.
    In addition to legal representation, these programs provide 
indigent persons with services such as transcripts of court 
proceedings, expert witness testimony, foreign and sign 
language interpretation, and investigations and genetic 
testing.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $55,000,000 
for Defender Services in the District of Columbia Courts. This 
is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 
as the budget request.
    To promote access to justice and ensure that high-quality 
legal representation remains available to the indigent in the 
District of Columbia Courts, in fiscal year 2008, Congress 
financed an hourly rate increase for attorneys to $80 per hour 
and in fiscal year 2009, legislation was enacted to increase 
the hourly rate to $90, to be phased in. Increased funding 
provided in fiscal year 2010 permitted the adjusted 
compensation rate to be fully instituted.

 FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE COURT SERVICES AND OFFENDER SUPERVISION AGENCY 
                      FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $212,408,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     217,783,000
Committee recommendation................................     217,783,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency [CSOSA] 
for the District of Columbia is an independent Federal agency 
created by the National Capital Revitalization and Self-
Government Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33, title 
XI). CSOSA acquired the operational responsibilities for the 
former District agencies in charge of probation and parole, and 
houses the Pretrial Services Agency within its framework. The 
mission of CSOSA is to increase public safety, prevent crime, 
reduce recidivism, and support the fair administration of 
justice in close collaboration with the community. The CSOSA 
appropriation supports the Community Supervision Program which 
monitors or supervises approximately 16,000 offenders on a 
daily basis and the Pretrial Services Agency which monitors 
approximately 5,309 defendants at any given time and in fiscal 
year 2009 placed more than 1,884 defendants into substance 
abuse treatment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $217,783,000, 
which is $5,375,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request. Of this amount, $61,311,000 
is designated for the Pretrial Services Agency and $156,472,000 
is designated for the Community Supervision Program. The 
Committee notes that $1,000,000 of the resources recommended 
for the Pretrial Services Agency will support planning, design, 
and relocation of the Pretrial Services Agency Forensic 
Toxicology and Drug Testing Laboratory.
    The Committee is supportive of CSOSA's efforts to 
successfully return ex-offenders to their communities. For a 
number of years, CSOSA has worked with grassroots, nonprofit 
providers of transitional housing, including faith-based 
organizations, that offer counseling, mentoring, and life 
skills training to men and women returning home from prison. 
The Committee notes that this is a model program for the 
Nation.
    The Committee is encouraged that the Pretrial Services 
Agency reduced caseloads in the general supervision unit from 
82 per officer in fiscal year 2008 to 76 to per officer in 
fiscal year 2009. The Committee is concerned that even with the 
proposed budget increase, funding for CSOSA for offender 
contract treatment, including substance abuse, halfway-back 
residential sanctions, mental health and sex offender 
assessments, and transitional housing is constrained.
    The Committee commends the collaborative efforts of the 
Community Supervision Program to partner with the District of 
Columbia Government, the United States Parole Commission, and 
the Bureau of Prisons to implement the Secure Residential 
Treatment Program pilot. This program aims to provide a secure, 
residential substance abuse treatment intervention/sanction 
alternative to high-risk, chronic substance abusing and 
criminally involved male D.C. code offenders in lieu of 
revoking them to Bureau of Prisons custody. The Committee 
encourages CSOSA to keep the Committee regularly informed of 
how well this program is meeting its goals of increasing 
offenders' chances of successful community reintegration and 
breaking the cycle of recidivism.

  FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF 
                                COLUMBIA

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $37,316,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      40,690,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,690,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Public Defender Service [PDS] for the District of 
Columbia, an independent organization established by a District 
of Columbia statute (16 D.C. Code 2-1601-1608), has a distinct 
mission to provide and promote quality legal representation 
services within the District of Columbia justice system. PDS 
provides legal representation to indigent adults and children 
facing loss of liberty and provides support in the form of 
training, consultation, and legal reference services to members 
of the local bar appointed as counsel in criminal, juvenile, 
and mental health cases involving indigent individuals.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment to the Public 
Defender Service for the District of Columbia of $40,690,000, 
which is $3,374,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request. The increased funding will 
support continued progress on a new case management system as 
well as address inflationary increases in compensation and 
fixed costs. Furthermore, the recommended funding includes 
$1,500,000 as a nonrecurring increase for the costs associated 
with the acquisition, installation, and implementation of a 
state-of-the-art telephone system to replace the deteriorating 
and unreliable 11-year-old system.
    The Committee provides authority in section 818 of the bill 
for the PDS to obtain professional liability insurance for its 
attorneys, staff, and board members. The Committee understands 
that the cost for such coverage can be met within the funding 
provided.

 FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $20,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      25,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Approximately one-third of the District is served by a 
combined sewer system, constructed by the Federal Government in 
1890, in which both sanitary waste and storm water flow through 
the same pipes. When the collection system or the Blue Plains 
treatment plant reach capacity, typically during periods of 
heavy rainfall, the system is designed to overflow the excess 
water. This mixture of sewage and storm water runoff is 
discharged to the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, Rock Creek, and 
tributary waters between 60 and 75 times each year. Under a 
judicial consent decree, the Water and Sewer Authority is 
undertaking a 20-year, $2,200,000,000 sewer construction 
program to reduce combined sewer overflows [CSO]. The program 
includes deep underground storage tunnels, side tunnels to 
reduce flooding, pump station rehabilitation, and the 
elimination of over a dozen CSO outfalls along the Potomac and 
Anacostia Rivers and Rock Creek. When completed in 2025, this 
project is expected to vastly improve water quality and 
significantly reduce debris in our Nation's capital waterways 
as well as improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $25,000,000, 
to be matched by at least $25,000,000 provided by the Water and 
Sewer Authority, to continue implementation of the Long-Term 
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Plan. This is an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.

      FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE COORDINATING COUNCIL

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $2,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       1,800,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council for the District 
of Columbia [CJCC] is the primary forum in which District of 
Columbia criminal justice agencies can identify and address 
interagency coordination issues. Its mission is to address 
coordination difficulties among District of Columbia criminal 
justice agencies and address criminal justice issues, such as 
illegal drugs, juvenile justice, halfway houses, information 
technology, and identification of arrestees.
    The CJCC was originally established pursuant to a 
memorandum of agreement in May 1998 and operates as an 
independent working group to foster cooperation among the more 
than a dozen Federal and local governmental agencies which have 
law enforcement responsibility in our Nation's capital. As part 
of a local enactment in August 2001, the CJCC was established 
as an independent agency within the District of Columbia.
    The CJCC maintains the Justice Integrated Information 
System [JUSTIS] using technology that allows for the seamless 
sharing of information at critical decision points throughout 
the justice system. JUSTIS connects Federal agencies, the 
District government, and court information systems, so that 
criminal activity can be easily monitored across an array of 
participating agencies. Agencies currently using JUSTIS include 
the Metropolitan Police Department, the D.C. Department of 
Corrections, D.C. Superior Court, the U.S. Park Police, the 
U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
Firearms, and Explosives, the Pretrial Services Agency, CSOSA, 
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, and 
the D.C. and Maryland Public Defenders Service. No other system 
provides this range of access to Federal and local information 
in the District.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,800,000 to 
the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council [CJCC]. This is 
$200,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same 
as the budget request.
    Among the array of activities that the recommended Federal 
payment will support during fiscal year 2011 are enhancing the 
JUSTIS information system's report development, review, and 
approval capabilities; supporting the GunStat initiative; 
improved sharing of information on mental health and substance 
abuse to redirect persons to necessary support services; 
supporting record management, court-based release, court 
processing and papering reforms; developing clear business 
processes to help reduce the number of outstanding warrants; 
and providing a comprehensive approach to truancy prevention.
    The Committee directs the CJCC to submit annual performance 
measures in an annual report to accompany the fiscal year 2012 
budget justification, which should also describe progress made 
on individual CJCC initiatives.

                FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR JUDICIAL COMMISSIONS

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................         500,000
Committee recommendation................................         500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure provides 
support to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and 
Superior Court through reviewing and investigating allegations 
of judicial misconduct. The Judicial Nomination Commission 
recommends candidates to the President of the United States for 
nomination to judicial vacancies in these courts. In accordance 
with the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government 
Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), the Federal 
Government is responsible for financing of the District of 
Columbia Courts, including the operations of the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals, Superior Court, the Court System, 
and the Capital Improvement Program. Although independent of 
the Courts by design, these two Commissions provide important 
functions within the judicial branch of local government in the 
District of Columbia.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $500,000 as a Federal payment for 
the judicial commissions, of which $295,000 is designated for 
the Judicial Nomination Commission and $205,000 is designated 
for the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure. This 
amount is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 
the same as the budget request. The Committee continues to 
support the rationale of recognizing these commissions as local 
judicial branch agencies for which Federal support for the 
operations is necessary.

  FEDERAL PAYMENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE 
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,850,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,000,000 to 
the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of 
Columbia. This is $850,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level and $1,000,000 above the budget request. These funds are 
for health, education, environmental, social service, and 
economic development initiatives in the District of Columbia. 
The Committee directs that of this amount, $1,000,000 shall be 
transferred to the Children's National Medical Center [CNMC] in 
Washington, DC.
    The Committee expects the funds to be a Federal 
contribution toward meeting the growing demand for cardiac 
critical care. The current complement of 45 critical care beds, 
including 13 cardiac intensive care beds, is no longer 
sufficient to meet demands. Over the past year, critical care 
capacity, including cardiac, has consistently exceeded 100 
percent capacity, well beyond occupancy levels to support 
planning levels to support contingency requirements. To address 
the growing demand for critical intensive care services, the 
Children's National Medical Center plans to renovate an 
unoccupied unit of the third floor of the main hospital. The 
space will be transformed into a new 26-28 bed Cardiac 
Intensive Care Unit [CICU]. Once this CICU is relocated, the 
Pediatric Intensive Care [PICU] will increase beds to build to 
a 35 bed unit.
    The Committee is supportive of the CNMC and the critical 
services it provides to the District of Columbia's children and 
families. Founded in 1870 as a small community hospital to 
treat children orphaned by the Civil War, CNMC has grown into 
an internationally recognized team of more than 5,000 pediatric 
healthcare professionals serving children regionally, 
nationally, and internationally.
    As the single largest provider of pediatric services in the 
District of Columbia, CNMC touches the lives of more than 
600,000 children annually. From serving as the medical home for 
the District's children in foster care through its DC KIDS 
program to employing all the nurses in over 160 District public 
and public charter schools, CNMC is an integral part of the 
fabric of the District of Columbia.
    The Committee directs CNMC as a grantee of funding under 
this account to submit a detailed budget and a comprehensive 
description of the activities to be carried out with the funds 
no later than March 1, 2011 to the Chief Financial Officer and 
the Committees on Appropriations. The Committee further directs 
that any funds made available to the grantee under this account 
must be spent primarily in the District of Columbia to benefit 
District of Columbia residents.

                 FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $75,400,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      52,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      52,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Committee continues its commitment to improving 
educational opportunities for the children of the District of 
Columbia. For the past 8 fiscal years, Congress has supported a 
three-sector funding arrangement to provide Federal resources 
for the District of Columbia Public Schools, public charter 
schools, and for a scholarship program for low-income students 
to attend private schools. The Committee is encouraged by the 
progress to date to implement the Mayor's initiative to chart a 
new management course for the District's troubled public school 
system in response to Public Law 110-33, which vested authority 
over the school superintendent, operating budget, and capital 
program in the Mayor beginning in 2007.
    The Committee acknowledges the daunting challenges this 
undertaking presents, given that District of Columbia public 
school students chronically performed well below national 
averages in reading and mathematics. The Committee commends the 
progress that has been made over the past 3 years under the 
leadership of the Chancellor to streamline bureaucracy, recruit 
new principals, expand course offerings available to students, 
and raise math and reading test scores. The Committee is 
further encouraged by the ratification of an innovative teacher 
compensation system that has the potential to attract and 
retain excellent teachers in District public schools.
    Public charter schools in the District of Columbia have 
grown considerably since the first two opened in 1996 and 
served 160 students. Today, there are 57 tuition-free, 
autonomous public charter schools on 99 campuses operating in 
the District, enrolling approximately 28,000 students, over 38 
percent of all District of Columbia public school students. The 
District of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-
134), one of the strongest charter school laws in the Nation, 
guarantees charter school autonomy from the District of 
Columbia Public Schools and from the District government and 
mandates uniform per student funding of all public school 
students, both traditional and charter.
    Congress established the private school scholarship 
(voucher) program as a 5-year pilot in 2003. The intent of this 
program is to help increase the District of Columbia's capacity 
to provide parents, particularly low-income parents whose 
children attend low-performing schools, more options for 
quality education. In school year 2009-2010, 1,319 students 
participated in the program and were enrolled at 45 nonpublic 
schools.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $52,400,000, 
which is $23,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request. These funds are allocated 
as follows: $23,000,000 for the District of Columbia Public 
Schools to improve public school education; $20,000,000 to 
expand quality charter schools; and $9,400,000 to the Secretary 
of Education for opportunity scholarships for low-income 
students in the District of Columbia.

District of Columbia Public Schools

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $23,000,000 
as a contribution to the aggressive overhaul underway within 
the District of Columbia Public Schools. These Federal 
resources are designed to support and build upon initiatives 
supported in prior fiscal years. In addition, the Committee 
recommends an additional one-time payment of $20,000,000 as set 
forth under the heading ``Federal Payment to Jump Start Public 
School Reform'' within this title, for a combined total funding 
level of $43,000,000 for public school improvement.
    For fiscal year 2011, the Committee expects that, of the 
total Federal funds made available, $31,800,000 be devoted to 
investments in human capital, specifically the master educators 
and IMPACT educator effectiveness assessment system for 
teachers, new teacher induction and mentoring, innovative 
compensation structures to attract and retain high performing 
educators, school-based incentives to recognize team-driven 
high achievement, and fellowship programs to attract high 
achievers in urban education innovation; $4,750,000 be 
designated to build effective and innovative schools through 
expansion of the comprehensive staffing model instituted in 
school year 2008-2009 to staff schools with social workers, 
counselors, psychologists, literacy professional developers, 
mathematics coaches, and other integrated services providers to 
improve the academic and socio-emotional outcomes for students; 
make further investments in early childhood education by 
creating more pre-school and pre-kindergarten classrooms to 
serve more students; grow the initial cohort of partnership 
schools to help turn around secondary schools that demonstrate 
a substantial need for outside management and resources; and 
support continued activities in conjunction with the Capital 
Gains joint venture with Harvard University EdLabs; $5,250,000 
be invested to empower schools to make data-driven decisions, 
specifically to expand the benchmark assessment system to 
diagnose extent of student mastery of subjects, to augment 
instruction through individualized secondary reading and 
mathematics interventions and elementary literacy assessment 
and interventions, and school-based data capacity building 
through district-wide implementation of protocols under the 
achievement network model; $700,000 be used to address 
alarmingly low graduation rates by expanding the successful 
City Year Whole School Whole Child Program; and $500,000 be 
used for engaging the community to increase student achievement 
through various programs including school scorecards, a Parent 
Academy, and a Parent Assistant data portal for online access 
to student information.
    The Committee directs the District of Columbia Public 
Schools to submit a detailed spending plan outlining specific 
activities no later than 60 days after enactment of this act 
and that this spending plan should contain a particular 
emphasis on the recruitment and retention of a high-quality 
teacher and principal workforce in District public schools.
    The District has 11,000 special needs students for whom the 
District must provide or secure educational services. District 
taxpayers currently spend $200,000,000 each year on private 
school tuition and transportation costs for more than 2,300 of 
these special needs students, one-fifth of all special needs 
students, that the public schools are unable to serve. The 
District of Columbia is required to comply with a Federal 
court-ordered consent decree entered in 2006 to settle a 9-year 
class action lawsuit brought by parents of special needs 
children. Under the judicial consent decree, the District is 
required to reduce its backlog of cases on placement 
assessments for individual special needs students, fix its 
long-broken data management system that makes it difficult for 
parents to access their children's files, and hire more special 
needs staff. As part of the increased Federal funds provided 
for the District of Columbia Public Schools for fiscal year 
2011 in this bill, the Committee expects the District to make 
substantial progress in achieving compliance with the consent 
decree, eliminating inadequacies in treatment and support for 
special needs students, and establishing more inclusive 
learning environments for these students within the District of 
Columbia Public Schools system.

District of Columbia Public Charter Schools

    With respect to the recommended Federal payment of 
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, the Committee directs the 
District of Columbia Public Charter School Board to submit to 
Congress, through the Office of the State Superintendent of 
Education [OSSE], a detailed spending plan outlining specific 
activities no later than 60 days after enactment of this act. 
This spending plan should particularly emphasize enhancing the 
academic quality of existing charter schools, expanding the 
capacity of high-performing charter schools, and instituting a 
robust performance management system to help identify low-
performing schools and close them. The Committee expects that 
funding provided for charter schools will be used in accordance 
with the plan submitted.
    The Committee is encouraged by the work being done by the 
District of Columbia Public Charter School Board to enforce a 
high standard of academic quality for all District charter 
schools. Assessments indicate that students enrolled in 
District of Columbia middle and high public charter schools 
with a majority of economically-disadvantaged students are 
nearly twice as likely to be proficient in reading and math as 
their peers in the District's traditional public schools. The 
high school graduation rate for D.C. public charter schools is 
24 percentage points higher than at regular D.C. public schools 
and 8 percentage points higher than the U.S. national average. 
Despite these noted successes, the Committee recognizes that 
the test scores of some of the charter schools are unacceptably 
low and calls on the District of Columbia Public Charter School 
Board to demand improvement on a timely basis, reform, or close 
these failing charter schools. As nationally recognized model 
of school accountability, the D.C. Public Charter School Board 
rejects two public charter school applications for every one it 
accepts. The Board monitors public charter schools to guarantee 
academic achievement, managerial competence, and financial 
health. The Board conducts a high stakes review of each school 
every 5 years. The Committee urges the Board's continued 
vigilance and prompt consideration of charter revocation for 
those schools determined to be underperforming academically.
    Results of a national study conducted by Ball State 
University released in May 2010 found that charter schools in 
the District of Columbia received 41 percent less funding than 
the District of Columbia Public Schools [DCPS]. According to 
the findings, focused on the 2006-2007 school year, charter 
schools received $17,525 per pupil compared to $29,808 per 
pupil for DCPS, a difference of $12,283 per pupil. District 
public charter schools educated 25.6 percent of the District's 
students during the period studied, but the charter schools 
received only 16.8 percent of the total education funding.
    Over the years, public charter schools have moved into and 
revitalized former DCPS school buildings that otherwise would 
have been developed into condominiums or used for other 
commercial purposes. These buildings, including several 
historic structures, often long-abandoned and severely 
blighting neighborhoods, have been converted to public charter 
schools.
    The Committee further notes that the public charter schools 
have been permitted to enter into negotiations to acquire only 
a handful of the school buildings declared surplus by the Mayor 
and Chancellor. It is evident to the Committee that the 
District of Columbia continues its long-standing practice of 
ignoring the public charter schools' right of first offer on 
surplus school buildings as outlined in the District of 
Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-134). The 
Committee notes that this right applies to all school buildings 
no longer needed by DCPS, including ones in which the District 
of Columbia government would rather locate government agencies 
or use for economic development or other purposes. The 
Committee directs the Mayor of the District of Columbia to 
submit to the Committees on Appropriations, as part of the 
fiscal year 2012 Federal payment budget justification 
materials, a detailed fiscal year 2012-2016 public education 
facilities plan that will ensure public charter school access 
to surplus or underutilized DCPS space.
    Finally, the Committee reminds the government of the 
District of Columbia that students in public charter schools 
are to have access to the same publicly funded services that 
are offered to students in traditional public schools. These 
include school nurses, School Resource Officers, crossing 
guards, and mental health and other wrap-around services.

Opportunity Scholarship Program

    The Committee supports the budget request and recommends a 
Federal payment of $9,400,000 for the District of Columbia 
Opportunity Scholarship Program. This will allow private school 
vouchers for those students currently enrolled in the program. 
Based on current program participation rates, historic 
attrition rates (averaging 17 percent since 2005-2006), and the 
amount of available program funding carried forward from prior 
fiscal years (including the $12,200,000 provided for school 
year 2010-2011 in the fiscal 2010 enacted bill), it is expected 
that the funds recommended for fiscal year 2011 will be the 
final installment of Federal funding to support this program. 
Any funds in this account not used in the 2010-2011 school year 
will be available for future years to provide scholarships to 
the current cohort of students, until such time as all the 
remaining students graduate from high school.
    The Committee believes that any school enrolling a 
scholarship participant under the Opportunity Scholarship 
Program should satisfy certain minimum reasonable expectations 
as an educational setting. Therefore, the Committee continues 
to expressly provide that none of the funds provided for 
opportunity scholarships shall be used by an eligible student 
to enroll in any participating school under the D.C. School 
Choice Incentive Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199) unless (1) 
the participating school has and maintains a valid certificate 
of occupancy issued by the District of Columbia; (2) the core 
subject matter teachers of the eligible students hold 4-year 
bachelor's degrees; and (3) schools enrolling scholarship 
students are in compliance with the accreditation and other 
standards prescribed for purposes of the District of Columbia 
compulsory school attendance laws. The Committee directs that 
the Secretary of Education ensure that site inspections of 
participating schools are conducted at least twice annually.
    In 2009, the Department of Education concluded a 5-year 
evaluation of the program, including a 3-year analysis that 
measured impacts on student academic achievement. The first 2 
years of impact data showed that students offered a scholarship 
made no significant gains overall on either reading or math 
achievement compared to students not offered a scholarship. The 
third-year analysis showed that students offered a scholarship 
continued to make no significant gains in math, but certain 
subgroups of students performed at statistically higher levels 
in reading, equivalent to about three additional months of 
instruction. Evaluators issued an assessment in June 2010 that 
indicated that after 4 years, overall reading and math scores 
were not significantly different for scholarship students than 
the control group. There was no significant impact for students 
who came from schools classified as ``in need of improvement,'' 
male students, and students who entered with low levels of 
academic performance. Parents reported higher levels of 
satisfaction with voucher schools, but students did not rate 
their schools any higher in quality or safety than their peers 
in public schools. The findings noted that voucher students 
were more likely to graduate.

           FEDERAL PAYMENT TO JUMP START PUBLIC SCHOOL REFORM

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     $20,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    With the enactment of Public Law 110-33, providing the 
Mayor of the District of Columbia with authority over and 
accountability for the budget and administrative functions of 
the District of Columbia school system, the District of 
Columbia has launched an aggressive and comprehensive reform of 
its severely challenged public school system. Under the 
direction of the Chancellor of the District of Columbia Public 
Schools, a multitude of critical initiatives are underway. A 
one-time Federal contribution to support those efforts will 
support the recruitment and training of principals and other 
school leaders; the development of optimal school programs; and 
the enhancement of the District's data reporting capabilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $20,000,000 
to jump start public school reform in the District of Columbia 
during fiscal year 2011. This is an increase of $20,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request. This payment is in addition to funds provided 
for public school reform under the ``Federal Payment for School 
Improvement'' account within this title. The funds will augment 
the resources devoted to a wide variety of reforms, including 
the aggressive recruitment and retention of high performance 
teachers, principals, and administrators through assessment 
systems and programs that incentivize quality teaching. The 
funds will also be devoted to measures to build effective and 
innovative schools, empower schools to make data-driven 
decisions, increase student achievement and college attendance, 
and enable schools to better engage with parents and the 
broader community.
    The Committee directs the District to submit, within 60 
days of enactment, a comprehensive spending plan to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
and the Senate detailing how the funding provided will be 
allocated and explaining what performance measures will be used 
to evaluate the success of the outcomes from these enhanced 
Federal investments.

          FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR CONSOLIDATED LABORATORY FACILITY

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011....................... ...........................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The District's forensics laboratory capacity has not kept 
pace with the innovations in the field and is therefore unable 
to meet the demands of the current workload. As a result, the 
District is forced to seek help from the FBI crime laboratory 
in Quantico, Virginia and other Federal agencies. Because the 
FBI has its own workload capacity, it strictly limits the 
evidence it will process for the District in violent crime 
cases.
    The lack of capacity and outmoded technology have led to 
many so-called ``cold'' or unsolved crime cases in the 
District. The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police 
Department [MPD] has a backlog of thousands of sexual assault 
and homicide cases, and the volume continues to grow. 
Approximately 30 percent of the FBI's DNA analysis is casework 
from MPD. Further, the Drug Enforcement Agency performs all of 
MPD's drug analysis on controlled dangerous substances, and the 
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has tested 
approximately 100 arson cases on behalf of the District.
    Construction is underway to build a new comprehensive 
laboratory, housing both anti-terrorism and criminal forensic 
components under one roof. This facility, scheduled for 
completion and occupancy in 2012, will not only allow the 
District to more effectively and efficiently process crime 
cases, but it will be an essential element in processing 
evidence associated with potential bioterrorism attacks.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee supports the budget request that recommends 
no additional Federal payment for the costs associated with 
completing the construction of a new comprehensive laboratory 
facility in the District of Columbia. The Committee notes that 
in the period spanning fiscal years 2006-2010, Congress 
provided over $58,000,000 in Federal matching payments to 
augment local investments and that the Federal payment in 
fiscal year 2010 was the final payment for this project. When 
completed, the facility will provide services to all agencies 
within the borders of the District. United States Capitol 
Police, United States Park Police, and the United States Secret 
Service all submit evidence to the District's Firearms Unit, 
which will be housed in the consolidated lab. The public health 
lab portion of the facility will allow the District to join the 
national Laboratory Response Network.

              FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR THE D.C. NATIONAL GUARD

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $375,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,375,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The fiscal 2011 budget request seeks a Federal payment of 
$2,000,000 for the D.C. National Guard's D.C. Government 
Operations. The D.C. National Guard is a Federal, rather than a 
local, entity and responds to orders of the President of the 
United States who is the Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. 
National Guard pursuant to law [District of Columbia Official 
Code Sec. 49-409 and Executive Order No. 11485 (October 1, 
1969)]. Unlike a governor of a State, the Mayor is not 
authorized to deploy the National Guard under any 
circumstances. The District of Columbia National Guard is 
specifically trained to support law enforcement during critical 
missions, such as demonstrations, Presidential inaugurations 
and funerals, and emergency services for weather-related 
contingencies. The D.C. Air Guard patrols the skies over the 
District on round-the-clock alert. However, residency 
restrictions preclude a significant number of Guard members 
from eligibility for tuition assistance programs, which has 
severely hampered recruitment and retention efforts.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $1,375,000 
for the D.C. National Guard. Of this amount, $375,000 is 
designated for the Major General David F. Wherley, Jr. District 
of Columbia National Guard Retention and College Access 
Program, a tuition assistance program for nonresident District 
of Columbia National Guard members, and $1,000,000 is a Federal 
contribution to offset local funds used to support the Guard's 
Joint Force Headquarters and operational support staff and the 
ChalleNGe remedial at-risk youth program that targets 
unemployed, drug-free, and law-free high-school dropouts to 
instill values, skills, education, and self-discipline 
necessary to succeed as adults.

              FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under the Housing First Initiative, the District of 
Columbia has begun to transform the delivery of homeless 
services from an approach that simply meets the survival needs 
of individuals with blankets and shelter to a system designed 
to move chronically homeless individuals to permanent 
supportive housing with tightly linked support services. In 
fiscal year 2010, Congress provided a Federal payment of 
$17,000,000 to help boost the local intensive case management 
and scattered-site housing program through support for the 
costs of rent, utilities, and case management. For fiscal year 
2011, a Federal payment of $10,000,000 was requested to help 
respond to the particularly acute incidence of homelessness 
among veterans. The resources requested would support the 
development of two centrally located, site-based properties, 
yielding at least 120 homes for chronically homeless clients.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $10,000,000 
to support the development of two centrally located site-based 
permanent supportive housing initiatives in the District of 
Columbia.

          FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR RECONNECTING DISCONNECTED YOUTH

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $4,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    For fiscal year 2010, Congress provided a one-time Federal 
payment of $4,000,000 to support a local initiative designed to 
significantly reduce the number of young people in the District 
of Columbia who are currently not connected to positive work or 
school activities or who are at risk of becoming disconnected 
from these critical influences. The District of Columbia 
proposed to use the Federal funds to support a local investment 
in new neighborhood-based service coalitions to expand 
opportunities to youth and families by engaging community-based 
organizations in the neighborhoods where the youths reside and 
building the capacity of neighborhoods to serve their 
residents.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The fiscal year 2011 budget did not request and the 
Committee does not recommend a Federal payment to the District 
of Columbia for reconnecting disconnected youth.

FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ST. ELIZABETHS HOSPITAL CAMPUS

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      $2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    St. Elizabeths, established by Congress in 1855 as the 
Government Hospital for the Insane and officially renamed as 
St. Elizabeths Hospital in 1916, is presently divided into two 
campuses. The West Campus, owned by the Federal Government and 
under the custody and control of the General Services 
Administration, will be the new headquarters for the Department 
of Homeland Security. The East Campus, owned by the District of 
Columbia, is still in use as a mental health facility. The 
fiscal year 2011 budget request seeks a new Federal payment of 
$2,000,000 to support various redevelopment planning activities 
on the East Campus to stimulate economic and community 
revitalization in tandem with the transformation of the West 
campus property.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee supports the proposed request and recommends 
a Federal payment of $2,000,000 to the District of Columbia for 
the St. Elizabeths Hospital East Campus redevelopment planning. 
The Committee directs the District of Columbia to submit to the 
Committees on Appropriations a detailed spending plan for the 
use of the funds not later than 45 days after enactment of the 
fiscal year 2011 appropriation.

                FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR HIV/AIDS PREVENTION

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      $5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The District of Columbia is facing a daunting HIV epidemic. 
Based on the national HIV/AIDS case based reporting system, the 
District currently has the highest AIDS rate in the country, 
nearly twice as high as New York City and five times as high as 
Detroit. Estimates based on surveillance numbers suggest that 
between 3 and 5 percent of the adult residents in the District 
are currently living with HIV or AIDS, and HIV/AIDS is the 
leading cause of premature mortality in the city. The fiscal 
year 2011 budget request seeks a new Federal payment to bolster 
existing prevention, care, and support services on a city-wide 
basis to reduce the incidence of HIV and AIDS in the District 
of Columbia.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a Federal payment of $3,000,000 to 
support and scale-up community-level prevention interventions 
and services, partner services to identify those at highest 
risk of recent infection, reestablish care, treatment, and 
prevention for those who have fallen out of care, and provide 
housing supports for persons living with AIDS.

                       DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FUNDS

    The Committee recommends a total of $10,306,904,000 for the 
operating expenses of the District of Columbia as contained in 
the fiscal year 2011 budget submitted to the Congress by the 
government of the District of Columbia on July 1, 2010. Of the 
total, $5,788,584,000 is from local funds, $2,611,497,000 is 
from Federal grant funds, $1,899,946,000 is from other funds, 
and $6,877,000 is from private funds. The Committee further 
recommends an additional $167,175,000 in appropriated Federal 
payments as set forth under this title. The Committee directs 
that any changes to the financial plan as submitted by the 
District must follow the reprogramming guidelines.

                                TITLE V

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

             Administrative Conference of the United States

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       3,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,200,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Administrative Conference of the United States [ACUS] 
is a newly reauthorized independent agency and advisory 
committee that was created to study administrative processes in 
order to recommend improvements to Congress and agencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,200,000 for ACUS, equal to the 
budget request and $1,700,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level. The Committee is pleased that ACUS utilized 
carryover funds to begin its operations in fiscal year 2010. 
The Committee expects to be regularly apprised of ACUS 
activities and looks forward to reviewing a comprehensive 
Congressional Justification for the fiscal year 2012 budget 
concurrent with the President's budget submission.

               Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $750,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................         750,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation is an 
independent agency established by Congress in 1992 (Public Law 
102-281) to encourage and support research, study, and labor 
designed to produce new discoveries in all fields of endeavor 
for the benefit of mankind. Its mission is accomplished through 
the sponsorship of national competitions designed to promote 
innovation in the fields of homeland security, life sciences, 
and education. Through its Frontiers of Discovery--Work in 
Progress and Discover the Future programs, the agency 
recognizes cutting edge innovations of worthy American 
scientists, student inventors, and exemplary teachers who 
inspire despite especially challenging educational environments 
or personal physical disabilities.
    The Committee acknowledges that initial funding for the 
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation was derived from the 
sale of three denominations of specially minted coins sold by 
the United States Mint from August 1992 through June 1993. 
Revenues from the coin sales surcharges were deposited in the 
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Fund at the Department of the 
Treasury, and made available to the Foundation. To address the 
fact that the coin sales revenues had been depleted, Congress 
authorized funding for the Christopher Columbus Fellowship 
Foundation in the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 
111-8).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $750,000 for 
the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation. This is the 
same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $750,000 above 
the budget request.

                  Commodity Futures Trading Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $168,800,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     261,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     286,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] was 
established as an independent agency by the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 1389; 7 U.S.C. 4a).
    The Commission administers the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 
U.S.C. section 1, et seq. The 1974 Act brought under Federal 
regulation futures trading in all goods, articles, services, 
rights, and interests; commodity options trading; and leverage 
trading in gold and silver bullion and coins; and otherwise 
strengthened the regulation of the commodity futures trading 
industry. It established a comprehensive regulatory structure 
to oversee the volatile futures trading complex.
    The CFTC is the sole Federal regulator responsible for 
overseeing the futures markets by encouraging competitiveness 
and efficiency, ensuring market integrity, and protecting 
market participants against manipulation, abusive trading 
practices, fraud, and other unscrupulous activities. Effective 
oversight by the CFTC enables the markets to better serve their 
designated functions of providing a price discovery mechanism 
and a means to offset price risk.
    Programs in support of the overall mission include market 
surveillance analysis and research; registration, audits, and 
contract markets; enforcement; reparations; proceedings; legal 
counsel; agency direction; and administrative support services. 
CFTC activities are carried out in Washington, DC and in 
regional offices located in Chicago, New York City, and Kansas 
City.
    The enacted 2008 farm bill (Public Law 110-246) 
reauthorized the CFTC and made several amendments to the 
Commodity Exchange Act to (1) clarify the CFTC's jurisdiction 
over retail financial contracts based on foreign currencies; 
(2) make the CFTC's anti-fraud authority applicable to certain 
off-exchange or over-the-counter derivatives contracts; (3) 
increase civil monetary and criminal penalties for violations; 
(4) permit cross-margining of accounts in security futures and 
options; and (5) establish CFTC regulation over certain 
exchange-like trading facilities that are currently exempt from 
most regulation.
    Under the recently-enacted Dodd-Frank Wall Street and 
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203), the CFTC faces 
the daunting task of regulating the $300 trillion over-the-
counter derivatives market. New mandates for the CFTC include 
reviewing all swaps to determine whether the swap is exempt 
from the mandatory clearance requirement; requiring real-time 
reporting for all swaps; adopting rules for imposing capital 
and margin requirements on all non-cleared swaps; exercising 
dual regulatory authority, in conjunction with the SEC, over 
mixed swaps; promulgating rules defining the universe of swaps 
that can be executed on a swap execution facility; and 
exercising backstop enforcement authority if prudential 
regulators do not act after notification of a perceived 
violation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $286,000,000 
for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. This is 
$117,200,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 
$25,000,000 above the total budget request which included 
$216,000,000 in base funding, plus $45,000,000 in contingent 
funding tied to enactment of financial regulatory reform. The 
Committee supports the need for significantly increased 
resources for the CFTC to ensure appropriate oversight of the 
futures markets, which are expanding steadily in volume and new 
users, and rapidly evolving in their complexity and diversity.
    Additional authorities provided through enactment of the 
2008 farm bill (Public Law 110-246), coupled with escalating 
public concern about record energy and agricultural commodity 
prices, and compounded by a growing influx of financial funds 
into the futures markets, make the CFTC's staffing situation 
unsustainable. These combined factors underscore the importance 
of the Committee's recommended funding increase. Moreover, the 
CFTC faces an exponential increase in its regulatory and 
surveillance workload under the Wall Street financial 
regulatory reform law (Public Law 111-203). This comprehensive 
enactment extends CFTC's authority to over-the-counter 
derivatives markets. The Committee directs the CFTC to submit, 
within 30 days of enactment, a detailed spending plan for the 
allocation of the funds made available, including staffing 
projections and planned investments in information technology.
    The Committee further emphasizes the need for CFTC to make 
mission-critical investments in technology to sort through the 
millions of pieces of information generated daily by markets, 
much of it electronic. Proper oversight of markets requires 
transparency. The backbone of the CFTC's market surveillance 
program is the large trader reporting system. The amount and 
detail of trade data collected and analyzed at the CFTC is 
unprecedented among regulatory financial agencies.
    The Committee is pleased that the CFTC is taking steps to 
improve the transparency of market data to better inform market 
participants and the public.
    At the Committee's direction, the GAO reviewed and assessed 
the joint report issued in October 2009 by the CFTC and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] on harmonization of 
their regulatory approaches. The Committee urges the CFTC, in 
collaboration with the SEC, to heed the recommendation of the 
GAO that the agencies take steps to establish, with associated 
timeframes, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and 
requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these 
goals. The Committee underscores that the joint report issued 
in October 2009 did not address the issue of gaps in the 
agencies' authorities to oversee over-the-counter derivatives, 
which were the subject of congressional deliberation at the 
time. With the enactment of Public Law 111-203, it is all the 
more critical to identify these gaps and ensure optimum 
harmonization in executing the respective oversight 
responsibilities of each agency with respect to over-the-
counter derivative products. The Committee expects the CFTC and 
the SEC to limit, to the greatest extent possible, inconsistent 
regulation of similar products and entities that could lead to 
opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The Committee continues 
to support the use of funds to support the Joint SEC-CFTC 
Advisory Committee.

                   Consumer Product Safety Commission


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $118,200,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     118,600,000
Committee recommendation................................     118,600,000

                          program description

    The Consumer Product Safety Commission [CPSC] is an 
independent regulatory agency that was established on May 14, 
1973, and is responsible for protecting the public against 
unreasonable risks of injury from consumer products; assisting 
consumers to evaluate the comparative safety of consumer 
products; developing uniform safety standards for consumer 
products and minimizing conflicting State and local 
regulations; and promoting research and investigation into the 
causes and prevention of product-related deaths, illnesses, and 
injuries.
    In carrying out its mandate, the CPSC establishes mandatory 
product safety standards, where appropriate, to reduce the 
unreasonable risk of injury to consumers from consumer 
products; helps industry develop voluntary safety standards; 
bans unsafe products if it finds that a safety standard is not 
feasible; monitors recalls of defective products; informs and 
educates consumers about product hazards; conducts research and 
develops test methods; collects and publishes injury and hazard 
data, and promotes uniform product regulations by governmental 
units.
    On August 14, 2008, Congress reauthorized the Commission by 
enacting the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 
[CPSIA] (Public Law 110-314). CPSIA represents the most 
substantial change in the Consumer Product Safety Commission's 
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 $118,600,000 for the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, which is $400,000 above the fiscal 
year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee reminds the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission that hiring--particularly in the two areas of 
Compliance and Field Operations, and Hazard Identification and 
Reduction--remains a priority and that increased funding has 
been provided over the past several years for this purpose. 
CPSC should ensure that this funding is being spent as directed 
and that hiring goals are met.
    An August 2009 GAO report (GAO-09-803), issued in response 
to a mandate in the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 
2008, raised concerns about and made recommendations to 
strengthen CPSC's ability to target unsafe consumer products. 
The Commission's ability to conduct market surveillance and 
target unsafe products is a critical factor in its decisions 
about whether to recall consumer products. In carrying out this 
important activity, CPSC must rely on a relatively small number 
of compliance officers and investigators, as well as work with 
its counterparts in other countries. The effectiveness of 
CPSC's field structure and approach to market surveillance has 
important implications for its ability to ensure the safety of 
consumer products. To further strengthen CPSC's ability to 
target unsafe consumer products, the Committee directs GAO to 
conduct a follow-up report within 270 days of enactment of this 
act.
    The Committee is appreciative of the monthly drywall 
reports provided by the Commission during the past year and for 
fiscal year 2011 requires that these reports be provided on a 
quarterly basis instead, although the Commission should update 
the Committee of notable developments immediately, should they 
occur outside the quarterly reporting schedule.

                     Election Assistance Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $17,959,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      16,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Election Assistance Commission [EAC] was created by the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 [HAVA] (Public Law 107-252). 
Under HAVA, the EAC's role is to promulgate voluntary State 
guidelines for election systems, develop a national 
certification program for voting equipment, and provide related 
guidance. The EAC is also charged with awarding grants to 
improve election administration and to enhance election 
equipment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee provides $16,800,000 for EAC's administrative 
expenses, which is $1,159,000 less than the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and the same as the budget request. The Committee 
bill requires that $3,250,000 of these funds be transferred to 
the National Institute for Standards and Technology for 
technical assistance related to the development of voluntary 
State voting systems guidelines.
    The Committee directs the Commission to keep the Committee 
informed of new hires and significant staffing changes, as well 
as any other major developments. The Commission is reminded of 
the requirements of section 608 particularly with regard to the 
baseline report and reorganizations.

                        ELECTION REFORM PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides funding for grant programs 
authorized by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (Public Law 
107-252) and for related grant programs to improve the 
administration of elections.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee has provided no funding for this program, 
consistent with the budget request.

                   Federal Communications Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $335,794,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     352,500,000
Committee recommendation................................     355,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Communications Commission [FCC] is charged with 
regulating interstate and international communications by 
radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The FCC is also 
charged with promoting the safety of life and property through 
wire and radio communications. The mandate of the FCC under the 
Communications Act is to make available to all people of the 
United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide 
wire and radio communication service. The FCC performs five 
major functions to fulfill this charge: (1) spectrum 
allocation; (2) creating rules to promote fair competition and 
protect consumers where required by market conditions; (3) 
authorization of service; (4) enhancing public safety and 
homeland security; and (5) enforcement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $355,500,000 for the 
salaries and expenses of the Federal Communications Commission 
[FCC], of which $355,500,000 is to be derived from the 
collection of fees. The recommendation is $19,706,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $3,000,000 above the budget 
request. Funds recommended above the request are provided for 
the FCC Office of Inspector General.
    Broadcast Television Standards.--The Committee continues to 
be concerned about the declining standards of broadcast 
television and the impact this decline is having on America's 
children. In broadcast television, sexual content, foul 
language, and violence have greatly increased over the past 
decade. The Committee directs the FCC to continue to report to 
Congress on the issues associated with resurrecting a broadcast 
industry code of conduct for content of programming that, if 
adhered to by the broadcast industry, would protect against the 
further erosion of broadcasting standards.
    The Committee has included language (sec. 501) to extend 
FCC's exemption from the Anti-deficiency Act [ADA] until 
December 31, 2011.
    The Committee has included language (sec. 502) that 
prohibits the FCC from enacting certain recommendations 
regarding universal service that were made to it by the Joint 
Board of FCC members and State utility commissioners. The 
recommendation would limit universal support to one line. This 
would be harmful to small businesses, especially in rural 
areas, which need a second line for a fax or for other business 
purposes.

                 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010....................................   ($37,942,000)
Budget estimate, 2011...................................    (47,916,000)
Committee recommendation................................    (47,916,000)

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation [FDIC] Office of 
Inspector General [OIG] conducts audits, investigations, and 
other reviews to assist and augment the FDIC's contribution to 
the stability of, and public confidence in, the Nation's 
financial system. A separate appropriation more effectively 
ensures the OIG's independence consistent with the Inspector 
General Act of 1978 and other legislation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $47,916,000 for the FDIC inspector 
general, the same as the budget request and $9,974,000 more 
than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Funds are to be 
derived by transfer from the Deposit Insurance Fund and the 
Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation [FSLIC] 
resolution fund. Recommended funding represents a 26 percent 
increase to the fiscal year 2010 level in order to support 
increased workload, including Material Loss Reviews of certain 
bank failures, oversight of the FDIC's increase in resolution 
and receivership activity, and oversight of new FDIC activities 
initiated in response to the financial crisis.

                      Federal Election Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $66,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      68,800,000
Committee recommendation................................      70,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Election Commission [FEC] was created through 
the 1974 Amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
1971 (Public Law 93-443). Consistent with its duty of executing 
our Nation's Federal campaign finance laws, and in pursuit of 
its mission of maintaining public faith in the integrity of the 
Federal campaign finance system, FEC conducts three major 
regulatory programs: (1) providing public disclosure of funds 
raised and spent to influence Federal elections; (2) enforcing 
compliance with restrictions on contributions and expenditures 
made to influence Federal elections; and (3) administering 
public financing of Presidential campaigns.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $70,800,000 for the Federal 
Election Commission, $2,000,000 more than the budget request 
and $4,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. 
The Committee recommends the increase in funding over the 
budget request to enable the FEC to maintain current staffing 
levels and services, enhance public access to electronic 
records, and address increased workload demands.

                   Federal Labor Relations Authority


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $24,773,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      26,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      26,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Labor Relations Authority [FLRA] is an 
independent administrative Federal agency created by title VII 
of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-454) 
with a mission to carry out five statutory responsibilities in 
relation to the Federal workforce: (1) determining the 
appropriateness of units for labor organization representation; 
(2) resolving complaints of unfair labor practices; (3) 
adjudicating exceptions to arbitrator's awards; (4) 
adjudicating legal issues relating to the duty to bargain; and 
(5) resolving impasses during negotiations.
    The FLRA's authority is divided by law and by delegation 
among a three-member authority and an Office of General 
Counsel, appointed by the President and subject to Senate 
confirmation; and the Federal Service Impasses Panel, which 
consists of seven part-time 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 providing training and assistance to 
labor organizations and agencies on resolving disputes, 
facilitates the creation of partnerships, and trains the 
parties on rights and responsibilities under the Federal Labor 
Relations Management statute.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,000,000 
for the Federal Labor Relations Authority. This amount is the 
same as the budget request and $1,227,000 above the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level.
    The Committee supports the efforts of the FLRA in reducing 
the caseload backlog and is pleased with the planned movement 
toward electronic filing of public records.

                        Federal Trade Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $291,700,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     314,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     314,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Federal Trade Commission [FTC] administers a variety of 
Federal antitrust and consumer protection laws. Activities in 
the antitrust area include detection and elimination of illegal 
collusion, anticompetitive mergers, unlawful single-firm 
conduct, and injurious vertical agreements. The FTC regulates 
advertising practices, service industry practices, marketing 
practices, and credit practices as it addresses fraud and other 
consumer concerns.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $314,000,000. The 
recommendation is $22,300,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and is equal to the budget request.
    Of the amounts provided, $96,000,000 is derived from Hart-
Scott-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 $197,000,000. The 
Committee notes that this change reflects a net decrease in 
estimated offsetting fee collection receipts since last year.
    The Committee continues to place a high priority on the 
FTC's mission to protect consumers and preserve competition in 
the marketplace. The Committee is pleased that the FTC has 
effectively utilized resources provided in previous fiscal 
years to investigate fraud and misleading practices related to 
mortgage lending and other financial services, identity theft, 
data security, and healthcare and to preserve competition in 
the marketplace through education and enforcement of Federal 
laws related to anticompetitive practices. Over the past 3 
years, the FTC saved consumers more than $1.4 billion in 
economic injury by stopping illegal practices in the 
marketplace, and, in 2009 alone, the FTC took action against 
mergers likely to harm competition in markets with a total of 
$22.3 billion in sales. The Committee directs the FTC to 
robustly continue such activities and has approved the 
following significant program increases in accordance with the 
budget request:
    Protect Consumers: +$3,544,000/+23 FTE.--Recommended 
funding will support FTC activities in the areas of financial 
practices, fraud targeting vulnerable Americans, including 
false employment schemes, privacy and data security, health 
fraud advertising, mobile marketing and new media, advertising 
to children, and international consumer protection.
    Maintain Competition: +$2,620,000/+17 FTE.--Recommended 
funding will support the increased workload generated by the 
growing complexity of merger transactions and an active merger 
enforcement agenda, with a continued focus on anticompetitive 
mergers and practices in the pharmaceutical, healthcare, 
energy, and technology markets and protecting consumers from 
anticompetitive price increases.
    The Committee makes the following findings:
    Do-Not-Call Initiative.--The recommendation includes 
$21,000,000 for the FTC Do-Not-Call initiative and 
implementation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule [TSR], of which 
the entire amount is to be derived from the collection of fees. 
The Do-Not-Call initiative was launched pursuant to the FTC's 
amended TSR to establish a national database of telephone 
numbers of consumers who choose not to receive telephone 
solicitations from telemarketers. The Do-Not-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.

                    General Services Administration


                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The General Services Administration [GSA] was established 
by the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
(Public Law 81-152) when Congress mandated the consolidation of 
the Federal Government's real property and administrative 
services. GSA is organized into the Public Buildings Service, 
the Federal Acquisition Service, the Office of Government-wide 
Policy, and the Office of Citizen Services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    Los Angeles Courthouse.--The Committee is pleased that GSA 
and the courts are working toward a reasonable solution for 
completion of the new courthouse in Los Angeles, California. 
Designated as the judiciary's top priority and a judicial 
emergency in 2000, the Los Angeles courthouse project remains 
the judiciary's highest construction priority. The project 
scope has now been reduced, resulting in a lower cost facility 
than previously estimated.
    Lease-construct Report.--The Committee eagerly awaits 
receipt of the joint report by the General Services 
Administration and the judiciary identifying the circumstances 
under which it is appropriate to provide court facilities using 
a lease-construct strategy.
    Use of Stairs.--Obesity levels have been increasing at 
alarming rates, with one-third of the population obese, and 
another one-third overweight and at risk of obesity. Lifestyle 
activities, such as choosing stairs over elevators, are 
increasingly being urged by public health experts to address 
this problem. These experts point to mounting evidence that 
small amounts of exercise accumulated throughout the day can 
provide significant health benefits. Research has found that 
men who climbed at least 20 floors per week had about a 20 
percent lower risk of stroke and of death from all causes 
during the study period. Benefits for women are also likely to 
be significant. Even two flights of stairs climbed per day can 
lead to 6 pounds of weight loss over 1 year. Studies in 
shopping centers and train stations have shown that poster-
prompts, placed between adjacent escalators and stairs, can 
significantly increase stair use. Such interventions have 
typically resulted in a 15 percent increase in the use of 
stairs. Encouraging employees to take the stairs is becoming a 
popular strategy at worksite wellness programs around the 
country. The Committee believes that the Federal Government 
should be a leader in encouraging workplace wellness. In 
addition, lessening the use of elevators by all will speed 
their movement for those who depend on them.
    The Committee believes that GSA has made progress since the 
first effort to promote the use of stairs was initiated in the 
fiscal year 2006 appropriation bill; however, further effort is 
needed. The Committee directs that GSA include in future GSA-
owned and leased buildings, signage displayed next to all banks 
of elevators or on elevator doors in GSA buildings, at the 
entrance to all nonemergency use public stairwells, and at the 
base of escalators, indicating the location of and encouraging 
use of the stairs; and that design of new buildings promote the 
use of stairs. The Committee recommends that GSA aim to achieve 
the above-mentioned directive by September 30, 2011. In order 
to ascertain precisely how much progress has been made and how 
much remains, GSA is directed to provide quarterly reports on 
the percentage of Federal buildings with such signage as well 
as on actions undertaken with regard to the design of new 
facilities, with a view to increasing the likely use of stairs.
    Federal Security Space Assessment.--As New Orleans 
continues to struggle to come back from the devastating 
hurricane and flood events of 5 years ago, Federal agencies 
currently housed in New Orleans as well as Federal agencies 
that may need to be housed in New Orleans in the near future 
are confronted with the need to locate in buildings that meet 
the various current security requirements of the Federal 
Government. The commercial office building market continues to 
struggle economically, many existing office buildings housing 
Federal agencies may not be economically viable candidates for 
security upgrades, and sites for new buildings in secure areas 
may also be limited. The Committee directs GSA to report within 
120 days after enactment of this act the locations within the 
greater New Orleans metropolitan area that have space 
available, either in an existing office building or a site for 
the location of an office building, that are compliant with the 
latest Federal Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection standards, 
applicable hurricane protections and USDA ISC security level 
guidelines as of September 30, 2010. This audit will assist in 
understanding the options available for locating Federal 
agencies in secure facilities in the greater New Orleans area.
    Federal Space Management.--The Committee is aware that 
Executive Order 12072 requires an agency to give first 
consideration to the centralized community business areas of 
cities when choosing office locations. The Committee is further 
aware of the possible relocation of Federal Government offices 
outside of the central business district in Rockford, Illinois, 
specifically, the Internal Revenue Service and the Drug 
Enforcement Agency. The Committee is troubled by these 
developments and is aware of ample office space in downtown 
Rockford, including the Stanley J. Roszkowski United States 
Courthouse. The Committee expects the agency to fully comply 
with Executive Order 12072 and directs GSA to work with the 
city of Rockford to retain Federal Government offices in the 
central business district.

     FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND--LIMITATIONS ON AVAILABILITY OF REVENUE

Limitation on availability of revenue:
    Limitation on availability, 2010....................  $8,543,585,000
    Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011...   9,153,663,000
Committee recommendation................................   9,158,563,000

    The Federal Buildings Fund program consists of the 
following activities financed from rent charges:
    Construction and Acquisition of Facilities.--Space is 
acquired through the construction or purchase of facilities and 
prospectus-level 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 183 million square feet 
of rental space in fiscal year 2009. GSA expects to provide 194 
million square feet of rental space in fiscal year 2010 and 197 
million in fiscal year 2011.
    Building Operations.--Services are provided for Government-
owned and leased facilities, including cleaning, utilities and 
fuel, maintenance, miscellaneous services (such as moving, 
evaluation of new materials and equipment, and field 
supervision), and general management and administration of all 
real property related programs including salaries and benefits 
paid from the Federal Buildings Fund.
    Other Programs.--When requested by Federal agencies, the 
Public Buildings Service provides building services, such as 
tenant alterations, cleaning and other operations, and 
protection services which are in excess of those services 
provided under the commercial rental charge. For presentation 
purposes, the balances of the Unconditional Gifts of Real, 
Personal, or Other Property Trust Fund have been combined with 
the Federal Buildings Fund.

                      CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION

Limitation on availability, 2010........................    $894,037,000
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011.......     676,362,000
Committee recommendation................................     768,362,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The construction and acquisition fund shall be available 
for site, design, construction, management, and inspection 
costs for the construction of new Federal facilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $768,362,000 for 
construction and acquisitionof facilities in fiscal year 2011.

                      CONSTRUCTION AND ACQUISITION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 State                     Description                        Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CA Calexico, Calexico West, Land Port of Entry         $84,359,000
    CA Los Angeles, United States Courthouse                92,000,000
    CO Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation           7,957,000
    DC Washington, St. Elizabeths DHS Consolidation        267,675,000
        and Development
    DC Washington, St. Elizabeths West Campus               99,281,000
        Infrastructure
    DC Washington, St. Elizabeths Historic                   4,990,000
        Preservation Mitigation
    DC Washington, St. Elizabeths Highway Interchange        8,350,000
    ME Calais, Ferry Point Land Port of Entry                1,552,000
    MD White Oak, Food and Drug Administration             173,773,000
        Consolidation
    MI Detroit, P.V. McNamara Federal Building FBI           3,658,000
        Garage
    WV Martinsburg, IRS Annex                               24,767,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2010........................    $413,776,000
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011.......     703,467,000
Committee recommendation................................     716,367,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Under this activity, the General Services Administration 
[GSA] executes its responsibility for repairs and alterations 
[R&A] of both Government-owned and leased facilities under the 
control of GSA. The primary goal of this activity is to provide 
commercially equivalent space to tenant agencies. Safety, 
quality, and operating efficiency of facilities are given 
primary consideration in carrying out this responsibility.
    R&A workload requirements originate with scheduled onsite 
inspections of buildings by qualified regional engineers and 
building managers. The work identified through these 
inspections is programmed in order of priority into the 
Inventory Reporting Information System and incorporated into a 
5-year plan for accomplishment, based upon funding 
availability, urgency, and the volume of R&A work that GSA has 
the capability to execute annually. Since fiscal year 1995, 
design and construction services activities associated with 
repair and alteration projects have been funded in this 
account.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $716,367,000 for 
repairs and alterations in fiscal year 2011. The Committee 
includes funding for four special emphasis programs.
    The Committee has included $35,000,000 for a new judiciary 
capital security special emphasis program. This program is 
dedicated to improving physical security in buildings occupied 
by the judiciary in lieu of construction of brand new 
facilities, thereby providing cost savings and expedited 
delivery. Project priorities would be established 
collaboratively by the judiciary and the GSA. Security planning 
is a critical part of new courthouse design in order to 
minimize risks and provide secure buildings for the public who 
have business with the courts and the Government staff who work 
there. The judiciary has relied on major building projects to 
address these needs, and in the past 20 years, replacement 
courthouses have been built to modern security standards at 
locations where security and operational conditions were at 
their worst. However, with many aging buildings and competing 
real property needs, the GSA's Federal Buildings Fund has been 
constrained and the courts continue to operate in buildings 
with unsafe and often high-risk conditions. Funding provided 
through the judiciary capital security program will address the 
security deficiencies in existing buildings where physical, 
interior alterations are viable. The judiciary and the GSA will 
work collaboratively to assess the building conditions, 
viability of long-term use, and structural capacity for these 
stand-alone architectural solutions. Such solutions could 
include: constructing additional corridors, adding or 
reconfiguring elevators, building visual barriers, moving air-
intakes, and enlarging security screening areas. To date, the 
judiciary's recent AMP analysis has identified as many as 45 
buildings that could benefit from this initiative to improve 
the physical security in existing courthouses.

                         REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 State                     Description                        Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CA Los Angeles, Federal Building/Parking Garage        $51,217,000
    CA Richmond, Frank Hagel Federal Building              113,620,000
    CA San Diego, Edward J. Schwartz United States          22,336,000
        Courthouse and Federal Building
    CA Van Nuys, James C. Corman Federal Building           11,039,000
    DC Washington, E. Barrett Prettyman United States       22,900,000
        Courthouse
    DC Washington, West Wing Design Phase II                 6,245,000
    IN Indianapolis, Major General Emmett J. Bean           65,813,000
        Federal Center
    NY New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States      28,000,000
        Courthouse
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    INSTALLMENT ACQUISITION PAYMENTS

Limitation on availability, 2010........................    $140,525,000
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011.......     135,540,000
Committee recommendation................................     135,540,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 enable GSA to enter 
into contractual arrangements for the construction of a backlog 
of approved but unfunded projects. This activity provides for 
the payment of interest to the Federal Financing Bank related 
to facilities acquired pursuant to the Public Buildings 
Amendments of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 592).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $135,540,000 for 
installment acquisition payments. This amount is $4,985,000 
below the fiscal year 2010 funding level and the same as the 
budget request.

                            RENTAL OF SPACE

Limitation on availability, 2010........................  $4,804,871,000
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011.......   5,291,946,000
Committee recommendation................................   5,216,946,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    GSA is responsible for leasing general purpose space and 
land incident thereto for Federal agencies, except in cases 
where GSA has delegated its leasing authority. GSA's policy is 
to lease privately owned buildings and land only when: (1) 
Federal space needs cannot be otherwise accommodated 
satisfactorily in existing Government-owned or leased space; 
(2) leasing proves to be more efficient than the construction 
or alteration of a Federal building; (3) construction or 
alteration is not warranted because requirements in the 
community are insufficient or are indefinite in scope or 
duration; or (4) completion of a new Federal building within a 
reasonable time cannot be assured.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,216,946,000 for 
rental of space. The Committee recommendation is $412,075,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is $75,000,000 
below the budget request.

                          BUILDING OPERATIONS

Limitation on availability, 2010........................  $2,290,376,000
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, 2011.......   2,346,348,000
Committee recommendation................................   2,321,348,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This activity provides for the operation of all Government-
owned facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and building 
services in GSA-leased space where the terms of the lease do 
not require the lessor to furnish such services. Services 
included in building operations are cleaning, protection, 
maintenance, payments for utilities and fuel, grounds 
maintenance, and elevator operations. Other related supporting 
services include various real property management and staff 
support activities such as space acquisition and assignment; 
the moving of Federal agencies as a result of space alterations 
in order to provide better space utilization in existing 
buildings; onsite inspection of building services and 
operations accomplished by private contractors; and various 
highly specialized contract administration support functions.
    The space, operations, and services referred to above are 
furnished by GSA to its tenant agencies in return for payment 
of rent. Due to considerations unique to their operation, GSA 
also provides varying levels of above-standard services in 
agency headquarters facilities, including those occupied by the 
Executive Office of the President, such as the east and west 
wings of the White House.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $2,321,348,000 for 
building operations. This amount is $30,972,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $25,000,000 below the budget 
request.

                         GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $59,665,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      85,121,000
Committee recommendation................................      77,621,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Government-wide Policy, working cooperatively 
with other agencies, provides the leadership needed to develop 
and evaluate the implementation of policies associated with 
real and personal property, vehicles, aircraft, information 
technology, transportation and travel management, and 
development of procurement policies and regulations, as well as 
improvement of the acquisition workforce. These policies are 
designed to achieve the most cost-effective solutions for the 
delivery of those administrative services.
    The Office of Government-wide Policy also includes the 
Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings, which 
provides building standards, practices, and a certification 
system to ensure that all Federal facilities (buildings and 
work places) are designed and managed in a sustainable manner.
    The policy support activities funded within this office 
include the Federal Procurement Data Center, Regulatory 
Information Service Center, the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance, and the Committee Management Secretariat.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,621,000 
for Government-wide Policy. This amount is $17,956,000 above 
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $7,500,000 below the 
budget request.
    High-performance Green Buildings.--The Committee remains 
supportive of the Office of Federal High-Performance Green 
Buildings but notes the slow rate of spending by this office. 
Since the office has yet to spend half of the funding 
appropriated in fiscal year 2010, the Committee provides 
$2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 and makes the funding available 
for 1 year rather than until expended.
    The Committee directs GSA to submit to the Committees on 
Appropriations a detailed expenditure plan for this Office 
within 30 days of enactment of this act. The plan should 
describe the budget, timeline, objectives, and benefits of the 
Office. The Committee further directs GSA to provide quarterly 
reports on the obligation of these funds.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $72,881,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      72,203,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,203,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Operating Expenses supports a variety of operational 
activities which are not feasible or appropriate for a user fee 
arrangement. Major programs include the personal property 
utilization and donation activities of the Federal Acquisition 
Service; the real property utilization and disposal activities 
of the Federal Acquisition Service; the activities of the 
Civilian Board of Contract Appeals; and Management and 
Administration activities including support of Government-wide 
emergency response and recovery activities, and top-level 
agency-wide management, administration, and communications 
activities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $72,203,000 
for Operating Expenses. This amount is $678,000 below the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $59,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      62,905,000
Committee recommendation................................      61,025,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and 
investigative functions to identify and correct management and 
administrative deficiencies within the General Services 
Administration [GSA], including conditions for existing or 
potential instances of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. This 
audit function provides internal audit and contract audit 
services. Contract audits provide professional advice to GSA 
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters 
relative to the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, 
and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review and 
evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test 
internal control systems, and develop information to improve 
operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The 
investigative function provides for the detection and 
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving GSA 
programs, personnel, and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,025,000 
for the Office of Inspector General. This amount is $2,025,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $1,880,000 below 
the budget request.
    Of the requested increases, funding is provided for the IT 
workflow management tool and the IT server system replacement.

                   ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT [E-GOV] FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $34,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      35,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This program supports interagency ``electronic government'' 
or ``e-gov'' initiatives and projects that use the Internet or 
other electronic methods to provide individuals, businesses, 
and government agencies with simpler and more timely access to 
Federal information, benefits, services, and business 
opportunities. The program would also further the 
administration's implementation of the Government Paperwork 
Elimination Act [GPEA] of 1998, which calls upon agencies to 
provide the public with optional use and acceptance of 
electronic information, services, and signatures, when 
practicable.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 
for the Electronic Government Fund. This amount is $14,000,000 
below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $15,000,000 below 
the budget request.
    The Committee is supportive of the concepts contemplated in 
the e-gov account for fiscal year 2011, namely, moving agencies 
to cloud-computing through pilots and development of shared 
services, improving Federal IT efficiency and effectiveness 
through an efficient Federal workforce, and improving 
Government-public interactions through improving transparency 
and participation. However, due to funding constraints as well 
as lack of detail and clearly defined information regarding 
spending requests, the Committee reduces funding for E-Gov 
programs for fiscal year 2011.
    The Committee is concerned that the electronic government 
initiative does not provide sufficient guidance regarding 
consolidation of Federal agency data centers into data 
facilities with multiple Federal tenants. GSA is directed to 
report to the Committee within 120 days after enactment of this 
act on the feasibility of consolidating Federal agency data 
centers into existing Government-owned/Government-operated 
facilities with multiple Federal tenants.

           ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $3,756,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       3,907,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,907,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides for an annual pension and 
compensation for office staffs and related expenses for former 
Presidents Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, William Clinton, and 
George W. Bush, and for the franking privileges for the widows 
of former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,907,000 for allowances and 
office staff for former Presidents, $151,000 above the fiscal 
year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget request.
    Below is listed a detailed analysis of the Committee's 
recommendation for fiscal year 2011 funding:

                    FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Carter   G.H. Bush   Clinton   G.W. Bush    Widows     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel Compensation........................         96         96         96        150  .........        438
Personnel Benefits............................          2         64        104        102  .........        272
Benefits for Former Presidents (pensions).....        201        201        212        212  .........        826
Travel........................................          2         56          5         60  .........        123
Rental Payments to GSA........................        107        198        586        399  .........      1,290
Communications:
    Telephone.................................         10         17          7         85  .........        119
    Postage...................................         15         13         14         20         14         76
Printing......................................          5         14         18         26  .........         63
Other Services................................         68        103         31        170  .........        372
Supplies......................................          5         15          2         40  .........         62
Equipment.....................................          7         63         36        160  .........        266
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Obligations.......................        518        840      1,111      1,424         14      3,907
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             FEDERAL ACQUISITION WORKFORCE INITIATIVES FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................................
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     $24,900,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation provides support for inter-agency 
initiatives and projects that will improve: (1) the ability of 
civilian agencies to assess the capacity and capability of the 
acquisition workforce necessary to develop and appropriately 
manage acquisitions; (2) the capacity, capability, and 
effectiveness of the civilian agency acquisition workforce to 
improve acquisition management; and (3) agencies' abilities to 
achieve the optimal mix of public and private sector resources 
to support agency operations. The activities supported through 
this fund are intended to foster and promote the development of 
the acquisition workforce and support the responsibilities 
provided for in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for the new Federal 
Acquisition Workforce Initiatives Fund. This amount is 
$17,000,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 
$7,900,000 below the budget request. While the Committee 
recognizes the important goals of the initiative, due to 
funding constraints and a lack of detail and clearly defined 
information regarding spending requests, the Committee 
recommends a funding level lower than the request. The 
Committee notes its strong support for completion of the 
contractor database.

                     FEDERAL CITIZEN SERVICES FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $36,515,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      36,825,000
Committee recommendation................................      36,825,000

                          program description

    The Federal Citizen Services Fund provides for the salaries 
and expenses of the Office of Citizen Services [OCS]. OCS 
provides citizens, businesses, other governments, and the media 
with access points to easily obtain Government information and 
services via the Internet, e-mail, print, and telephone.
    OCS provides information and services to the public 
primarily through USA.gov and GobiernoUSA.gov, the official Web 
portal of the U.S. Government. OCS also operates 
pueblo.gsa.gov, consumeraction.gov and consumidor.gov, 
webcontent.gov, and kids.gov Web sites. OCS provides direct 
telephone (1-800-FED-INFO), e-mail and online assistance to 
citizens through the National Contact Center, and offers 
comprehensive and cost-effective contact center solutions to 
customer Federal agencies through the USA Contact program. OCS 
also coordinates the publication and distribution of 
information through the Government Printing Office's Public 
Documents Distribution Center in Pueblo, Colorado.
    OCS supports effective Government by training Web and 
contact center managers across the Federal Government through 
Web Manager University, and provides development and 
facilitation services to Federal agencies and initiatives to 
enhance their delivery of citizen services. OCS brings Federal, 
State, territorial, local and tribal governments together to 
improve services to citizens through sharing of best practices, 
and serves as a point of contact to other nations to share 
experiences in delivering citizen services and to bring new 
solutions to the U.S. Government.
    The Federal Citizen Services [FCS] Fund is financed through 
annual appropriations to pay for the salaries and expenses of 
OCS staff. Reimbursements from Federal agencies pay for the 
direct costs of information services OCS provides on their 
behalf. The FCS Fund also receives funding from user fees for 
publications ordered by the public, payments from private 
entities for services rendered, and gifts from the public. All 
income is available without regard to fiscal year limitations, 
but is subject to an annual aggregate expenditure limit as set 
forth in appropriation acts.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends $36,825,000 for the Federal 
Services Center, an increase of $310,000 above the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level and the same as the budget request.
    The appropriation will be augmented by reimbursements from 
Federal agencies for distribution of consumer publications, 
user fees from the public, and other income.

       ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Section 510 authorizes GSA to use funds for the hire of 
passenger motor vehicles.
    Section 511 authorizes GSA to transfer funds within the 
Federal buildings fund to meet program requirements.
    Section 512 requires that the fiscal year 2012 budget 
request meet certain standards.
    Section 513 provides that no funds may be used to increase 
the amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning 
services, security enhancements, or any other service usually 
provided, to any agency which does not pay the requested rate.
    Section 514 continues the provision that permits GSA to pay 
small claims less than $250,000 made against the Government.
    Section 515 provides that certain lease agreements must 
conform to an approved prospectus.
    Section 516 authorizes GSA to allow volunteer and other 
nongovernmental organizations supporting the National Response 
Framework, under Emergency Support Function [ESF] #6--Mass 
Care, Housing, and Human Services, access to GSA Sources of 
Supply.
    Section 517 clarifies the authorized purposes of the 
Acquisition Workforce Training Fund.
    Section 518 provides for a land conveyance in San Joaquin 
County, California.
    Section 519 provides the same reprogramming authority for 
construction and repair projects in the Federal Buildings Fund 
funded through Public Law 111-5 as is provided for Federal 
Buildings Fund construction and repair projects funded in the 
annual appropriations bill.

                 Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................        $660,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................................
Committee recommendation................................         950,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation is an independent 
agency established by Congress in 1975 (Public Law 93-642) to 
encourage exceptional college students to pursue careers in 
public service through the Truman Scholarship program. The 
Truman Scholarship is a merit-based award available to college 
juniors who plan to pursue careers in Government or elsewhere 
in public service. Truman Scholars receive up to $30,000 for 
graduate or professional school, participate in leadership 
development activities, and have special opportunities for 
internships and employment with the Federal Government.
    The Foundation Trust Fund was established with a one-time 
$30,000 appropriation in 1976. The authorizing legislation 
directed that this endowment be invested solely in U.S. 
Treasury Securities, the interest from which has funded the 
Foundation's operating budget. With the decline in interest 
rates, the Foundation has experienced a significant decline in 
Federal financial support. From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 
2010, despite having cut expenditures by 27 percent, annual 
trust fund revenue has declined 40 percent. The Foundation 
anticipates a budget deficit of $950,000 without the requested 
appropriations. Estimated trust fund revenue for fiscal year 
2011 will be 48 percent below the fiscal year 2002 level.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000 for 
the Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation. This amount is 
$290,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $950,000 
above the budget request. The appropriation is provided to 
offset the decline in trust fund revenues, to increase direct 
financial support to scholars, to ensure compliance with 
Government audit reporting requirements, and to invest in 
technology and financial development activities.

                     Merit Systems Protection Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $40,339,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      41,621,000
Committee recommendation................................      41,621,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB] was established 
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. MSPB is an independent 
quasi-judicial agency manifested to protect Federal merit 
systems against partisan political and other prohibited 
personnel practices and to ensure adequate protection for 
employees against abuses by agency management.
    MSPB assists Federal agencies in running a merit-based 
civil service system. This is accomplished on a case-by-case 
basis through hearing and deciding employee appeals and on a 
systemic basis by reviewing significant actions and regulations 
of the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and conducting 
studies of the civil service and other merit systems. The 
intended results of MSPB's efforts are to assure that personnel 
actions taken against employees are processed within the law 
and that actions taken by OPM and other agencies support and 
enhance Federal merit principles.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,621,000 
for the Merit Systems Protection Board. This is an increase of 
$1,282,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request. The Committee makes available not 
more than $2,579,000 for adjudicating retirement appeals 
through an appropriation from the trust fund consistent with 
past practice.

            Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation


            MORRIS K. UDALL AND STEWART L. UDALL TRUST FUND

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $2,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       2,200,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The General Fund payment to the Morris K. Udall and Stewart 
L. Udall Trust Fund is invested in Treasury securities with 
maturities suitable to the needs of the Fund. Interest earnings 
from the investments are used to carry out the activities of 
the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation. The 
Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships, and grants, and 
funds activities of the Udall Center.
    The Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation also 
supports training programs for professionals in health care 
policy and public policy, such as the Native Nations Institute 
[NNI]. NNI, based at the University of Arizona, provides Native 
Americans with leadership and management training, and analyzes 
policies relevant to tribes.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,000,000 for 
the Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Trust Fund. This 
amount is $500,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and 
$800,000 above the budget request. The Committee includes 
language to allow up to 60 percent of the appropriation to be 
used for the expenses of the Native Nations Institute.

                 ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $3,800,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       3,800,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,800,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is 
a Federal program established by Public Law 105-156 to assist 
parties in resolving environmental, natural resource, and 
public lands conflicts. The Institute is part of the Morris K. 
Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation and serves as an 
impartial, non-partisan institution providing professional 
expertise, services, and resources to all parties involved in 
such disputes. The Institute helps parties determine whether 
collaborative problem solving is appropriate for specific 
environmental conflicts, how and when to bring all the parties 
together for discussion, and whether a third-party facilitator 
or mediator might be helpful in assisting the parties in their 
efforts to reach consensus or to resolve the conflict. In 
addition, the Institute maintains a roster of qualified 
facilitators and mediators with substantial experience in 
environmental conflict resolution and can help parties in 
selecting an appropriate neutral professional.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,800,000 for 
the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund. This amount is equal 
to both the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget 
request.

              National Archives and Records Administration

    The National Archives and Records Administration [NARA] is 
the national recordkeeper, managing the Government's archives 
and records, and operating the Presidential libraries. NARA is 
an independent agency created by statute in 1934 and tasked 
with the unique mission to identify, access, protect, preserve, 
and make available for use the important documents and records 
of all three branches of the Federal Government. NARA 
administers the Information Security Oversight Office, is the 
publisher of the Federal Register, and makes grants for 
historical documentation through the National Historical 
Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. In addition, NARA 
is charged with additional responsibilities including mediating 
Freedom of Information Act disputes and coordinating controlled 
unclassified information.

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $339,770,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     348,689,000
Committee recommendation................................     348,689,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides for basic operations dealing with 
management of the Federal Government's archives and records, 
operation of Presidential libraries, review for 
declassification of classified security information, and other 
duties.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $348,689,000 for operating 
expenses of the National Archives and Records Administration 
for fiscal year 2011. This amount is $8,919,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee's recommendation includes requested funds to 
establish and staff the National Declassification Center in 
accordance with Executive Order 13526, including the hiring of 
contract support to design and develop an integrated 
interagency information technology declassification system, 
support a Holdings Protect Team to bolster security, expand the 
duties of the Controlled Unclassified Information [CUI] Office 
to manage the CUI framework, and expand the archival staff to 
build a cadre of new technology savvy archivists to handle the 
influx of new records which need to be processed, preserved and 
stored, and store newly accessioned civilian official personnel 
files transferred to NARA's custody.
    The Office of Government Information Services [OGIS] was 
created within the National Archives and Records Administration 
under the amendments to the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] 
enacted as part of OPEN Government Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-
175). OGIS began operations in September 2009 and provides 
services to mediate disputes between FOIA requesters and 
Federal agencies; reviews policies and procedures of 
administrative agencies under FOIA; reviews agency compliance 
with FOIA; and recommends policy changes to the Congress and 
President to improve the administration of FOIA. The Committee 
believes that OGIS requires a dependable sustainable budget, 
and recommends that not less than $3,000,000 be available for 
OGIS for fiscal year 2011. The Committee urges that the budget 
request for fiscal year 2012 specifically address the resource 
needs of OGIS.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $4,100,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       4,250,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,250,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The mission of the Office of Inspector General [OIG] is to 
ensure that NARA safeguards and preserves the records of our 
Government while providing the American people with access to 
the essential documentation of their rights and the actions of 
their Government. The OIG accomplishes this by combating fraud, 
waste, and abuse through high-quality objective audits and 
investigations covering all aspects of agency operations at 44 
facilities nationwide. The OIG also serves as an independent, 
internal advocate for the economy, efficiency, and 
effectiveness of NARA and its operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $4,250,000 for the Office of 
Inspector General [OIG]. This amount is $150,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request. The Committee supports a distinct account for the OIG 
in order to clearly identify the resources necessary to staff 
and operate the expanding mission-critical oversight and 
accountability functions performed by the OIG to ensure 
responsible NARA stewardship over public records. The Committee 
acknowledges that as the missions of NARA expand, including the 
establishment of the George W. Bush Presidential Library, the 
implementation of the Office Government Information Services, 
and the start-up of the Controlled Unclassified Information 
Office, the OIG's audit and investigative responsibilities 
grow. The increased funds will support an additional auditor to 
help increase audit coverage.

                      ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $85,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      85,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      72,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Since 2001, NARA has been developing an Electronic Records 
Archives [ERA] that will permit management of records 
electronically and ensure the preservation of and access to 
Government electronic records. With the rapid changes in 
technology today, the formats in which records are stored 
become obsolete within a few years, making records inaccessible 
even if they are preserved intact with the most modern 
technology. ERA will preserve electronic records generated in a 
manner that enables requesters to access them on computer 
systems now and in the future. ERA will include a base system 
for Federal records and a separate system for Presidential 
records.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $72,000,000 for the ERA project. 
This amount is $13,500,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level and the budget request. The bill includes a provision 
requiring NARA to submit a spending plan for these funds.
    The Committee expects that the expenditure plan submitted 
for fiscal year 2011 shall specifically identify and clearly 
explain the outcomes that NARA expects from the funding made 
available, particularly the extent to which completed system 
increments include all or only partial planned functionality.
    The Committee strongly supports the ERA program at NARA and 
believes that providing reliable access to electronic records 
far into the future, regardless of changes in technology, is of 
utmost importance.
    The Committee has previously expressed its concern that 
NARA's expenditure plan submissions have not clearly identified 
the specific functions to be delivered through specific 
spending. This has hampered the Committee's ability to assess 
the extent of progress on ERA that should be expected as a 
result of the spending. In its review of NARA's fiscal year 
2010 expenditure plan for ERA, GAO noted that NARA had not 
detailed what capabilities will be delivered by the final two 
ERA phases, or increments.
    It is imperative that NARA provide clear and specific 
descriptions of the particular outcomes NARA expects to realize 
as a result of the expenditure of funds, including what 
progress, added capability, and developmental milestones along 
the path to achieving full operating capability will be 
accomplished with the investment of funds. It is particularly 
important that such functionality be described from the point-
of-view of the users of the system, describing what additional 
capabilities will be available to the user as a result of 
specific investments.
    At the urging of the Committee and GAO, NARA recently 
updated its ERA requirements document. The Committee expects 
that NARA manage the ERA requirements using a disciplined 
process that results in requirements being kept current as well 
as traceable throughout the life cycle of this project.
    The Committee remains concerned that NARA lacks a 
contingency plan for the ERA system in the event of a failure 
or disruption, and a fully functional backup and restore 
process for ERA, a key component for ensuring system 
availability. The Committee directs NARA devote resources to 
establish a robust online backup and restoration service and 
ensure that adequate capabilities are in place for managing 
restricted information.
    The Committee commends NARA's leadership in its issuance of 
a mandatory records management self-assessment to 245 Federal 
cabinet-level agencies, components, and independent agencies. 
The Committee shares the Archivist's concern outlined in the 
April 2010 report that 79 percent of agencies are at either a 
high or moderate risk of improper disposition of records, and 
that Federal agencies are falling short in carrying out their 
records management responsibilities, particularly regarding the 
exponential use and growth of electronic records. The Committee 
urges NARA to work with Congress, OMB, and Federal agencies to 
address concerns identified and improve records management 
performance across the Federal Government.

                        REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $27,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      11,848,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,848,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This account provides for the repair, alteration, and 
improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries 
nationwide, and provides adequate storage for holdings. It will 
better enable NARA to maintain its facilities in proper 
condition for public visitors, researchers, and NARA employees, 
and also maintain the structural integrity of the buildings.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $11,848,000 for the repairs and 
restoration account. This amount is $15,652,000 below the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the budget 
request.
    The Committee is pleased to support the request, which 
includes $6,848,000 for base requirements and $5,000,000 for 
the top priority project in the Capitol Improvements Plan, the 
National Archives Experience Phase II.
    The Committee supports removal of the restrictions on 
$3,198,000 provided under Public Law 109-115 and Public Law 
108-447 for the construction of a new regional archives and 
records facility in Anchorage, Alaska to fully fund base 
Repairs and Restoration requirements.
    The Committee appreciates NARA's submission of an update of 
its comprehensive capital needs assessment for its entire 
infrastructure of Presidential libraries and records 
facilities, as part of the fiscal year 2011 budget submission 
and urges NARA to include an appropriate level of funding for 
repair of valuable historic Presidential libraries in the 
fiscal year 2012 budget request.

        NATIONAL HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS AND RECORDS COMMISSION

                             GRANTS PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $13,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The National Historical Publications and Records Commission 
[NHPRC] provides grants nationwide to preserve and publish 
records that document American history. Administered within the 
National Archives, which preserves Federal records, NHPRC helps 
State, local, and private institutions preserve non-Federal 
records, helps publish the papers of major figures in American 
history, and helps archivists and records managers improve 
their techniques, training, and ability to serve a range of 
information users. Established in 1934 along with the National 
Archives, the NHPRC has funded over 4,600 projects connecting 
Americans with the primary source materials of our history, 
culture, and democracy.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission [NHPRC]. This 
amount is $3,000,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level 
and the same as the budget request.
    The Committee strongly supports the NHPRC program and has 
provided funding to continue this important program. This 
program has played a central role in the preservation and 
dissemination of the Nation's documentary heritage and has been 
successful in leveraging private sector contributions.
    The Committee notes that the funding provided will enable 
NARA, through the NHPRC, to undertake a variety of initiatives, 
including advancing archives preservation, access, and 
digitization projects within the interlocking repositories of 
historic records and hidden collections; ensuring public access 
to some of the most important historical resources that are 
maintained outside of Federal repositories; and digitizing 
nationally significant historic records collections to 
facilitate round-the-clock Internet availability.

                  National Credit Union Administration


                       central liquidity facility


                          program description

    The National Credit Union Administration [NCUA] Central 
Liquidity Facility [CLF] was created by the National Credit 
Union Central Liquidity Facility Act (Public Law 95-630). The 
CLF is a mixed-ownership Government corporation managed by the 
National Credit Union Administration Board and owned by its 
member credit unions.
    The purpose of the CLF is to improve the general financial 
stability of credit unions by meeting their seasonal and 
emergency liquidity needs and thereby encourage savings, 
support consumer and mortgage lending, and provide basic 
financial resources to all segments of the economy. To become 
eligible for CLF services, credit unions invest in the capital 
stock of the CLF, and the facility uses the proceeds of such 
investments and the proceeds of borrowed funds to meet the 
liquidity needs of credit unions. The primary sources of funds 
for the CLF are stock subscriptions from credit unions and 
borrowings.
    The CLF may borrow funds from any source, with the amount 
of borrowing limited to 12 times the amount of subscribed 
capital stock and surplus.
    Loans are available to meet short-term requirements for 
funds attributable to emergency outflows from managerial 
difficulties or local economic downturns. Seasonal credit is 
also provided to accommodate fluctuations caused by cyclical 
changes in such areas as agriculture, education, and retail 
business. Loans can also be made to offset protracted credit 
problems caused by factors such as regional economic decline.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends that lending through the CLF be 
limited to the maximum level provided for by section 
307(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Credit Union Act. This limitation 
provides the NCUA maximum flexibility to assist with credit 
unions' financial liquidity during the economic downturn. The 
Committee also recommends the budget request of limiting 
administrative expenses for the CLF to $1,250,000 in fiscal 
year 2011.

               COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,250,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       2,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program 
[CDRLF] was established in 1979 to assist officially designated 
``low-income'' credit unions in providing basic financial 
services to low-income communities. Low-interest loans and 
deposits are made available to assist these credit unions. 
Loans or deposits are normally repaid in 5 years, although 
shorter repayment periods may be considered. Technical 
assistance grants [TAGs] are also available to low-income 
credit unions for improving operations as well as addressing 
safety and soundness issues. Credit unions use TAG funds for 
specific initiatives, including taxpayer assistance, financial 
education, home ownership initiatives, and training assistance.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for technical 
assistance grants to community development credit unions. This 
funding level is equal to the budget request and $750,000 above 
the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The Committee expects the 
CDRLF to continue making loans from available funds derived 
from repaid loans and interest earned on previous loans to 
designated credit unions.
    The Committee supports NCUA's outreach efforts to 
underserved rural and urban communities across America through 
technical assistance grants provided within CDRLF. The 
Committee encourages NCUA to continue its efforts to provide 
financial education, particularly regarding consumer credit and 
home mortgages, and to provide alternatives to predatory 
lending services through targeted technical assistance grants 
and support.

                      Office of Government Ethics


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $14,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      14,227,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,227,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Government Ethics [OGE], a separate agency 
within the executive branch, was established by the Ethics in 
Government Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-521). OGE is charged by 
law to provide overall direction of executive branch policies 
designed to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure high 
ethical standards for executive branch employers. OGE carries 
out these responsibilities by promulgating and maintaining 
enforceable standards of ethical conduct for nearly 4 million 
civilian employees and uniformed service members in more than 
130 executive branch agencies and the White House; overseeing a 
financial disclosure system that reaches 25,000 public and 
nearly 300,000 confidential filers; providing direct education 
and training products to 5,600 ethics officials; conducting 
outreach to the general public, the private sector, and civil 
society; and sharing good practices with and providing 
technical assistance to State, local, and foreign governments 
and international organizations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,227,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Office of Government Ethics in 
fiscal year 2011. This amount is $227,000 above the fiscal year 
2010 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.
    Funds provided will enable OGE to fulfill its lead role in 
strengthening ethical culture within the executive branch, 
preventing conflicts of interest, and promoting good 
governance. OGE has designed three budget priorities to support 
these goals. First, OGE is advancing initiatives to modernize 
Government ethics laws, regulations, and programs, including 
fully implementing Executive Order 13490 and enhancing 
oversight of contractor ethics. Second, OGE is harnessing 
technology to promote transparency, training, and oversight, 
including creating Ethics.gov as a clearinghouse for ethics 
documents and developing interactive Web-based training. Third, 
OGE is working to promote continuity and succession planning in 
ethics programs, including piloting an ethics official 
certification program. Experience has shown that public 
financial disclosure by nominees to Senate-confirmed 
Presidential appointments is a steady and uninterrupted process 
throughout an administration and that OGE's transition workload 
responsibilities are ongoing.

                     Office of Personnel Management


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $102,970,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      96,439,000
Committee recommendation................................      96,439,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Personnel Management [OPM] was established by 
Public Law 95-454, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 
enacted on October 13, 1978. OPM is responsible for management 
of Federal human resources policy and oversight of the merit 
civil service system. Although individual agencies are largely 
responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a 
Government-wide framework for human resources policy, advises 
and assists agencies (often on a reimbursable basis) with 
workforce planning and personnel matters, and ensures that 
agency operations are consistent with requirements of law on 
issues such as veterans preference and merit system compliance. 
OPM oversees examination of applicants for employment in the 
competitive service; issues regulations and policies on 
recruitment, hiring, classification and pay, training, and 
other aspects of personnel management; and manages the process 
for personnel security and background checks for suitability 
and national security clearances. OPM is also responsible for 
administering the retirement, health benefits, and life 
insurance programs affecting most Federal employees, retired 
Federal employees, and their families and survivors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a general fund appropriation of 
$96,439,000 for the salaries and expenses of the Office of 
Personnel Management. This amount is $6,531,000 below the 
fiscal year 2010 level and the same as the budget request.
    The recommendation includes the requested funding for the 
Enterprise Human Resources Integration project, the Human 
Resources Line of Business project, and the workforce 
acquisition initiative.
    Retirement Systems Modernization.--Modernization of the 
retirement records of Federal employees remains a high priority 
for the Committee. The Committee understands that work planned 
for fiscal year 2011 includes: modernizing critical calculator 
and retirement systems; automating the manual paper-based 
retirement system through electronic data collection and 
applications; implementing automated tools to improve 
retirement case processing; and imaging incoming paper 
retirement records. The Committee believes that the continued 
involvement of GAO can be of assistance and asks that GAO 
continue to monitor and provide recommendations on OPM's 
efforts toward developing and implementing this project. The 
Committee appreciates receiving OPM's quarterly reports and 
notes the importance of receiving status update briefings from 
OPM as developments and milestones occur and future plans are 
determined.
    Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program and 
Nursing Shortage.--In April 2010, OPM provided a report to 
Congress on nursing faculty and the Intergovernmental Personnel 
Act [IPA] Mobility Program, along with findings and 
recommendations. The Committee is pleased with OPM's initial 
efforts regarding the nurse and nurse faculty shortage, 
including the research conducted, the forum held, the 
recommendations provided, and the recognition that these 
efforts are a first step of a larger effort which OPM is 
leading. The Committee endorses the recommendations in the 
report and anticipates regular, 6-month updates on next steps, 
such as conducting additional forums, increasing program 
awareness, implementing efforts to use IPA to address the 
shortage, developing partnerships with accredited schools of 
nursing, and conducting outreach to academic institutions and 
key stakeholders on possible solutions, collecting and tracking 
data, as well as other specific recommendations outlined in the 
report.
    Inappropriate Use of Temporary Hiring Authority.--The 
Committee is aware that continuous and sustained inappropriate 
use of temporary hiring authority by Federal agencies occurs 
and that this remains unresolved. These problems date back to 
the early 1990s and were reported on by the Office of Personnel 
Management and the Merit Systems Protection Board (``Temporary 
Federal Employment: In Search of Flexibility and Fairness,'' 
Sept. 1994) and again in 2002 by the Government Accountability 
Office (GAO-02-296). The Committee directs OPM to report on 
options and recommendations to remedy the inequity no later 
than 90 days after enactment of this act. Included in the 
report should be identification of agencies and types of 
positions where continuous and sustained inappropriate use of 
temporary hiring authority is occurring. Options to provide 
competitive status to employees performing regular and 
recurring work of a permanent nature under a series of 
temporary appointments should be explored and actions that can 
be taken to ensure that Federal agencies use appropriate hiring 
authorities in the future should be outlined in the report.

                               limitation


                       (TRANSFER OF TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2010........................................    $112,738,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     121,738,000
Committee recommendation................................     121,738,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    These funds will be transferred from the appropriate trust 
funds of the Office of Personnel Management to cover 
administrative expenses for the retirement and insurance 
programs, including the cost of automating the retirement 
recordkeeping systems.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $121,738,000, 
which is $9,000,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 level and 
the same as the budget request.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $3,148,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       2,136,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,322,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Office of Inspector General is charged with 
establishing policies for conducting and coordinating efforts 
which promote economy, efficiency, and integrity in the Office 
of Personnel Management's activities which prevent and detect 
fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the agency's programs. 
Contract audits provide professional advice to agency 
contracting officials on accounting and financial matters 
regarding the negotiation, award, administration, repricing, 
and settlement of contracts. Internal agency audits review and 
evaluate all facets of agency operations, including financial 
statements. Evaluation and inspection services provide detailed 
technical evaluations of agency operations. Insurance audits 
review the operations of health and life insurance carriers, 
healthcare providers, and insurance subscribers. The 
investigative function provides for the detection and 
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving 
programs, personnel, and operations. Administrative sanctions 
debar from participation in the health insurance program those 
healthcare providers whose conduct may pose a threat to the 
financial integrity of the program itself or to the well-being 
of insurance program enrollees.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,322,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the Office of Inspector General in 
fiscal year 2011. This amount is $174,000 more than the fiscal 
year 2010 enacted level and $1,186,000 more than the budget 
request.

               (LIMITATION ON TRANSFER FROM TRUST FUNDS)

Limitation, 2010........................................     $21,215,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      20,428,000
Committee recommendation................................      21,888,000

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation on transfers from the 
trust funds in support of the Office of Inspector General 
activities totaling $21,888,000 for fiscal year 2011. This 
amount is $673,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, 
and $1,460,000 more than the budget request. Increased funding 
is provided to maintain staffing levels for oversight of 
Federal background investigations, to provide for pay and 
inflation increases, and to meet IG Reform Act mandates.

      government payment for annuitants, employees health benefits

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $9,814,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................  10,467,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  10,467,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    This appropriation covers the Government's share of the 
cost of health insurance for annuitants covered by the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program and the Retired Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1960, as well as 
administrative expenses incurred by OPM for these programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 
$10,467,000,000 for Government payments for annuitants, 
employees health benefits.

       government payment for annuitants, employee life insurance

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $48,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Public Law 96-427, the Federal Employees' Group Life 
Insurance Act of 1980, requires that all employees under the 
age of 65 who separate from the Federal Government for purposes 
of retirement on or after January 1, 1990, continue to make 
contributions toward their basic life insurance coverage after 
retirement until they reach the age of 65. These retirees will 
contribute two-thirds of the cost of the basic life insurance 
premium, identical to the amount contributed by active Federal 
employees for basic life insurance coverage. As with the active 
Federal employees, the Government is required to contribute 
one-third of the cost of the premium for retirees' basic 
coverage. OPM, acting as the payroll office on behalf of 
Federal retirees, has requested, and the Committee has 
provided, the funding necessary to make the required Government 
contribution associated with annuitants' post-retirement life 
insurance coverage.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 
$50,000,000 for the Government payment for annuitants, employee 
life insurance.

        payment to civil service retirement and disability fund

Appropriations, 2010.................................... $10,276,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................  10,076,000,000
Committee recommendation................................  10,076,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The civil service retirement and disability fund was 
established in 1920 to administer the financing and payment of 
annuities to retired Federal employees and their survivors. The 
fund covers the operation of the Civil Service Retirement 
System and the Federal Employees' Retirement System.
    This appropriation provides for the Government's share of 
retirement costs, transfers of interest on the unfunded 
liability and annuity disbursements attributable to military 
service, and survivor annuities to eligible former spouses of 
some annuitants who did not elect survivor coverage.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a mandatory appropriation of 
$10,076,000,000 for payment to the civil service retirement and 
disability fund.

                       Office of Special Counsel


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $18,495,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      19,486,000
Committee recommendation................................      19,486,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The U.S. Office of Special Counsel [OSC] was first 
established on January 1, 1979. From 1979 until 1989, it 
operated as an autonomous investigative and prosecutorial arm 
of the Merit Systems Protection Board [MSPB]. In 1989, Congress 
enacted the Whistleblower Protection Act (Public Law 101-12), 
which made OSC an independent agency within the executive 
branch. In 1994, the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act [USERRA] (Public Law 103-353) became 
law. It defined employment-related rights of persons in 
connection with military service, prohibited discrimination 
against them because of that service, and gave OSC new 
authority to pursue remedies for violations by Federal 
agencies.
    OSC investigates Federal employee and applicant allegations 
of prohibited personnel practices (including reprisal for 
whistleblowing) and other activities prohibited by civil 
service laws, and when appropriate, prosecutes before the MSPB. 
OSC provides a secure channel for whistleblower disclosures by 
Federal employees and applicants, and may transmit 
whistleblower allegations to the agency head concerned and 
require an agency investigation. OSC also enforces the USERRA. 
OSC advises on and enforces the Hatch Act restrictions on 
political activities by Government employees.
    OSC is witnessing a continuing dramatic increase in its 
caseload. In fiscal year 2009, OSC's intake of cases totaled 
3,725 new matters. This was an increase of 19.5 percent over 
the number of cases received in fiscal year 2008. Of the new 
matters received by OSC in 2009, 66 percent of the cases were 
prohibited personnel practice complaints. OSC received 2,463 
prohibited personnel practice complaints in 2009, an increase 
of nearly 18 percent over the number received in 2008. OSC also 
received 496 new Hatch Act complaints in 2009, which was an 11 
percent increase from 2008. While caseloads are up in each OSC 
unit, the increase in Hatch Act cases is the most pronounced, 
given that the increased caseload in fiscal year 2009 follows a 
58.2 percent increase from 2007 to 2008 in the number of Hatch 
Act complaints received. OSC issued 3,733 Hatch Act advisory 
opinions (including oral, e-mail, and written advisory 
opinions) to persons who sought advice in 2009. In addition, 
OSC's Disclosure Unit's whistleblower caseload increased to 724 
cases in 2009, up nearly 37 percent from 2008. Of these cases, 
the Disclosure Unit referred matters to agency heads for their 
review a total of 46 times. Finally, USERRA referral cases 
increased 173 percent over the 2008 figure, up to 41 cases, 
during 2009. The Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 
requires action on these referrals within 60 days of receiving 
a case from the Department of Labor.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,486,000 
for the Office of Special Counsel. This amount is $991,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee strongly urges the OSC to work with 
whistleblower advocacy organizations to promote the highest 
level of confidence in the Whistleblower Protection Act and the 
OSC. The Committee acknowledges that OSC continues to 
experience dramatic growth in its caseload, as a result of 
heightened awareness of the Hatch Act stemming from media focus 
on several high-profile cases, a more vigorous focus on 
complaints under the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act, and actions under the Whistleblower 
Protection Act. The Committee encourages the OSC to continue 
progress made to improve its case processing efficiencies.

                      Postal Regulatory Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $14,333,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      14,450,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,450,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Postal Regulatory Commission is an independent agency 
that has exercised regulatory oversight over the United States 
Postal Service since its creation by the Postal Reorganization 
Act of 1970. For over three decades, that oversight consisted 
primarily of conducting public, on-the-record hearings 
concerning proposed rates, mail classification, and major 
service changes, and recommended decisions for action to the 
Postal Service Board of Governors.
    The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (Public Law 
109-435) assigned significant new responsibilities to the 
Commission. These enhanced authorities include providing 
regulatory oversight of the pricing of Postal Service products 
and services, ensuring Postal Service transparency and 
accountability, consulting on delivery service standards and 
performance measures, consulting on international postal 
policies, preventing cross-subsidization or other 
anticompetitive postal practices, and serving as a forum to act 
on complaints with postal products and services. The Commission 
provides leadership and recommends policies that foster a 
robust and viable postal system.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation, out of the 
Postal Fund, of $14,450,000 for the Postal Regulatory 
Commission. This amount is $117,000 above the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level and the same as the budget request. The funds 
will support 75 FTEs and enable the Commission to meet its 
mission of ensuring transparency and accountability in postal 
operations, services, and finances.
    The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2011, the 
Commission will continue its work to evaluate and issue an 
advisory opinion on the Postal Service's pending delivery 
frequency proposal, as well as complete work on the Postal 
Service's exigent rate increase proposal. The Commission will 
also conduct routine financial reviews and special studies of 
the Postal Service reports on costs, revenues, rates and 
services to ensure the applicable methodologies as prescribed 
by regulations are in compliance. The funding provided will 
support an upgrade to the Commission's Docket On-line system, 
which will replace the existing 12-year-old system and enable 
improved document management and better reporting options to 
support management oversight. The funding will allow the 
Commission to continue its efforts in promoting greater 
transparency and accountability for postal services around the 
globe. The funding also will enable the Commission to 
renegotiate its lease space.
    The Committee has significant concerns about the fiscal 
health of the Postal Service and questions whether the existing 
postal facility network is sustainable. The Committee directs 
the Postal Regulatory Commission to report to the Committees on 
Appropriations not later than April 1, 2011, on the potential 
economic impacts if restrictions on the consolidation or 
closure of small rural and other small post offices were 
removed, including an assessment of the benefits and drawbacks 
of potential closures on access to services, the postal 
workforce, affected communities, and the fiscal health of the 
Postal Service. The report should also include an assessment of 
how the Postal Service's efforts to co-locate postal services 
in grocery stores and other existing retail locations enhances 
customer access, improves Postal Service revenue, and reduces 
facility costs.

              Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,500,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       1,683,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,500,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    Recommended by the July 22, 2004 report of the National 
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (the 9/
11 Commission), the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board 
[PCLOB] was originally established through the Intelligence 
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-
458). The PCLOB was made a component of the White House Office 
within the Executive Office of the President.
    Under the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-53), the PCLOB was 
reconstituted as an independent agency within the executive 
branch. The mission of the PCLOB is to (1) analyze and review 
actions the executive branch takes to protect the Nation from 
terrorism, ensuring that the need for such actions is balanced 
with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties; and (2) 
ensure that liberty concerns are appropriately considered in 
the development and implementation of laws, regulations, and 
policies related to efforts to protect the Nation against 
terrorism.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,500,000 for 
the PCLOB. The Committee strongly supports the mission of the 
PCLOB. This amount is the same as the fiscal year 2010 enacted 
level and $183,000 below the budget request. The Committee 
notes that the former Board ceased operations on January 30, 
2008 with the intention that a new, more independent Board 
would be instituted in its place. The Committee is seriously 
concerned that now, 30 months later, the new PCLOB has not yet 
been reconstituted and staffed as required by Public Law 110-
53. The Committee urges the administration to nominate members 
to the PCLOB as expeditiously as possible. The Committee urges 
the PCLOB, once it is reconstituted, to promptly provide a 
detailed budget justification to the Committee.

                   Securities and Exchange Commission


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................  $1,111,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................   1,258,483,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,300,000,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Securities and Exchange Commission [SEC] is an 
independent agency responsible for administering many of the 
Nation's laws regulating the areas of securities and finance.
    The mission of the SEC is to administer and enforce Federal 
securities laws in order to protect investors, maintain fair, 
honest, and efficient markets, and promote capital formation. 
This includes ensuring full disclosure of financial 
information, regulating the Nation's securities markets, and 
preventing and policing fraud and malpractice in the securities 
and financial markets. The strength of the American economy and 
our Nation's financial markets is dependent upon investors' 
confidence in the financial disclosures and statements released 
by publicly traded companies. The SEC, as the investor's 
advocate, oversees more than 35,000 registrants including 
10,000 public companies, 7,800 mutual funds, 11,500 investment 
advisers, 600 transfer agents, and 5,400 broker dealers.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total budget (obligational) 
authority of $1,300,000,000 for the salaries and expenses of 
the SEC, including $1,300,000,000 from new fee collections. 
This total funding level is $189,000,000 above the fiscal year 
2010 enacted level, not including emergency funds provided in 
the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 111-32) 
and made available for 2 years, and $41,517,000 above the 
budget request. The Committee directs the SEC to submit, within 
30 days of enactment, a detailed spending plan for the 
allocation of these funds, including staffing projections and 
planned investments in information technology.
    With the markets experiencing a steady increase in the 
number of complex securities products and market participants 
and in light of problems plaguing the credit markets as a 
result of subprime lending, it is imperative that our Nation's 
top securities regulator has the resources to effectively meet 
its mandate.
    The Committee's recommended funding increase would allow 
the SEC to more aggressively police the securities markets 
through examinations and enforcement actions, strengthen SEC's 
examination responsibilities, enhance risk-based oversight of 
the investment management industry, and expand inspections of 
credit rating agencies and permit SEC to conduct more 
comprehensive examinations, reach a broader universe of the 
entities it regulates, and improve its ability to uncover and 
prosecute fraud.
    The Committee strongly believes that fair and orderly 
markets are essential to restore public confidence in and 
bolster the integrity of our capital markets. The Committee 
emphasizes that with this significant recommended funding 
increase comes a concomitant responsibility on the part of the 
SEC to aggressively safeguard the investing public. The SEC 
must be vigilant in its enforcement of securities laws, and 
failures to properly investigate and take appropriate action 
will not be condoned.
    In addition, the recommended increase would support urgent, 
critical investments in information technology upgrades so that 
SEC staff are equipped with cutting edge automation support 
tools to enhance their ability to promptly handle tips, 
complaints, and referrals as well as to better identify 
emerging risks using improved surveillance tools. The Committee 
expects the SEC to implement key controls to effectively 
safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of 
its financial and sensitive information and systems.
    The Committee recognizes that over the past year, with 
enhanced funding provided in fiscal year 2010, the SEC has 
addressed many agency shortcomings and has produced tangible 
results. The SEC has restructured its Enforcement Division and 
streamlined procedures; removed a layer of middle management by 
redeploying dozens of attorneys back to the front lines; hired 
a cadre of seasoned experts in the new Division of Risk, 
Strategy, and Financial Innovation to assess complex financial 
systems; added new measures to encourage corporate insiders to 
come forward with evidence of wrongdoing; sought more than 
twice the number of temporary restraining orders and asset 
freezes compared to the previous year; issued well over twice 
as many formal orders of investigation; obtained about 
$540,000,000 more in disgorgement orders and more than twice as 
much in penalty orders; filed nearly 10 percent more actions 
overall, including nearly twice as many involving Ponzi-like 
schemes; began revamp of technology to better consolidate and 
focus handling of voluminous tips and complaints; adopted new 
guidelines and protocols governing how tips should be handled; 
and began to improve its inspections program and place greater 
reliance on risk assessment.
    With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
Consumer Protection Act (Public Law 111-203), the SEC faces a 
significant increase in the scope of its responsibilities. 
Under the new law, the SEC is charged with bringing 
transparency and accountability to the derivatives market 
through co-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives 
market, oversight of the mandatory derivatives clearance 
requirement, enforcement of data collection and publication 
requirements; and imposition of capital and margin requirements 
on swap dealers and major swap participants. In addition, the 
law requires hedge fund and private equity advisors to register 
with the SEC as investment advisers and provide information 
about their trades and portfolios to the SEC that will in turn 
use the data to assess systemic risk. Furthermore, the SEC is 
authorized to promulgate rules imposing a fiduciary duty on 
broker-dealers and investment advisers to protect retail 
customers; and granted enhanced authority to conduct 
investigations, impose liability on control persons, and assess 
penalties for violations of the securities laws. SEC may 
exercise broad authority to regulate credit ratings agencies. 
It is authorized to write rules allowing shareholders to 
nominate candidates for an issuer's board of directors, and to 
have such candidates listed on the issuer's own proxy 
materials. Most of the regulations, as well as mandated 
studies, must be issued under tight statutory deadlines.
    At the Committee's direction, the GAO reviewed and assessed 
the joint report issued in October 2009 by the SEC and the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] on harmonization of 
their regulatory approaches. The Committee urges the SEC, in 
collaboration with the CFTC, to heed the recommendation of the 
GAO that the agencies take steps to establish, with associated 
timeframes, clearer goals for future harmonization efforts and 
requirements for reporting and evaluating progress toward these 
goals. The Committee underscores that the joint report issued 
in October 2009 did not address the issue of gaps in the 
agencies' authorities to oversee over-the-counter derivatives, 
which were the subject of congressional deliberation at the 
time. With the enactment of Public Law 111-203, it is all the 
more critical to identify these gaps and ensure optimum 
harmonization in executing the respective oversight 
responsibilities of each agency with respect to over-the-
counter derivative products. The Committee expects the SEC and 
the CFTC to limit, to the greatest extent possible, 
inconsistent regulation of similar products and entities that 
could lead to opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. The 
Committee continues to support the use of funds to support the 
Joint SEC-CFTC Advisory Committee.
    The Committee remains concerned that American investors may 
be unwittingly investing in companies with ties to countries 
that sponsor terrorism or are linked to human rights 
violations. The Committee believes that a company's association 
with sponsors of terrorism and human rights abuses, no matter 
how large or small, can have a materially adverse result on a 
public company's operations, financial condition, earnings, and 
stock prices, all of which can negatively affect the value of 
an investment. In order to protect American investors' savings 
and to disclose these business relationships to investors, an 
Office of Global Security Risk was established within the 
Division of Corporation Finance. The Committee notes that under 
the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 
(Public Law 111-203), public companies will be required to 
provide disclosure to the SEC in matters involving conflict 
minerals, extractive industries, and mining safety matters. The 
Committee understands that the SEC will be implementing the 
requirements, as directed, in the coming months. The Committee 
expects the work of the Office to remain a high priority during 
fiscal year 2011 and directs the SEC to continue to submit 
quarterly reports on its activities.
    The Committee is concerned that current SEC regulations 
leave broad discretion to companies to decide if disclosure of 
their activities is required with respect to business interests 
in or with a state sponsor of terrorism. Companies are only 
required to make disclosures in cases where the companies 
judges the information is ``material'' to investors or is 
necessary to ensure a required statement is not misleading. In 
November 2007, the SEC issued a concept release seeking comment 
about whether to develop a new mechanism to facilitate greater 
access to companies' disclosures concerning their business 
activities in or with state sponsors of terrorism. The comment 
period ended on January 22, 2008 and the SEC has taken no 
action since that time. The Committee believes that business 
conducted by a publicly traded company that could subject such 
company to sanctions should be considered material and 
disclosed. Therefore, the Committee directs the Commission to 
issue final rules that require each issuer to disclose 
activities that may subject it to sanctions under section 5 of 
the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996.
    The Committee commends the SEC for issuing an interpretive 
release, as recommended by the Committee, which provides 
guidance to public companies regarding disclosure requirements 
with respect to climate change matters.

                        Selective Service System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $24,275,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      25,400,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,400,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Selective Service System is an independent Federal 
agency, operating with permanent authorization under the 
Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.). 
The agency is not part of the Department of Defense, but its 
basic mission is to be prepared to supply manpower to the Armed 
Forces adequate to ensure the security of the United States 
during a time of national emergency. Since 1973, the Armed 
Forces have relied on volunteers to fill military manpower 
requirements. However, the Selective Service System remains the 
primary vehicle by which personnel will be brought into the 
military if Congress and the President should authorize a 
return to the draft.
    In December 1987, Selective Service was tasked by law 
(Public Law 100-180, sec. 715) to develop plans for a post-
mobilization healthcare personnel delivery system capable of 
providing the necessary critically skilled healthcare personnel 
to the Armed Forces in time of emergency. An automated system 
capable of handling mass registration and inductions is now 
complete, together with necessary draft legislation, a draft 
Presidential proclamation, prototype forms and letters, and 
other products. These products will be available should the 
need arise. The development of supplemental standby products, 
such as a compliance system for healthcare personnel, continues 
using very limited existing resources.

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,400,000 
for the Selective Service System. This amount is $1,125,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee supports the additional resources devoted to 
upgrading the Service's information technology systems. 
Modernization with security upgrades of the Registration, 
Compliance, and Verification information technology system will 
help improve business processes and national registration 
compliance statistics while sustaining an all-volunteer 
military recruiting effort. It will also ensure more accurate 
and expeditious processing of registrations, enable more secure 
storage of personally identifiable information, facilitate 
improved customer services through the Internet, and promote 
tighter internal controls.

                     Small Business Administration

Appropriations, 2010\1\.................................  $1,089,016,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     994,187,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,102,986,000

\1\Includes $125,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), $60,000,000 provided in 
the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), and 
$80,000,000 provided in the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-157).

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,102,986,000 for 
the Small Business Administration [SBA]. The recommendation is 
$13,970,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, which 
included funds provided in a series of extensions of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is 
$108,799,000 above the budget request. Funding is distributed 
among the SBA appropriation accounts as described below.
    The Committee appreciates SBA's timely responsiveness to 
multiple requests for information from the Committee, 
particularly related to small business lending programs. 
Additionally, the Committee expects that the operating plan for 
fiscal year 2011 and other required written reports will be 
submitted within the specified timeframe in the future.
    The Committee has been frustrated that recent SBA 
congressional justifications have been unnecessarily 
complicated. The Committee directs SBA to revise the format of 
the congressional justification for fiscal year 2012 so that 
the budget detail provided ties directly to enacted and 
requested appropriated amounts.

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $433,438,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     446,036,000
Committee recommendation................................     464,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $464,000,000 for 
salaries and expenses of the SBA. The recommendation is 
$30,562,000 above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is 
$17,964,000 above the budget request.
    Non-credit Business Assistance Programs.--Within the 
amounts made available under this heading, the Committee 
recommendation provides $194,680,000 for the SBA non-credit 
business assistance programs. The recommendation is $20,931,000 
above the budget request and $9,330,000 above the 2010 enacted 
level.
    The Committee recommendations for non-credit business 
assistance, by program, are displayed in the following table:

                                     NON-CREDIT BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2011 budget      Committee
                                                                   2010 enacted      estimate     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Business Development Centers..............................         113,000         113,000         117,500
Drug-free Workplace Grants......................................           1,000           1,030           1,030
SCORE...........................................................           7,000           7,000           7,750
Women's Business Centers........................................          14,000          14,000          15,000
Women's Business Council........................................           1,000           1,900           1,900
Microloan Technical Assistance..................................          22,000          10,000          22,000
Veterans Programs...............................................           2,500           2,500           3,000
PRIME...........................................................           8,000           3,469           8,000
Native American Outreach........................................           1,250           1,250           2,000
7(j) Technical Assistance.......................................           3,400           3,400           4,000
HUBZone.........................................................           2,200           2,200           2,500
Hispanic Business Centers.......................................  ..............  ..............           1,000
Entrepreneurial Development Initiative..........................          10,000          11,000           9,000
Emerging Leaders................................................  ..............           3,000           (\1\)
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, Non-credit Business Assistance Programs............         185,350         173,749         194,680
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Included in Entrepreneurial Development Initiative.

    The Committee directs that the amounts provided for SBA's 
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 other programs, 
initiatives, or activities.
    The Committee continues to support the Small Business 
Development Center [SBDC] Program and recommends $117,500,000 
for fiscal year 2011, an increase of $4,500,000 above both the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The SBDC 
network--which encompasses over 900 service centers across the 
Nation--provides management and technical assistance to an 
estimated 1.2 million small business owners and aspiring 
entrepreneurs each year. As the economy struggles, SBDCs have 
reported a significant increase in demand for their expertise 
as businesses seek guidance on how to weather the economic 
downturn and as newly unemployed Americans look for advice on 
starting a small business as a new career path. Providing 
support for SBDCs is more critical than ever as our economy 
works to recover and grow. In particular, the Committee urges 
SBA, in cooperation with alternative financial institutions and 
regional development agencies, to increase the focus of the 
SBDC program on providing technical and financial assistance to 
entrepreneurs investing in development and economic 
diversification in Appalachia.
    The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for a Hispanic Business 
Centers pilot program to provide financial assistance to 
educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and State 
and local departments and agencies providing management and 
technical assistance to Hispanic small businesses. Hispanic-
owned businesses are growing at a rapid rate. The United States 
Census Bureau reports that between 2002 and 2007, the total 
number of U.S. companies increased by 18 percent while the 
number of Hispanic-owned businesses grew by 41 percent. The 
recommended Hispanic Business Centers pilot program will 
demonstrate the potential to spur economic growth and job 
creation through Hispanic-owned small businesses by increasing 
access and availability of counseling and technical assistance. 
The Committee directs SBA to consider the Women's Business 
Centers program as a model for the Hispanic Business Centers 
pilot program.
    The Committee recommends that up to $9,000,000 shall be 
available for the Entrepreneurial Development program 
administered by the SBA, including for the Emerging Leaders 
Initiative proposed in the budget. That amount is $1,000,000 
below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $5,000,000 below 
the budget request. The Committee directs the SBA to allocate 
such funds to the maximum extent possible to its current 
partners--namely, SBDCs, Women's Business Centers, the Service 
Corps of Retired Executives [SCORE], and Veterans Business 
Outreach Centers. These partners will provide an experienced 
infrastructure for meeting the goals of the Entrepreneurial 
Development initiative. The Committee notes that the amounts 
recommended for SBA's Non-Credit Business Assistance Programs, 
as specified in the table above, shall be administered in the 
same manner as previous years and shall not be reduced, 
reallocated, or reprogrammed to provide additional funds for 
this or any other program. The Committee directs SBA to report 
to the Committee on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment 
on the strategies and goals of each initiative, methodologies 
for assessing the performance of each initiative and each 
individual project selected under each initiative, and 
methodologies planned for selection of individual projects and 
recipients. The Committee also directs SBA to provide to the 
Committee on Appropriations within 30 days of enactment an 
operating plan detailing funding planned for grants, contracts, 
and salaries and expenses of both current and new SBA 
employees, including travel expenses. Such plan shall 
individually address each proposed initiative. The Committee 
directs SBA to notify the Committee on Appropriations not less 
than 15 days prior to obligation of funds provided for the 
Entrepreneurial Development program.
    The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for grants to 
Microloan intermediaries under the Microloan program for 
marketing, management, and technical assistance provided to 
borrowers. An additional $4,000,000 is recommended under the 
heading ``Business Loans Program Account'' to support lending 
under the Microloan program. The Committee includes a provision 
that, for funding provided for fiscal year 2011, temporarily 
increases the maximum amount of grant funding eligibility for 
qualified Microloan intermediaries. This temporary condition 
will provide relief to Microloan intermediaries that are 
providing increased assistance to Microloan borrowers during 
the economic downturn.
    The Committee supports funding for veterans programs and 
veterans business outreach centers and provides $3,000,000 for 
veterans programs, an increase of $500,000 above both the 
budget request and the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to 
support additional grants to veterans business outreach 
centers. When determining the allocation of the additional 
funding, the Committee strongly encourages SBA to consider 
centers with significant experience in conducting outreach to 
veterans, including those previously receiving Federal funding.
    Operating Expenses.--Within the amounts made available 
under this heading, the Committee recommendation provides 
$269,320,000 for SBA's operating expenses. The recommendation 
is $21,232,000 above the 2010 enacted level and is $2,967,000 
below the budget request. The funding recommendations are made 
in accordance with the information included in the budget 
justification, with the following exceptions: $15,347,000 
instead of $18,347,000 is provided to continue the 
modernization of SBA's loan management and accounting systems, 
an increase of $2,000,000 is provided for the Federal and State 
Technology Partnership Program, and a reduction of $1,967,000 
is allocated for efficiency savings.
    Within the amounts recommended for SBA's operating 
expenses, $15,347,000 is provided for the agency-wide effort to 
modernize SBA's loan management and accounting systems. Current 
systems are outdated and limit capabilities, and new systems 
are needed to enhance the management of SBA's $90,000,000,000 
loan portfolio. The Committee continues to be concerned about 
the risks inherent in such a relatively large acquisition, 
including risks related to contractor oversight. The Committee 
directs the agency to place a top priority on ensuring a 
successful acquisition of and transition to the new systems 
because the final product will have a long-term impact on SBA's 
capabilities and effectiveness as an agency. SBA shall submit a 
quarterly written report to the Committee on Appropriations 
summarizing the agency's progress regarding the modernization 
effort, including milestones planned and achieved and progress 
on cost and schedule.
    In light of the increased need to assist small businesses 
that have been affected by manufacturing closures across the 
country, the Committee directs SBA, in consultation with local 
district offices, to review vacant Regional Manager positions, 
especially positions which have remained vacant for several 
years, to ensure adequate services for small businesses.
    The Committee notes that the small business timber sale 
set-aside program is designed to serve many small rural 
communities and small timber mills. The Committee directs the 
Administrator to coordinate with the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management and provide a written report to the 
Committee within 60 days of enactment detailing SBA's current 
and planned activities related to communication with timber 
businesses in small rural communities.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $16,300,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      18,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      18,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $18,000,000 for the 
Office of Inspector General. The recommendation is $1,700,000 
above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and is the same as the 
budget request.
    The Committee directs the Inspector General to continue 
routine analysis and reporting on SBA's modernization of its 
loan management and accounting systems, including acquisition, 
contractor oversight, implementation, and progress regarding 
budget and schedule.

                 SURETY BOND GUARANTEES REVOLVING FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................      $1,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................       1,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,000,000

    The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000, the same 
as the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the budget request.

                     BUSINESS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010\1\.................................    $501,000,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     326,151,000
Committee recommendation................................     356,386,000

\1\Includes $125,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-118), $60,000,000 provided in 
the Temporary Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-144), and 
$80,000,000 provided in the Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-157).

    The Committee recommendation provides $356,386,000. The 
recommendation is $144,614,000 below the fiscal year 2010 
enacted level, which included funds provided in a series of 
temporary extensions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
Act of 2009, and is $30,235,000 above the budget request.
    The recommendation provides $157,000,000 for administrative 
expenses, which may be transferred to and merged with SBA 
salaries and expenses to cover the common overhead expenses 
associated with the business loans programs.
    The recommendation provides $4,000,000 for the Microloan 
direct loan program. An additional amount of $22,000,000 is 
recommended under the heading ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
technical assistance grants to Microlending intermediaries. The 
Committee directs SBA to continue to conduct outreach to 
existing financial entities that may be well-suited to 
participate in the Microloan program so that the program can 
grow and expand access to microcapital across the country. SBA 
shall submit a written report to the Committee on 
Appropriations within 90 days of enactment summarizing the 
agency's plans for expanding the reach of the Microloan 
program.
    The recommendation provides $195,386,000 to subsidize the 
7(a) guaranteed loan program. For a typical year, estimated 
fees collected from lenders and borrowers fully offset 
estimated Government payments on losses under the 7(a) program. 
However, the budget requests additional funding for fiscal year 
2011 because fee collections are not expected to offset the 
cost to the Government for that year due to changes in 
assumptions related to the economic downturn. The recommended 
funding will allow SBA to continue operating the 7(a) program 
in fiscal year 2011. The Committee expects the program to 
return to typical operation when the economy recovers. This 
amount is $30,000,000 above the budget request for guaranteed 
loans because the budget request assumes the implementation of 
proposed legislation that has not yet been enacted.
    Data Collection on Small Business Lending.--The Committee 
is concerned that limited collection of timely, relevant data 
on small business lending has made it difficult to quantify the 
impact of the economic crisis, and the impact of various 
responses to the crisis, on small business access to credit. 
Sources of information are often limited to anecdotal evidence 
and survey data, particularly with regard to the demand for 
credit. Additionally, with regard to the supply of credit, the 
majority of current business lending data reflects bank 
inventory but not new loan originations.
    The need for timely, robust data to reflect both credit 
supply and demand has been widely noted, including in the May 
2010 Congressional Oversight Panel report titled ``The Small 
Business Credit Crunch and the Impact of the TARP.'' The 
Committee directs SBA, in coordination with the Federal 
Reserve, to submit a written report to the Committee within 90 
days of enactment on the feasibility and benefits of enhanced 
data collection on small business lending, including but not 
limited to data on loan origination and loan size.

                     DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $78,278,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     203,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     203,000,000

    The Committee provides $203,000,000 for the Disaster Loans 
program. The recommendation is $124,722,000 above the fiscal 
year 2010 enacted level and is equal to the budget request. Any 
direct loan subsidies required in fiscal year 2011 will be 
derived from available unobligated balances. As always, SBA is 
urged to seek out emergency funding in the event of a disaster 
requiring loan assistance.

        ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS--SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

    Section 520 continues a provision concerning transfer 
authority and availability of funds.
    Section 521 provides that all disaster loans issued in 
Alaska or North Dakota shall not be sold.
    Section 522 makes a technical correction to Public Law 111-
8 and Public Law 111-117.
    Section 523 makes an adjustment to the net worth threshold 
for the 8(a) business development program.
    Section 524 provides $60,600,000 for small business 
development and entrepreneurship initiatives, including 
programmatic and construction activities, to be awarded as 
follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Agency                                                              Project                                                 Amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBA......................................  4 Ag Hawaii, Improved Food Security through Small Business Development, Haleiwa, HI..........        $300,000
SBA......................................  ACCION USA, Womens Link Program, for training and technical assistance for women-owned                125,000
                                            microenterprises, New York, NY.
SBA......................................  AccountAbility Minnesota for financial services assistance, St. Paul, MN.....................         125,000
SBA......................................  Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Utilization of Seafood Processing Waste and Product          299,000
                                            Development, Naknek, AK.
SBA......................................  Anchorage Community Land Trust for a financial literacy and community development program,            200,000
                                            Anchorage, AK.
SBA......................................  Ben Franklin Technology Partners, Manufacturing Pennsylvania's Future commercialization                50,000
                                            initiative, PA.
SBA......................................  Benedictine University, Small business training program, Lisle, IL...........................         250,000
SBA......................................  Big Sky Economic Development Authority for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund,               100,000
                                            Billings, MT.
SBA......................................  Boise State University, Entrepreneurial Initiative, Boise, ID................................         150,000
SBA......................................  Bradley University, small business training program, Peoria, IL..............................         400,000
SBA......................................  California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Small Business Construction Initiative,          500,000
                                            Sacramento, CA.
SBA......................................  Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon Manufacturing Accelerator, Pittsburgh, PA........         100,000
SBA......................................  Case Western Reserve University, Northern Ohio Structural Laboratories: Advanced                      125,000
                                            Instrumentation for Northeast Ohio's Bio-imaging Cluster, Cleveland, OH.
SBA......................................  Center for Rural Affairs, New Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Rural Nebraska, Lyons, NE......         100,000
SBA......................................  Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Nebraska Entrepreneur Initiative, Lincoln, NE.............         175,000
SBA......................................  Central Corridor's Hmong Business Center, St. Paul, MN.......................................         150,000
SBA......................................  Chicago House and Social Service Agency, job training program, Chicago, IL...................         400,000
SBA......................................  City of Carson City, High Tech Business Collaborative, Carson City, NV.......................         400,000
SBA......................................  City of Chicago, workforce retraining program, Chicago, IL...................................         450,000
SBA......................................  City of Denver, Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Sustainability Project, Denver, CO...         500,000
SBA......................................  City of Gallup, Kachina business incubator and redevelopment efforts, Gallup, NM.............         100,000
SBA......................................  City of Port Huron Economic Redevelopment Initiative, Port Huron, MI.........................         100,000
SBA......................................  City of St. Cloud, Comprehensive Downtown Economic Development Plan and Program, St. Cloud,           125,000
                                            MN.
SBA......................................  Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Ft. Collins, CO..........         200,000
SBA......................................  Dakota Rising Rural Entrepreneur Fellowship Program, South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Sioux             250,000
                                            Falls, SD.
SBA......................................  Dartmouth Regional Technology Center for additional business incubator space and support,             100,000
                                            Lebanon, NH.
SBA......................................  Davidson Green Business Incubator Initiative, Davidson, NC...................................         100,000
SBA......................................  Downtown Salem Revitalization Toolbox program for economic development, Salem, OR............         150,000
SBA......................................  Eastern Connecticut State University, Center for Economic, Financial and Entrepreneurship             150,000
                                            Education, Willimantic, CT.
SBA......................................  Fay-Penn Economic Development Council, Local Economy Initiative, Fayette County, PA..........          50,000
SBA......................................  Finlandia University and Jutila Center for Global Design and Business, business incubator,            100,000
                                            Hancock, MI.
SBA......................................  First State Community Loan Fund, for small business and community development technical               175,000
                                            assistance, Wilmington, DE.
SBA......................................  Grambling State University, Expanding Minority Entrepreneurship Regionally Across the                 137,500
                                            Louisiana Delta (EMERALD), Grambling, LA.
SBA......................................  Great Falls Development Authority, High Plains Financial Intermediary Loan Fund, for                  125,000
                                            operating expenses of programs supporting small business development, Great Falls, MT.
SBA......................................  Greater Bridgeport Community Enterprises, Urban Green Business Incubator, Bridgeport, CT.....         150,000
SBA......................................  Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, Bi-State Entrepreneurial Development Initiative, IA...........         150,000
SBA......................................  Greater New Orleans regional economic alliance for Green New Orleans, a green business and            137,500
                                            jobs initiative, New Orleans, LA.
SBA......................................  Greene County Department of Economic Development, Business Park Development Project,                   50,000
                                            Waynesburg, PA.
SBA......................................  Harford County, Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground Technical Assistance Business Development           100,000
                                            Office, Bel Air, MD.
SBA......................................  Hartford Economic Development Corporation, Business Resource Center, Hartford, CT............         150,000
SBA......................................  Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership for technical assistance to minority and women               100,000
                                            business owners, Newark, NJ.
SBA......................................  International Trade Alliance, Washington BRIC Export Initiative, Spokane, WA.................         200,000
SBA......................................  Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development Through Heritage Tourism,             650,000
                                            Jackson, MS.
SBA......................................  Jefferson Local Development Corporation for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund to            150,000
                                            support small business development, Whitehall, MT.
SBA......................................  Johnson and Wales University, Higher Education Consortium for Rhode Island Entrepreneurship,          200,000
                                            Providence, RI.
SBA......................................  Johnson State College, Upward Bound, Lamoille County, VT.....................................          50,000
SBA......................................  Kaskaskia College, job counseling and training initiative, Centralia, IL.....................         150,000
SBA......................................  Kennebec Valley Council of Governments, Rural Maine Employment Initiative, Fairfield, ME.....         400,000
SBA......................................  Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Bioscience & Technology Business Center,               125,000
                                            Lawrence, KS.
SBA......................................  Lewis and Clark Community College, job counseling and training initiative, Godfrey, IL.......         150,000
SBA......................................  Lincoln County, Alamo Industrial Park Development, Alamo, NV.................................         150,000
SBA......................................  Lyndon State College, Center for Business Education and Rural Entrepreneurship, Lyndonville,          250,000
                                            VT.
SBA......................................  Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick Science and Technology Business                  750,000
                                            Incubator, Brunswick, ME.
SBA......................................  Midwest China Hub Commission, St. Louis, MO..................................................       1,000,000
SBA......................................  Mississippi State University Entrepreneurship Center, Starkville, MS.........................         650,000
SBA......................................  Mississippi Technology Alliance, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ridgeland,  MS..       1,000,000
SBA......................................  Montclair State University, Institute for Sustainability Studies Business Incubator,                  275,000
                                            Montclair, NJ.
SBA......................................  Mount Washington Valley Economic Council, North Country Small Business Education Center,              100,000
                                            Conway, NH.
SBA......................................  National Centers of Excellence Regional Technology Deployment Pilot Project, Orem, UT........         600,000
SBA......................................  Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, Small Business Entrepreneur Training,              150,000
                                            Reno, NV.
SBA......................................  Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, Farmer-to-Farmer Mentor Program for                  75,000
                                            business development, Chittenden County, VT.
SBA......................................  Northern Kentucky University College of Informatics, Highland Heights, KY....................         250,000
SBA......................................  Northern Maine Acadian Development, Madawaska, ME............................................       1,000,000
SBA......................................  Northern Michigan University Upper Peninsula Center for Community and Economic Development,           100,000
                                            Marquette, MI.
SBA......................................  Ohio University, Small Business Development for Appalachian Ohio's Emerging Biomass Industry,         125,000
                                            Athens, OH.
SBA......................................  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay for the business center incubator, Coos Bay, OR........         125,000
SBA......................................  Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN.............................         650,000
SBA......................................  PIPELINE Entrepreneurial Fellowship, KS......................................................         125,000
SBA......................................  Portland Community College, Swan Island Training Center, Portland, OR........................         125,000
SBA......................................  Prince George's County, Maryland, Africa Trade Office ``Farm to Port'' project, Largo, MD....         100,000
SBA......................................  Regional Development Corporation, New Mexico Youth Entrepreneurship Network, Santa Fe,  NM...         100,000
SBA......................................  Research and Technology Institute of West Michigan for InnovationWorks, technical assistance          100,000
                                            to inventors, entrepreneurs, and existing businesses, Grand Rapids, MI.
SBA......................................  Rock Valley College, job training and small business counseling program, Rockford, IL........         200,000
SBA......................................  Rural Enterprise of Oklahoma, Small Business Resource Center, Cameron University, Lawton, OK.         100,000
SBA......................................  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark Campus, New Jersey Entrepreneurship               100,000
                                            Development Initiative, Newark, NJ.
SBA......................................  Safer Foundation, transitional employment program, Chicago, IL...............................         275,000
SBA......................................  Saint Xavier University, Minority small business initiative, Chicago, IL.....................         250,000
SBA......................................  Saratoga Economic Development Corporation, Saratoga Springs, NY..............................         100,000
SBA......................................  Sauk Valley Community College, Job training and certification program, Dixon, IL.............         226,000
SBA......................................  Seminole State College's Economic Development Program for Business Recruitment and Retention,         100,000
                                            Seminole, OK.
SBA......................................  Sirti Foundation for capacity building and education, technical assistance, and training for          500,000
                                            technology entrepreneurship, Spokane, WA.
SBA......................................  Souris Basin Regional Planning Council, North Dakota Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones,           300,000
                                            Minot, ND.
SBA......................................  Student Assistance Foundation for a financial education program, Helena, MT..................         100,000
SBA......................................  Taos Pueblo village economic development, Taos, NM...........................................         100,000
SBA......................................  Tapetes de Lana for economic development, Mora, NM...........................................         100,000
SBA......................................  The Enterprise Center, Minority Business Development Initiative, Philadelphia, PA............         100,000
SBA......................................  The Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce, Upper Manhattan Tourism and Tourism Related Small             125,000
                                            Business Initiative, New York, NY.
SBA......................................  The Nussbaum Center for Entrepreneurship, Business Incubator Renovation, Greensboro, NC......         100,000
SBA......................................  University at Albany, State University of New York, National Clearinghouse for Research and           100,000
                                            Education in Financial Market Regulation, Albany, NY.
SBA......................................  University of Alabama, Rural Health Entrepreneurial Development Project, Tuscaloosa, AL......       1,250,000
SBA......................................  University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR.....         275,000
SBA......................................  University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Business Support Incubator, Pine Bluff, AR.............         275,000
SBA......................................  University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business Development Center, Newark, DE...............         175,000
SBA......................................  University of Louisiana at Monroe, Business Incubator Renovation, LA.........................         100,000
SBA......................................  University of Maine at Farmington, Western Maine Rural Small Business Initiative, Farmington,         550,000
                                            ME.
SBA......................................  University of Memphis, Memphis Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Memphis, TN.......         400,000
SBA......................................  University of Mississippi, Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS...............         250,000
SBA......................................  University of Nevada Reno, Veteran Business and Workforce Development Initiative, Reno,  NV..         150,000
SBA......................................  University of Northern Iowa, MyEntre.Net, A National Entrepreneurship Support Network, Cedar          250,000
                                            Falls, IA.
SBA......................................  University of Rhode Island Research Foundation, for technical assistance and outreach to              250,000
                                            support start-up and emerging businesses, South Kingstown, RI.
SBA......................................  University of South Florida Business Incubator Project, Bartow, FL...........................         200,000
SBA......................................  University of Southern California, Center for Community Development, Los Angeles, CA.........         500,000
SBA......................................  University of Southern Mississippi, Early Stage Entrepreneur/Commercialization Development,           650,000
                                            Hattiesburg, MS.
SBA......................................  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water                     250,000
                                            technologies, Milwaukee, WI.
SBA......................................  Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA.......................          50,000
SBA......................................  Vermont Worker's Center, financial literacy workshops, Chittenden County, VT.................          75,000
SBA......................................  Virginia Community College System, Virginia Veterans Workforce Development Project, Richmond,         400,000
                                            VA.
SBA......................................  Washington Hancock Community Agency, Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME.........         200,000
SBA......................................  West Virginia University at Parkersburg, downtown center economic development, Parkersburg,           250,000
                                            WV.
SBA......................................  Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY.....................         750,000
SBA......................................  Western Nevada College, Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Collaborative, Carson City, NV......         150,000
SBA......................................  Western New England College for an entrepreneurship initiative, Springfield, MA..............         100,000
SBA......................................  Western Washington University, National Center for Economic Vitality, Bellingham, WA.........         300,000
SBA......................................  Williston State College for developing curriculum and delivery methods to address workforce           100,000
                                            shortage, Williston, ND.
SBA......................................  Wilmington College, Kettering Agriculture and Life Science Small Business incubator,                  200,000
                                            Wilmington, OH.
SBA......................................  World Trade Center Institute Delaware, Online Training Program, Wilmington, DE...............          50,000
SBA......................................  YWCA Malden, Financial Education and Advancement for Micro-Enterprises and At-Risk Families,          100,000
                                            Malden, MA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      United States Postal Service


                   PAYMENT TO THE POSTAL SERVICE FUND

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $118,328,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     103,905,000
Committee recommendation................................     103,905,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The Post Office dates back to 1775. It became the Postal 
Service in 1971 as an independent establishment of the 
executive branch of the United States Government. The Postal 
Service's basic function and obligation is to provide postal 
services to bind the Nation together through the personal, 
educational, literary, and business correspondence of the 
people. Its mission is to provide prompt, reliable, and 
efficient services to patrons in all areas and render postal 
services to all communities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends appropriations totaling 
$103,905,000 for payment to the Postal Service Fund, a decrease 
of $14,423,000 below the fiscal year 2010 enacted level and the 
same as the budget request.
    This amount includes $29,000,000 for revenue forgone on 
free and reduced-rate mail pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 2401(d). The 
recommendation also includes $74,905,000 as an advance 
appropriation for fiscal year 2012, which includes $68,914,000 
for 2011 costs and $5,991,000 for the 2008 reconciliation 
adjustment.
    Revenue forgone on free and reduced-rate mail enables 
postage rates to be set at levels below the unsubsidized rates 
for certain categories of mail as authorized by subsections (c) 
and (d) of section 2401 of title 39, United States Code. Free 
mail for the blind and for overseas voters will continue to be 
provided at the funding level recommended by the Committee.
    The Committee includes provisions in the bill that would 
assure that mail for overseas voting and mail for the blind 
shall continue to be free; that 6-day delivery and rural 
delivery of mail shall continue without reduction; and that 
none of the funds provided be used to consolidate or close 
small rural and other small post offices in fiscal year 2011.
    Mail Delivery.--The Committee believes that 6-day mail 
delivery is one of the most important services provided by the 
Federal Government to its citizens. Especially in rural and 
small-town America, this critical postal service is the 
linchpin that serves to bind the Nation together.
    Since fiscal year 1981, annual appropriations bills have 
each included language requiring 6-day per week postal 
delivery. The Postal Service has sought removal of this mandate 
to afford maximum delivery flexibility as an internal fiscal 
management tool. On March 30, 2010, the Postal Service filed 
its 5-day delivery proposal with the Postal Regulatory 
Commission. Federal law requires the Postal Service to seek an 
Advisory Opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission on any 
proposed change in nationwide service.
    The Postal Regulatory Commission is presently conducting a 
thorough fact-gathering evaluation, including hosting at least 
seven public field hearings, to solicit public input on the 
prospect of ending carrier street address delivery, collection 
at blue collection boxes, and most originating mail processing 
on Saturdays. Among the key questions that the Postal 
Regulatory Commission is considering about the delivery 
frequency are whether the savings the Postal Service 
anticipates would be as significant as estimated, whether mail 
volume would decline more than the Postal Service anticipates, 
whether businesses and citizens have service that remains 
adequate to meet their needs, and whether the national economic 
impact of service reductions would offset, or add to, the 
savings that are proposed. Before Congress makes any alteration 
in the postal delivery frequency status quo, the Committee 
believes it is prudent to allow the Postal Regulatory 
Commission's process to continue, rather than pre-empt, or make 
less meaningful, the Commission's work toward an Advisory 
Opinion.
    Postal Retail Network.--The Committee acknowledges that the 
Postal Service is undertaking significant reductions to its 
overhead, including the closure of postal retail facilities. 
Congress has given the Postal Service considerable discretion 
to decide how many post offices to erect and where to place 
them. The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2009, the Postal 
Service operated 35,823 retail facilities, nearly 17 percent 
fewer than the 43,112 operated in fiscal year 1970. These 
35,823 facilities include 27,161 post offices, 4,828 post 
offices branches and stations, and 3,834 community post offices 
and contract post units. The Committee understands that the 
Postal Service has partnered with more than 56,000 locations 
such as supermarkets, drug stores, and other retailers sell 
postage and selected postal services. Nearly 18,000 ATMs 
dispense sheets of stamps. The online alternative at usps.com 
allows customers to conveniently obtain shipping information 
and purchase and print postage around the clock. In 2009, 
nearly 30 percent of postal retail transactions were conducted 
in locations other than a Post Office. The Committee strongly 
urges the Postal Service to continue to expand the co-location 
of postal services and other innovative approaches to serving 
communities.
    Mail-related Recycling Initiatives.--Every year the Postal 
Service recycles about 1 million tons of wastepaper, cardboard, 
plastics, cans, and other materials. The Postal Service also 
generates about $7,500,000 in revenue from those recycling 
activities. The Postal Service also purchases more than 
$200,000,000 worth of products containing recycled content each 
year. Many of the containers in the Postal Service mail system 
are made from recycled materials, and so are the stamped 
envelopes, post cards, stamp booklet covers, and packaging 
materials provided by the Postal Service. The adhesives used in 
U.S. postage stamps are biodegradable, and the Postal Services 
priority and express boxes and envelopes are recyclable. 
Through various continued successful partnerships, the Postal 
Service has facilitated reuse or recovery of overstock and 
outdated electronic equipment, saving tons of potential 
landfill waste. The Committee urges the Postal Service to 
continue its efforts to maximize the potential benefits of 
recycling initiatives.
    Fiscal Health.--The Committee remains concerned about the 
fiscal health of the Postal Service. Decline in mail volume 
caused by the recession and the movement of letters and bills 
to the Internet has had a staggering impact on the Postal 
Service, which released its most recent semi-annual and 
quarterly financial data on May 6, 2010. For fiscal year 2010, 
it posted a net loss of $1,900,000,000 as of March 31, 2010. 
Staff was cut by 47,000 to a total of 594,000, a decline of 
120,000 personnel since 2008. For the quarter, total mail 
volume was 3.3 percent less than the same period last year. 
Even with a one-time boost of revenue from Census mail, revenue 
was still 1.4 percent less than the same 3-month period a year 
ago.
    In light of its dismal and unabated financial 
circumstances, the Committee urges the Postal Service to 
coordinate with Office of Personnel Management [OPM], the 
Postal Service Inspector General, the Postal Regulatory 
Commission, and the Office of Management and Budget to identify 
a fair and equitable methodology to calculate the amount the 
Postal Service should be contributing to the Civil Service 
Retirement System [CSRS] pension fund. In recent reports, the 
Postal Service Inspector General and the Postal Regulatory 
Commission conclude that OPM's methodology in calculating the 
pension cost allocations between the former taxpayer-supported 
Post Office Department and the new ratepayer-supported Postal 
Service resulted in the Postal Service overpaying its share of 
the CSRS pension fund. Although both the Board of Actuaries and 
the Government Accountability Office concluded in 2004 that 
OPM's methodology is consistent with congressional intent of 
the 1974 law that established the CSRS pension fund, the OPM 
Director stated during a March 2010 appropriations subcommittee 
hearing that in light of the methodology being called into 
question again, OPM would be willing to coordinate with the 
Postal Service Inspector General and other stakeholders to 
revisit OPM's current methodology.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriations, 2010....................................    $244,397,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................     244,397,000
Committee recommendation................................     244,397,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The United States Postal Service Office of Inspector 
General [OIG] is an independent organization established in 
1996 and charged with reporting to Congress on the overall 
efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of Postal Service 
programs and operations. The OIG plays a key role in 
maintaining the integrity and accountability of America's 
postal service, its revenue and assets, and its employees. The 
OIG meets this responsibility by conducting and supervising 
objective and independent audits, investigations, and other 
reviews. In fiscal year 2009, the OIG efforts resulted in 383 
audits and evaluations being completed identifying potential 
monetary benefits of nearly $10,100,000,000, 5,501 completed 
investigative cases, 893 arrests and indictments, and 2,750 
administrative actions referred. These actions resulted in 
about $229,000,000 in monetary recoveries and cost avoidance in 
workers' compensation and contract fraud cost programs. As a 
result, the return-on-investment was $19.69, up from $7.54 in 
fiscal year 2007.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation, out of the 
Postal Fund, of $244,397,000 for the United States Postal 
Service Office of Inspector General. This amount is the same as 
the fiscal year 2010 funding level and the same as the budget 
request. The funds will support 1,194 FTEs and an increase to 
the OIG headquarters lease. Funds will enable the Office of 
Inspector General to concentrate on its fiscal year 2011 goals 
of focusing on investigating healthcare disability fraud and 
contract fraud allegations, audit work in response to Sarbanes-
Oxley requirements, audits of data collection systems and 
procedures, and increasing total investigative financial, 
criminal, and administrative outcomes. In fiscal year 2011, 
audit work will focus on areas that present a high risk to the 
Postal Service, particularly identifying potential cost savings 
and opportunities to increase revenue.

                        United States Tax Court


                         salaries and expenses

Appropriations, 2010....................................     $49,241,000
Budget estimate, 2011...................................      52,201,000
Committee recommendation................................      54,625,000

                          PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

    The U.S. Tax Court is an independent judicial body in the 
legislative branch established in 1969 under Article I of the 
Constitution of the United States. The Court was created to 
provide a national forum for the resolution of disputes between 
taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service, resolve cases 
expeditiously while giving careful consideration to the merits 
of each matter, and ensure the uniform interpretation of the 
Internal Revenue Code. The matters over which the Court has 
jurisdiction are set forth in various sections of title 26 of 
the United States Code.
    The Court is composed of 19 judges, one of whom the judges 
elect as chief judge. In their judicial duties the judges are 
assisted by senior judges, who participate in the adjudication 
of regular cases, and by special trial judges, who hear small 
tax cases and certain regular cases assigned to them by the 
chief judge.
    The Court conducts trial sessions throughout the United 
States, including Hawaii and Alaska. Decisions by the Court are 
reviewable by the U.S. Courts of Appeals and, if certiorari is 
granted, by the Supreme Court.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $54,625,000 
for the U.S. Tax Court. This amount is $5,384,000 above the 
fiscal year 2010 enacted level and $2,424,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee notes that the increased funding is 
expected to help the Tax Court continue to comply with the 
Court Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-177). Of the amount 
provided, $2,424,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
2012, to address the costs for perimeter security improvements 
to the U.S. Tax Court headquarters.

                STATEMENT CONCERNING GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Financial Services and General Government appropriation 
bill includes general provisions which govern both the 
activities of the agencies covered by the bill, and, in some 
cases, activities of agencies, programs, and general government 
activities that are not covered by the bill.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that have 
been carried in this bill for years and which are routine in 
nature and scope. General provisions in the bill are explained 
under this section of the report. Those general provisions that 
deal with a single agency only are shown immediately following 
that particular agency's or department's appropriation accounts 
in the bill. Those provisions that address activities or 
directives affecting all of the agencies covered in this bill 
are contained in title VI. General provisions that are 
Government-wide in scope are contained in title VII of this 
bill. General provisions applicable to the District of Columbia 
are contained in title VIII of this bill.

                                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.
    Section 615 continues a provision allowing the Public 
Company Accounting Oversight Board to obligate amounts 
collected from monetary penalties for the purpose of funding 
scholarships for accounting students, as authorized by the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-204).
    Section 616 is a provision rescinding $1,500,000 from 
unobligated balances for prior year appropriations made 
available for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
    Section 617 continues a provision permitting the Securities 
and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission to fund a joint advisory committee to advise on 
emerging regulatory issues, notwithstanding section 708 of this 
act.
    Section 618 is a provision deeming certain grant 
expenditures appropriated in fiscal year 2004 and authorized 
under the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to have been incurred 
for the programs and activities described under the ``Election 
Reform Programs'' heading.
    Section 619 is a provision requiring the President to 
transmit proposed deficiency and supplemental appropriations 
requests to Congress on behalf of the judicial and legislative 
branches as is presently done for the executive branch.
    Section 620 is a provision permitting the Abraham Lincoln 
Bicentennial Foundation to be a recipient of matching funds 
distributed by the Treasury from revenue from the sale of the 
Lincoln bicentennial coin.
    Section 621 is a provision related to agricultural trade 
with Cuba.

                               TITLE VII

                  GENERAL PROVISIONS--GOVERNMENT-WIDE

                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

    Section 701 continues the provision requiring agencies to 
administer a policy designed to ensure that all of its 
workplaces are free from the illegal use of controlled 
substances.
    Section 702 modifies the provision setting specific limits 
on the cost of passenger vehicles purchased by the Federal 
Government with exceptions for police, heavy duty, electric 
hybrid, and clean fuels vehicles adding a new exception for 
commercial vehicles that operate on emerging motor vehicle 
technology.
    Section 703 continues the provision allowing funds made 
available to agencies for travel to also be used for quarters 
allowances and cost-of-living allowances.
    Section 704 continues the provision prohibiting the 
government, with certain specified exceptions, from employing 
non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be in the 
continental United States.
    Section 705 continues the provision ensuring that agencies 
will have authority to pay the General Services Administration 
for space renovation and other services.
    Section 706 continues the provision allowing agencies to 
use receipts from the sale of materials for acquisition, waste 
reduction and prevention, environmental management programs, 
and other Federal employee programs.
    Section 707 continues the provision providing that funds 
for administrative expenses may be used to pay rent and other 
service costs in the District of Columbia.
    Section 708 continues the provision precluding interagency 
financing of groups absent prior statutory approval.
    Section 709 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds for enforcing regulations disapproved in 
accordance with the applicable law of the United States.
    Section 710 continues the provision limiting the pay 
increases of certain prevailing rate employees.
    Section 711 continues the provision limiting the amount 
that can be used for redecoration of offices under certain 
circumstances.
    Section 712 continues the provision that permits 
interagency funding of national security and emergency 
preparedness telecommunications initiatives, which benefit 
multiple Federal departments, agencies, and entities.
    Section 713 continues the provision requiring agencies to 
certify that a schedule C appointment was not created solely or 
primarily to detail the employee to the White House.
    Section 714 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
funds to prevent Federal employees from communicating with 
Congress or to take disciplinary or personnel actions against 
employees for such communication.
    Section 715 continues the provision prohibiting Federal 
training not directly related to the performance of official 
duties.
    Section 716 continues the provision prohibiting the 
expenditure of funds for the implementation of agreements in 
certain nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions are 
included in the policies.
    Section 717 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda designed to 
support or defeat legislation pending before Congress.
    Section 718 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds by an agency to provide home addresses of 
Federal employees to labor organizations, absent employee 
authorization or court order.
    Section 719 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds to provide non-public information such as 
mailing or telephone lists to any person or organization 
outside of the Government without approval of the Committees on 
Appropriations.
    Section 720 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes within 
the United States not authorized by Congress.
    Section 721 continues the provision directing agencies' 
employees to use official time in an honest effort to perform 
official duties.
    Section 722 continues the provision authorizing the use of 
current fiscal year funds to finance an appropriate share of 
the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board administrative 
costs.
    Section 723 continues the provision authorizing 
breastfeeding at any location in a Federal building or on 
Federal property.
    Section 724 continues the provision permitting interagency 
funding of the National Science and Technology Council, and 
requiring an OMB report on the budget and resources of the 
Council.
    Section 725 continues the provision requiring 
identification of the Federal agencies providing Federal funds 
and the amount provided for all proposals, solicitations, grant 
applications, forms, notifications, press releases, or other 
publications related to the distribution of funding to a State.
    Section 726 continues the provision prohibiting the use of 
funds to monitor personal information relating to the use of 
Federal Internet sites.
    Section 727 continues the provision regarding contraceptive 
coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan.
    Section 728 continues the provision recognizing the U.S. 
Anti-Doping Agency as the official anti-doping agency for 
Olympic, Pan American, and Paralympic sports in the United 
States.
    Section 729 continues the provision allowing departments 
and agencies to use official travel funds to participate in the 
fractional aircraft ownership pilot programs.
    Section 730 continues the provision prohibiting funds for 
implementation of OPM regulations limiting detailees to the 
legislative branch and placing certain limitations on the Coast 
Guard Congressional Fellowship program.
    Section 731 continues the provision prohibiting the 
expenditure of funds for the acquisition of certain additional 
Federal law enforcement training facilities.
    Section 732 continues a provision prohibiting funds for E-
Government initiatives sponsored by OMB prior to 15 days 
following submission of a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations and receipt of the Committees' 
approval to transfer funds. The section also prohibits funds 
for new E-Government initiatives without the explicit approval 
of the Committees.
    Section 733 continues with modification the provision 
providing funding for the Midway Atoll Airfield.
    Section 734 continues a provision that prohibits the use of 
funds to begin or announce a study or a public-private 
competition regarding the conversion to contractor performance 
of any function performed by civilian Federal employees 
pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or 
any other administrative regulation, directive, or policy.
    Section 735 continues a provision that prohibits executive 
branch agencies from creating or funding prepackaged news 
stories that are broadcast or distributed in the United States 
unless specific notification conditions are met.
    Section 736 continues the provision prohibiting funds used 
in contravention of the Privacy Act, section 552a of title 5, 
United States Code or section 522.224 of title 48 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations.
    Section 737 continues the provision requiring agencies to 
evaluate the creditworthiness of an individual before issuing a 
Government travel charge card and prohibits agencies from 
issuing a Government travel charge card to individuals with an 
unsatisfactory credit history.
    Section 738 continues a provision requiring OMB to submit a 
crosscut budget report on Great Lakes restoration activities 
not later than 45 days after the submission of the budget of 
the President to Congress.
    Section 739 continues a provision prohibiting funds in this 
or any other act from being used for Federal contract with 
inverted corporations, unless the contract preceded this act or 
the Secretary grants a waiver in the interest of national 
security.
    Section 740 prohibits the Office of Personnel Management or 
any other agency from using funds to implement regulations 
changing the competitive areas under reductions-in-force for 
Federal employees.
    Section 741 makes technical modifications to a provision 
enacted in fiscal year 2010 requiring agency compilation of 
inventories of service contracts.
    Section 742 continues a provision, with modifications, 
providing that the adjustment in rates of basic pay for 
employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in fiscal 
year 2011 shall be an increase of 1.4 percent.
    Section 743 declares the inapplicability of these general 
provisions to title IV and title VIII.
    Section 744 is a provision eliminating automatic statutory 
pay increases for the Vice President and certain other high 
level executive branch officials.
    Section 745 is a provision related to a study of the 
payment of interchange fees by the Federal Government.
    Section 746 is a provision preventing certain 
anticompetitive practices related to the sale of drug products.

                               TITLE VIII

                GENERAL PROVISIONS--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Section 801 continues the provision that specifies that an 
appropriation for a particular purpose or object shall be 
considered as the maximum amount that may be expended for said 
purpose or object.
    Section 802 continues the provision that permits funds for 
travel and payment of dues.
    Section 803 continues the provision that appropriates funds 
for refunding overpayments of taxes collected and for paying 
settlements and judgments against the District of Columbia 
government.
    Section 804 continues the provision that prohibits the use 
of the appropriation for publicity or propaganda purposes, and 
permits the use of local funds for carry out lobbying activity.
    Section 805 continues the provision that establishes 
notification requirements for certain reprogramming and 
transfer requirements with respect to funds and specifies a 
timeframe for approval and execution of requests to reprogram 
and transfer local funds.
    Section 806 continues the provision that restricts the use 
of funds only to the objects for which the appropriations were 
made.
    Section 807 continues the provision that prohibits the use 
of Federal funds for salaries, expenses, or other costs 
associated with the offices of U.S. Senator or Representative 
under section 4(d) of the D.C. Statehood Constitutional 
Convention Initiatives of 1979.
    Section 808 continues the provision that restricts the use 
of official vehicles to official duties and not between a 
residence and workplace, except under certain circumstances.
    Section 809 continues the provision that prohibits the use 
of appropriated funds by the District of Columbia Attorney 
General or any other officer or entity of the District 
government to provide assistance for any petition drive or 
civil action which seeks to require Congress to provide for 
voting representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
    Section 810 continues the provision that prohibits the use 
of Federal funds in this act to distribute, for the purpose of 
preventing the spread of blood borne pathogens, sterile needles 
or syringes in any location that has been determined by local 
public health officials or local law enforcement authorities to 
be inappropriate for such distribution.
    Section 811 continues the provision that includes a 
``conscience clause'' on legislation that pertains to 
contraceptive coverage by health insurance plans.
    Section 812 continues the provision that requires the Mayor 
of the District of Columbia to submit annual reports on various 
indicators pertaining to the District of Columbia.
    Section 813 continues the provision prohibiting use of 
Federal funds to change the legality of marijuana use.
    Section 814 continues the provision restricting the use of 
Federal funds for abortion, with certain exceptions.
    Section 815 continues a provision requiring the submittal 
of a revised appropriated funds budget that reflects the total 
amount of the approved appropriation and realigns all budget 
data for personal services and other-than-personal-services 
with anticipated actual expenditures.
    Section 816 continues a provision requiring the submittal 
of a revised appropriated funds budget for the District of 
Columbia Schools that aligns the schools' budgets to actual 
enrollment.
    Section 817 continues a provision authorizing the transfer 
of local funds to capital and enterprise funds.
    Section 818 is a new provision that permits the Public 
Defender Service for the District of Columbia to purchase 
professional liability insurance for its attorneys, staff, and 
board members.
    Section 819 is a new provision that modifies the frequency 
of management evaluations by the Government Accountability 
Office of the District of Columbia's chartering authority for 
public charter schools.
    Section 820 continues the provision which limits references 
to ``this Act'' as referring to only this title.

  COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on 
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment 
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation 
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing 
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously 
passed by the Senate during that session.''
    Items providing funding for fiscal year 2011 which lack 
authorization are as follows:
Department of the Treasury
    Departmental Offices
    Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments
    Office of the Inspector General
    Inspector General for Tax Administration
    Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
    Financial Management Service
    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
    Bureau of the Public Debt
    Community Development and Financial Institutions Fund
    Internal Revenue Service:
        Taxpayer Services
        Enforcement
        Operations Support
        Business Systems Modernization
        Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration
Executive Office of the President
    Office of Management and Budget
    ONDCP: Training for drug court professionals
District of Columbia
    Federal Payment for the District of Columbia Water and 
Sewer Authority
    Federal Payment for School Improvement
    Federal Payment to the Chief Financial Officer of the 
District of Columbia
    Federal Payment for the D.C. National Guard
    Federal Payment for Housing for the Homeless
    Federal Payment for Redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths 
Hospital Campus
    Federal Payment for HIV/AIDS Prevention
Independent Agencies
    Election Assistance Commission
    Federal Communications Commission
    Federal Election Commission
    Federal Trade Commission
    General Services Administration:
        Federal Building Fund
        GSA E-government Fund
    Merit Systems Protection Board
    National Archives and Records Administration, National 
Historical Publications and Records Commission
    National Credit Union Administration: Community Development 
Revolving Loan Fund
    Office of Government Ethics
    Office of Special Counsel

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(c), RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 29, 2010, 
theCommittee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3677) making 
appropriations for financial services and general government 
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2011, and for other 
purposes, subject to amendment and subject to the Committee 
spending guidance; and authorized the chairman of the committee 
or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the 
Senate-reported bill as a committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote 
of 18-12, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Inouye                     Mr. Cochran
Mr. Leahy                           Mr. Bond
Mr. Harkin                          Mr. McConnell
Ms. Mikulski                        Mr. Shelby
Mr. Kohl                            Mr. Gregg
Mrs. Murray                         Mr. Bennett
Mr. Dorgan                          Mrs. Hutchison
Mrs. Feinstein                      Mr. Brownback
Mr. Durbin                          Mr. Alexander
Mr. Johnson                         Ms. Collins
Ms. Landrieu                        Mr. Voinovich
Mr. Reed                            Ms. Murkowski
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Pryor
Mr. Tester
Mr. Specter
Mr. Brown

 COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE 
                                 SENATE

    Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports 
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute 
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or 
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a 
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution 
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof 
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and 
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical 
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the 
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by 
the Committee.''
    In compliance with this rule, the following changes in 
existing law proposed to be made by this bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

                      TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND TRADE


  Chapter 2--Federal Trade Commission; Promotion of Export Trade and 
              Prevention of Unfair Methods of Competition


                 Subchapter I--Federal Trade Commission


Sec. 56. Commencement, defense, intervention and supervision of 
                    litigation and appeal by Commission or Attorney 
                    General

(a) * * *
    (1) * * *

    (2) * * *
            (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (D) under the second paragraph of section 49 of 
        this title (relating to enforcement of a subpena) and 
        under the fourth paragraph of such section (relating to 
        compliance with section 46 of this title); [or]
            (E) under section 57b-2a of this title; or
            (F) under section 28;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Foreign Litigation.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Other authority.--The authority provided by 
        this subsection is in addition to any other authority 
        of the Commission or the Attorney General.

SEC. 28. PRESERVING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE GENERICS.

    (a) In General.--
            (1) Enforcement proceeding.--The Federal Trade 
        Commission may initiate a proceeding to enforce the 
        provisions of this section against the parties to any 
        agreement resolving or settling, on a final or interim 
        basis, a patent infringement claim, in connection with 
        the sale of a drug product.
            (2) Presumption.--
                    (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph 
                (B), in such a proceeding, an agreement shall 
                be presumed to have anticompetitive effects and 
                be unlawful if--
                            (i) an ANDA filer receives anything 
                        of value; and
                            (ii) the ANDA filer agrees to limit 
                        or forego research, development, 
                        manufacturing, marketing, or sales of 
                        the ANDA product for any period of 
                        time.
                    (B) Exception.--The presumption in 
                subparagraph (A) shall not apply if the parties 
                to such agreement demonstrate by clear and 
                convincing evidence that the procompetitive 
                benefits of the agreement outweigh the 
                anticompetitive effects of the agreement.
    (b) Competitive Factors.--In determining whether the 
settling parties have met their burden under subsection 
(a)(2)(B), the fact finder shall consider--
            (1) the length of time remaining until the end of 
        the life of the relevant patent, compared with the 
        agreed upon entry date for the ANDA product;
            (2) the value to consumers of the competition from 
        the ANDA product allowed under the agreement;
            (3) the form and amount of consideration received 
        by the ANDA filer in the agreement resolving or 
        settling the patent infringement claim;
            (4) the revenue the ANDA filer would have received 
        by winning the patent litigation;
            (5) the reduction in the NDA holder's revenues if 
        it had lost the patent litigation;
            (6) the time period between the date of the 
        agreement conveying value to the ANDA filer and the 
        date of the settlement of the patent infringement 
        claim; and
            (7) any other factor that the fact finder, in its 
        discretion, deems relevant to its determination of 
        competitive effects under this subsection.
    (c) Limitations.--In determining whether the settling 
parties have met their burden under subsection (a)(2)(B), the 
fact finder shall not presume--
            (1) that entry would not have occurred until the 
        expiration of the relevant patent or statutory 
        exclusivity; or
            (2) that the agreement's provision for entry of the 
        ANDA product prior to the expiration of the relevant 
        patent or statutory exclusivity means that the 
        agreement is pro-competitive, although such evidence 
        may be relevant to the fact finder's determination 
        under this section.
    (d) Exclusions.--Nothing in this section shall prohibit a 
resolution or settlement of a patent infringement claim in 
which the consideration granted by the NDA holder to the ANDA 
filer as part of the resolution or settlement includes only one 
or more of the following:
            (1) The right to market the ANDA product in the 
        United States prior to the expiration of--
                    (A) any patent that is the basis for the 
                patent infringement claim; or
                    (B) any patent right or other statutory 
                exclusivity that would prevent the marketing of 
                such drug.
            (2) A payment for reasonable litigation expenses 
        not to exceed $7,500,000.
            (3) A covenant not to sue on any claim that the 
        ANDA product infringes a United States patent.
    (e) Regulations and Enforcement.--
            (1) Regulations.--The Federal Trade Commission may 
        issue, in accordance with section 553 of title 5, 
        United States Code, regulations implementing and 
        interpreting this section. These regulations may exempt 
        certain types of agreements described in subsection (a) 
        if the Commission determines such agreements will 
        further market competition and benefit consumers. 
        Judicial review of any such regulation shall be in the 
        United States District Court for the District of 
        Columbia pursuant to section 706 of title 5, United 
        States Code.
            (2) Enforcement.--A violation of this section shall 
        be treated as a violation of section 5.
            (3) Judicial review.--Any person, partnership or 
        corporation that is subject to a final order of the 
        Commission, issued in an administrative adjudicative 
        proceeding under the authority of subsection (a)(1), 
        may, within 30 days of the issuance of such order, 
        petition for review of such order in the United States 
        Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 
        or the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit 
        in which the ultimate parent entity, as defined at 16 
        C.F.R. 801.1(a)(3), of the NDA holder is incorporated 
        as of the date that the NDA is filed with the Secretary 
        of the Food and Drug Administration, or the United 
        States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the 
        ultimate parent entity of the ANDA filer is 
        incorporated as of the date that the ANDA is filed with 
        the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration. In 
        such a review proceeding, the findings of the 
        Commission as to the facts, if supported by evidence, 
        shall be conclusive.
    (f) Antitrust Laws.--Nothing in this section shall be 
construed to modify, impair, or supersede the applicability of 
the antitrust laws as defined in subsection (a) of the first 
section of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12(a)) and of section 5 
of this Act to the extent that section 5 applies to unfair 
methods of competition. Nothing in this section shall modify, 
impair, limit or supersede the right of an ANDA filer to assert 
claims or counterclaims against any person, under the antitrust 
laws or other laws relating to unfair competition.
    (g) Penalties.--
            (1) Forfeiture.--Each person, partnership or 
        corporation that violates or assists in the violation 
        of this section shall forfeit and pay to the United 
        States a civil penalty sufficient to deter violations 
        of this section, but in no event greater than 3 times 
        the value received by the party that is reasonably 
        attributable to a violation of this section. If no such 
        value has been received by the NDA holder, the penalty 
        to the NDA holder shall be shall be sufficient to deter 
        violations, but in no event greater than 3 times the 
        value given to the ANDA filer reasonably attributable 
        to the violation of this section. Such penalty shall 
        accrue to the United States and may be recovered in a 
        civil action brought by the Federal Trade Commission, 
        in its own name by any of its attorneys designated by 
        it for such purpose, in a district court of the United 
        States against any person, partnership or corporation 
        that violates this section. In such actions, the United 
        States district courts are empowered to grant mandatory 
        injunctions and such other and further equitable relief 
        as they deem appropriate.
            (2) Cease and desist.--
                    (A) In general.--If the Commission has 
                issued a cease and desist order with respect to 
                a person, partnership or corporation in an 
                administrative adjudicative proceeding under 
                the authority of subsection (a)(1), an action 
                brought pursuant to paragraph (1) may be 
                commenced against such person, partnership or 
                corporation at any time before the expiration 
                of 1 year after such order becomes final 
                pursuant to section 5(g).
                    (B) Exception.--In an action under 
                subparagraph (A), the findings of the 
                Commission as to the material facts in the 
                administrative adjudicative proceeding with 
                respect to such person's, partnership's or 
                corporation's violation of this section shall 
                be conclusive unless--
                            (i) the terms of such cease and 
                        desist order expressly provide that the 
                        Commission's findings shall not be 
                        conclusive; or
                            (ii) the order became final by 
                        reason of section 5(g)(1), in which 
                        case such finding shall be conclusive 
                        if supported by evidence.
            (3) Civil penalty.--In determining the amount of 
        the civil penalty described in this section, the court 
        shall take into account--
                    (A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and 
                gravity of the violation;
                    (B) with respect to the violator, the 
                degree of culpability, any history of 
                violations, the ability to pay, any effect on 
                the ability to continue doing business, profits 
                earned by the NDA holder, compensation received 
                by the ANDA filer, and the amount of commerce 
                affected; and
                    (C) other matters that justice requires.
            (4) Remedies in addition.--Remedies provided in 
        this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, 
        any other remedy provided by Federal law. Nothing in 
        this paragraph shall be construed to affect any 
        authority of the Commission under any other provision 
        of law.
    (h) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Agreement.--The term ``agreement'' means 
        anything that would constitute an agreement under 
        section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1) or section 5 
        of this Act.
            (2) Agreement resolving or settling a patent 
        infringement claim.--The term ``agreement resolving or 
        settling a patent infringement claim'' includes any 
        agreement that is entered into within 30 days of the 
        resolution or the settlement of the claim, or any other 
        agreement that is contingent upon, provides a 
        contingent condition for, or is otherwise related to 
        the resolution or settlement of the claim.
            (3) ANDA.--The term ``ANDA'' means an abbreviated 
        new drug application, as defined under section 505(j) 
        of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
        355(j)).
            (4) ANDA filer.--The term ``ANDA filer'' means a 
        party who has filed an ANDA with the Food and Drug 
        Administration.
            (5) ANDA product.--The term ``ANDA product'' means 
        the product to be manufactured under the ANDA that is 
        the subject of the patent infringement claim.
            (6) Drug product.--The term ``drug product'' means 
        a finished dosage form (e.g., tablet, capsule, or 
        solution) that contains a drug substance, generally, 
        but not necessarily, in association with 1 or more 
        other ingredients, as defined in section 314.3(b) of 
        title 21, Code of Federal Regulations.
            (7) NDA.--The term ``NDA'' means a new drug 
        application, as defined under section 505(b) of the 
        Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
        355(b)).
            (8) NDA holder.--The term ``NDA holder'' means--
                    (A) the party that received FDA approval to 
                market a drug product pursuant to an NDA;
                    (B) a party owning or controlling 
                enforcement of the patent listed in the 
                Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic 
                Equivalence Evaluations (commonly known as the 
                ``FDA Orange Book'') in connection with the 
                NDA; or
                    (C) the predecessors, subsidiaries, 
                divisions, groups, and affiliates controlled 
                by, controlling, or under common control with 
                any of the entities described in subparagraphs 
                (A) and (B) (such control to be presumed by 
                direct or indirect share ownership of 50 
                percent or greater), as well as the licensees, 
                licensors, successors, and assigns of each of 
                the entities.
            (9) Patent infringement.--The term ``patent 
        infringement'' means infringement of any patent or of 
        any filed patent application, extension, reissue, 
        renewal, division, continuation, continuation in part, 
        reexamination, patent term restoration, patents of 
        addition and extensions thereof.
            (10) Patent infringement claim.--The term ``patent 
        infringement claim'' means any allegation made to an 
        ANDA filer, whether or not included in a complaint 
        filed with a court of law, that its ANDA or ANDA 
        product may infringe any patent held by, or exclusively 
        licensed to, the NDA holder of the drug product.
            (11) Statutory exclusivity.--The term ``statutory 
        exclusivity'' means those prohibitions on the approval 
        of drug applications under clauses (ii) through (iv) of 
        section 505(c)(3)(E) (5- and 3-year data exclusivity), 
        section 527 (orphan drug exclusivity), or section 505A 
        (pediatric exclusivity) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
        Cosmetic Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   Chapter 14A--Aid to Small Business


Sec. 637. Additional powers

(a) * * *
    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (6)(A) Economically disadvantaged individuals are those 
socially disadvantaged individuals whose ability to compete in 
the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished 
capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the 
same business area who are not socially disadvantaged. In 
determining the degree of diminished credit and capital 
opportunities the Administration shall consider, but not be 
limited to, the assets and net worth of such socially 
disadvantaged individual. In determining the economic 
disadvantage of an Indian tribe, the Administration shall 
consider, where available, information such as the following: 
the per capita income of members of the tribe excluding 
judgment awards, the percentage of the local Indian population 
below the poverty level, and the tribe's access to capital 
markets. In taking into account the net worth of a socially 
disadvantaged individual under this subparagraph for purposes 
of determining if such individual is economically 
disadvantaged, the Administrator shall consider a net worth of 
less than $1,000,000 as indicating that the individual is 
economically disadvantaged.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(d) Performance of contracts by small business concerns; 
            inclusion of required contract clause; 
            subcontracting plans; contract eligibility; 
            incentives; breach of contract; review; report to 
            Congress
    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3) The clause required by paragraph (2) shall be as 
follows:
            ``(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(C) As used in this contract, the term `small 
        business concern' shall mean a small business as 
        defined pursuant to section 3 of the Small Business Act 
        and relevant regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. 
        The term ``small business concern owned and controlled 
        by socially and economically disadvantaged 
        individuals'' shall mean a small business concern--
                    ``(i) which is at least 51 per centum owned 
                by one or more socially and economically 
                disadvantaged individuals; or, in the case of 
                any publicly owned business, at least 51 per 
                centum of the stock of which is owned by one or 
                more socially and economically disadvantaged 
                individuals; and
                    ``(ii) whose management and daily business 
                operations are controlled by one or more of 
                such individuals.
            ``The contractor shall presume that socially and 
        economically disadvantaged individuals include Black 
        Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian 
        Pacific Americans, and other minorities, or any other 
        individual found to be disadvantaged by the 
        Administration pursuant to section 8(a) of the Small 
        Business Act. The contractor shall presume that a 
        socially disadvantaged individual is economically 
        disadvantaged if such individual's net worth, as 
        determined in accordance with this section is less than 
        $1,000,000.
                                ------                                


                        TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS


            Chapter 9--Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act


                    Subchapter V--Drugs and Devices


                       PART A--DRUGS AND DEVICES

Sec. 355. New drugs

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(j) Abbreviated new drug applications

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (D) * * *
            (i) * * *
                    (I) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (V) Agreement with another applicant, the 
                listed drug application holder, or a patent 
                owner.--The first applicant enters into an 
                agreement with another applicant under this 
                subsection for the drug, the holder of the 
                application for the listed drug, or an owner of 
                the patent that is the subject of the 
                certification under paragraph (2)(A)(vii)(IV), 
                the Federal Trade Commission or the Attorney 
                General files a complaint, and there is a final 
                decision of the Federal Trade Commission or the 
                court with regard to the complaint from which 
                no appeal (other than a petition to the Supreme 
                Court for a writ of certiorari) has been or can 
                be taken that the agreement has violated 
                section 28 of the Federal Trade Commission Act 
                or the antitrust laws (as defined in section 12 
                of title 15, except that the term includes 
                section 45 of title 15 to the extent that that 
                section applies to unfair methods of 
                competition).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                  NOTE

    Pub. L. 108-173, title XI, subtitle B, Dec. 8, 2003, 117 
Stat. 2461, provided that:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


``SEC. 1112. NOTIFICATION OF AGREEMENTS.

    ``(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    ``(c) Filing.--
            ``(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            ``(2) Other agreements.--The parties that are 
        required in subsection (a) or (b) to file an agreement 
        in accordance with this subsection shall file with the 
        Assistant Attorney General and [the Commission the] the 
        Commission--
                    ``(A) the text of any agreements between 
                the parties that are not described in such 
                subsections and are contingent upon, provide a 
                contingent condition for, or are otherwise 
                related to an agreement that is required in 
                subsection (a) or (b) to be filed in accordance 
                with this subsection[.]; and
                    ``(B) any other agreement the parties enter 
                into within 30 days of entering into an 
                agreement covered by subsection (a) or (b).''
            ``(3) Description.--In the event that any agreement 
        required in subsection (a) or (b) to be filed in 
        accordance with this subsection has not been reduced to 
        text, each of the parties involved shall file written 
        descriptions of such agreement that are sufficient to 
        disclose all the terms and conditions of the agreement.
    ``(d) Certification.--The Chief Executive Officer or the 
company official responsible for negotiating any agreement 
required to be filed under subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall 
execute and file with the Assistant Attorney General and the 
Commission a certification as follows: `I declare that the 
following is true, correct, and complete to the best of my 
knowledge: The materials filed with the Federal Trade 
Commission and the Department of Justice under section 1112 of 
subtitle B of title XI of the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, with respect to the 
agreement referenced in this certification: (1) represent the 
complete, final, and exclusive agreement between the parties; 
(2) include any ancillary agreements that are contingent upon, 
provide a contingent condition for, or are otherwise related 
to, the referenced agreement; and (3) include written 
descriptions of any oral agreements, representations, 
commitments, or promises between the parties that are 
responsive to subsection (a) or (b) of such section 1112 and 
have not been reduced to writing.'''.
                                ------                                


                      TITLE 31--MONEY AND FINANCE


                    SUBTITLE II--THE BUDGET PROCESS


   CHAPTER 11--THE BUDGET AND FISCAL, BUDGET, AND PROGRAM INFORMATION


Sec. 1107. Deficiency and supplemental appropriations

    The President may submit to Congress proposed deficiency 
and supplemental appropriations the President decides are 
necessary because of laws enacted after the submission of the 
budget or that are in the public interest. The President shall 
include the reasons for the submission of the proposed 
appropriations and the reasons the proposed appropriations were 
not included in the budget. When the total proposed 
appropriations would have required the President to make a 
recommendation under section 1105(c) of this title if they had 
been included in the budget, the President shall make a 
recommendation under that section. The President shall transmit 
promptly to Congress without change, proposed deficiency and 
supplemental appropriations submitted to the President by the 
legislative branch and the judicial branch.
                                ------                                


      ABRAHAM LINCOLN COMMEMORATIVE COIN ACT (PUBLIC LAW 109-285)


SEC. 7. SURCHARGES.

    (a) In General.--All sales of coins issued under this Act 
shall include a surcharge of $10 per coin.
    (b) Distribution.--Subject to section 5134(f)(1), title 31, 
United States Code, all surcharges received by the Secretary 
from the sale of coins issued under this Act shall be promptly 
paid by the Secretary to the [Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial 
Commission to further the work of the Commission] Abraham 
Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation for the purposes of 
commemorating the bicentennial of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, 
and fostering and promoting the awareness and study of the life 
of Abraham Lincoln.
    (c) Audits.--The [Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Commission] 
Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Foundation shall be subject to the 
audit requirements of section 5134(f)(2) of title 31, United 
States Code.
                                ------                                


                       TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS


Sec. 433. Acquisition workforce

(a) Applicability

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(h) Education and training

        (1) Funding levels

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

        (3) Acquisition workforce training fund

            (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (E) The Administrator of General Services, through 
        the Office of Federal Acquisition Policy, shall ensure 
        that funds collected [for training] under this section 
        are not used for any purpose other than the purpose 
        specified in [subparagraph (A)] subparagraphs (A) and 
        (C) to (J) of section 405(d)(5) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 [12 years] 13 years from date of 
enactment of this provision, a personnel management 
demonstration project providing for the compensation and 
performance management of not more than a combined total of 950 
employees who fill critical scientific, technical, engineering, 
intelligence analyst, language translator, and medical 
positions in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
                                ------                                


   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 (PUBLIC LAW 108-335)


                     TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Sec. 346. [Biennial] Evaluation of Charter School 
Authorizing Boards. (a) [Biennial management] Management 
evaluation of the District of Columbia Chartering Authorities 
for the District of Columbia Public Charter Schools shall be 
conducted by the Comptroller General of the United [States.] 
States every five years.
    (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (6) Actual budget expenditures for the preceding 
        [2] 5 fiscal years;
                                ------                                


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 (PUBLIC LAW 108-43)


DIVISION H--TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, INDEPENDENT AGENCIES, AND GENERAL 
                  GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005


                                TITLE IV


                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


              National Archives and Records Administration


                        REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

    For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
$13,432,000, to remain available until expended, [of which 
$3,000,000 is for site preparation and construction management 
to construct a new regional archives and records facility in 
Anchorage, Alaska,] and of which $2,000,000 is for the repair 
and restoration of the plaza that surrounds the Lyndon Baines 
Johnson Presidential Library that is under the joint control 
and custody of the University of Texas: Provided, That such 
funds may be transferred directly to the University and used, 
together with University funds, for repair and restoration of 
the plaza and remain available until expended for this purpose.
                                ------                                


   ENSURING NEEDED HELP ARRIVES NEAR CALLERS EMPLOYING 911 ACT, 2004 
                          (PUBLIC LAW 108-494)


                      TITLE III--UNIVERSAL SERVICE

SEC. 302. APPLICATION OF CERTAIN TITLE 31 PROVISIONS TO UNIVERSAL 
                    SERVICE FUND.

    (a) In General.-- * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) Post-2005 Fulfillment of Protected Obligations.--
Section 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, 
United States Code, do not apply after [December 31, 2010] 
December 31, 2011, to an expenditure or obligation described in 
subsection (a)(2) made or authorized during the period 
described in subsection (a).
                                ------                                


TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THE JUDICIARY, 
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                       2006 (PUBLIC LAW 109-115)


                                TITLE VI


                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


              National Archives and Records Administration


                        REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

    For the repair, alteration, and improvement of archives 
facilities, and to provide adequate storage for holdings, 
$9,682,000, to remain available until expended, [of which 
$1,500,000 is to construct a new regional archives and records 
facility in Anchorage, Alaska,] and of which $1,000,000 is for 
the repair and restoration of the plaza that surrounds the 
Lyndon Baines Johnson Presidential Library that is under the 
joint control and custody of the University of Texas: Provided, 
That such funds may be transferred directly to the University 
and used, together with University funds, for repair and 
restoration of the plaza and remain available until expended 
for this purpose: Provided further, That such funds shall be 
spent in accordance with the construction plan submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations on March 14, 2005: Provided 
further, That the Archivist shall be prohibited from entering 
into any agreement with the University or any other party that 
requires additional funding commitments on behalf of the 
Federal Government.
                                ------                                


       CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 (PUBLIC LAW 111-117)


 DIVISION C--FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2010


                               TITLE VII


                  GENERAL PROVISIONS--GOVERNMENT-WIDE


                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

    Sec. 743. (a) Service Contract Inventory Requirement.--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) Inventory contents.--Not later than December 
        31, 2010, and annually thereafter, the head of each 
        executive agency required to submit an inventory in 
        accordance with the Federal Activities Inventory Reform 
        Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-270; 31 U.S.C. 501 note), 
        other than the Department of Defense, shall submit to 
        the Office of Management and Budget an annual inventory 
        of service contracts awarded or extended through the 
        exercise of an option, and task orders issued under any 
        such contract, on or after April 1, 2010, for or on 
        behalf of such agency. For each service contract, the 
        entry for an inventory under this section shall 
        include, for the preceding fiscal year, the following:
                    (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                    (G) The number and work location of 
                contractor and subcontractor employees, 
                expressed as full-time equivalents for direct 
                labor, compensated under the contract, using 
                direct labor hours and associated cost data 
                collected from contractors.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) * * *
            (1) * * *
            (2) * * *
                    (A) * * *
                    (B) [the agency is giving special 
                management attention to functions that are 
                closely associated with inherently governmental 
                functions;] the contracts exclude to the 
                maximum extent practicable functions that are 
                closely associated with inherently governmental 
                functions;

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) Submission of Report on Actions Taken Before Public-
Private Competition May Occur.--An executive agency may not 
begin, plan for, or announce a study or public-private 
competition regarding the conversion to contractor performance 
of any function performed by Federal employees pursuant to 
Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 or any other 
administrative regulation or directive until after that agency 
has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a report, 
pursuant to subsection (f), that includes actions taken to 
convert from contractor to Federal employee performance 
functions that are not inherently governmental, closely 
associated with governmental functions, critical, or should not 
otherwise be reserved for performance by Federal employees. 
This subsection shall take effect beginning with the report 
required under subsection (f) that is included as an attachment 
to the annual inventory due by December 31, 2011.
    [(h)] (i) GAO Reports on Implementation.--
            (1) Report on guidance.--Not later than 120 days 
        after submission of the report by the Director of the 
        Office of Management and Budget required under 
        subsection (a)(2), the Comptroller General of the 
        United States shall report on the guidance issued and 
        actions taken by the Director. The report shall be 
        submitted to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
        Governmental Affairs and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on 
        Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on 
        Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
            (2) Reports on inventories.--
                    (A) Initial inventory.--Not later than 
                September 30, 2011, the Comptroller General of 
                the United States shall submit a report to the 
                Committees named in the preceding paragraph on 
                the initial implementation by executive 
                agencies of the inventory requirement in 
                subsection (a)(3) with respect to inventories 
                required to be submitted by December 31, 2010.
                    (B) Second inventory.--Not later than 
                September 30, 2012, the Comptroller General 
                shall submit a report to the same Committees on 
                annual inventories required to be submitted by 
                December 31, 2011.
            (3) Periodic briefings.--The Comptroller General 
        shall provide periodic briefings, as may be requested 
        by the Committees, on matters related to implementation 
        of this section.
    [(i)] (j) Executive Agency Defined.--In this section, the 
term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 
U.S.C. 403).
                                ------                                


                        BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL


  PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
                                                     AMENDED
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Budget authority               Outlays
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              Committee    Amount  of    Committee    Amount  of
                                                             guidance\1\      bill      guidance\1\      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee spending
 guidance to its subcommittees for 2011: Subcommittee on
 Financial Services and General Government:
    Mandatory.............................................            NA       21,153            NA    \2\21,149
    Discretionary.........................................        25,400       25,400            NA    \2\26,535
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2011..................................................  ............  ...........  ............    \3\40,706
    2012..................................................  ............  ...........  ............        3,974
    2013..................................................  ............  ...........  ............          807
    2014..................................................  ............  ...........  ............          357
    2015 and future years.................................  ............  ...........  ............          270
Financial assistance to State and local governments for               NA          688            NA          502
 2011.....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There is no section 302(a) allocation to the Committee on Appropriations for fiscal year 2011.
\2\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\3\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

         DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

    The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the 
purse. The Committee believes strongly that Congress should 
make the decisions on how to allocate the people's money.
    As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate, the term ``congressionally directed spending item'' 
means a provision or report language included primarily at the 
request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a 
specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit 
authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, 
loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure 
with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality 
or congressional district, other than through a statutory or 
administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process.
    For each item, a Member is required to provide a 
certification that neither the Member nor the Senator's 
immediate family has a pecuniary interest in such 
congressionally directed spending item. Such certifications are 
available to the public on the website of the Senate Committee 
on Appropriations (www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm).
    Following is a list of congressionally directed spending 
items included in the Senate recommendation discussed in this 
report, along with the name of each Senator who submitted a 
request to the Committee of jurisdiction for each item so 
identified. Neither the Committee recommendation nor this 
report contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff 
benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

                                                                                                 CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Account                                                                               Project                                                                  Funding                         Member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DC.......................................  Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC............................................................................        $1,000,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  4 Ag Hawaii, Improved Food Security through Small Business Development, Haleiwa, HI...........................................          $300,000  Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye
SBA......................................  ACCION USA, Womens Link Program, for training and technical assistance for women-owned microenterprises, New York, NY.........          $125,000  Senator Kirsten Gillibrand
SBA......................................  AccountAbility Minnesota for financial services assistance, St. Paul, MN......................................................          $125,000  Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar
SBA......................................  Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, Utilization of Seafood Processing Waste and Product Development, Naknek, AK..........          $299,000  Senator Lisa Murkowski
SBA......................................  Anchorage Community Land Trust for a financial literacy and community development program, Anchorage, AK......................          $200,000  Senator Mark Begich
SBA......................................  Ben Franklin Technology Partners, Manufacturing Pennsylvania's Future commercialization initiative, PA........................           $50,000  Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter
SBA......................................  Benedictine University, Small business training program, Lisle, IL............................................................          $250,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Big Sky Economic Development Authority for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund, Billings, MT..........................          $100,000  Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester
SBA......................................  Boise State University, Entrepreneurial Initiative, Boise, ID.................................................................          $150,000  Senators Mike Crapo, Jim Risch
SBA......................................  Bradley University, small business training program, Peoria, IL...............................................................          $400,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Small Business Construction Initiative, Sacramento, CA...................          $500,000  Senator Barbara Boxer
SBA......................................  Carnegie Mellon University, Carnegie Mellon Manufacturing Accelerator, Pittsburgh, PA.........................................          $100,000  Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter
SBA......................................  Case Western Reserve University, Northern Ohio Structural Laboratories: Advanced Instrumentation for Northeast Ohio's Bio-              $125,000  Senators George Voinovich, Sherrod Brown
                                            imaging Cluster, Cleveland, OH.
SBA......................................  Center for Rural Affairs, New Entrepreneurial Initiatives for Rural Nebraska, Lyons, NE.......................................          $100,000  Senator Ben Nelson
SBA......................................  Center for Rural Entrepreneurship, Nebraska Entrepreneur Initiative, Lincoln, NE..............................................          $175,000  Senator Ben Nelson
SBA......................................  Central Corridor's Hmong Business Center, St. Paul, MN........................................................................          $150,000  Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar
SBA......................................  Chicago House and Social Service Agency, job training program, Chicago, IL....................................................          $400,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  City of Carson City, High Tech Business Collaborative, Carson City, NV........................................................          $400,000  Senator Harry Reid
SBA......................................  City of Chicago, workforce retraining program, Chicago, IL....................................................................          $450,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  City of Denver, Denver Office of Strategic Partnerships Sustainability Project, Denver, CO....................................          $500,000  Senator Michael Bennet
SBA......................................  City of Gallup, Kachina business incubator and redevelopment efforts, Gallup, NM..............................................          $100,000  Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall
SBA......................................  City of Port Huron Economic Redevelopment Initiative, Port Huron, MI..........................................................          $100,000  Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow
SBA......................................  City of St. Cloud, Comprehensive Downtown Economic Development Plan and Program, St. Cloud, MN................................          $125,000  Senators Al Franken, Amy Klobuchar
SBA......................................  Colorado State University, Sustainable Biofuels Development Center, Ft. Collins, CO...........................................          $200,000  Senator Mark Udall
SBA......................................  Dakota Rising Rural Entrepreneur Fellowship Program, South Dakota Rural Enterprise, Sioux Falls, SD...........................          $250,000  Senator Tim Johnson
SBA......................................  Dartmouth Regional Technology Center for additional business incubator space and support, Lebanon, NH.........................          $100,000  Senator Jeanne Shaheen
SBA......................................  Davidson Green Business Incubator Initiative, Davidson, NC....................................................................          $100,000  Senator Kay Hagan
SBA......................................  Downtown Salem Revitalization Toolbox program for economic development, Salem, OR.............................................          $150,000  Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden
SBA......................................  Eastern Connecticut State University, Center for Economic, Financial and Entrepreneurship Education, Willimantic, CT..........          $150,000  Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph Lieberman
SBA......................................  Fay-Penn Economic Development Council, Local Economy Initiative, Fayette County, PA...........................................           $50,000  Senator Robert Casey
SBA......................................  Finlandia University and Jutila Center for Global Design and Business, business incubator, Hancock, MI........................          $100,000  Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow
SBA......................................  First State Community Loan Fund, for small business and community development technical assistance, Wilmington, DE............          $175,000  Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman
SBA......................................  Grambling State University, Expanding Minority Entrepreneurship Regionally Across the Louisiana Delta (EMERALD), Grambling, LA          $137,500  Senator Mary Landrieu
SBA......................................  Great Falls Development Authority, High Plains Financial Intermediary Loan Fund, for operating expenses of programs supporting          $125,000  Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester
                                            small business development, Great Falls, MT.
SBA......................................  Greater Bridgeport Community Enterprises, Urban Green Business Incubator, Bridgeport, CT......................................          $150,000  Senators Christopher Dodd, Joseph Lieberman
SBA......................................  Greater Cedar Valley Alliance, Bi-State Entrepreneurial Development Initiative, IA............................................          $150,000  Senator Charles Grassley
SBA......................................  Greater New Orleans regional economic alliance for Green New Orleans, a green business and jobs initiative, New Orleans, LA...          $137,500  Senator Mary Landrieu
SBA......................................  Greene County Department of Economic Development, Business Park Development Project, Waynesburg, PA...........................           $50,000  Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter
SBA......................................  Harford County, Maryland, Aberdeen Proving Ground Technical Assistance Business Development Office, Bel Air, MD...............          $100,000  Senator Benjamin Cardin
SBA......................................  Hartford Economic Development Corporation, Business Resource Center, Hartford, CT.............................................          $150,000  Senator Christopher Dodd
SBA......................................  Institute for Entrepreneurial Leadership for technical assistance to minority and women business owners, Newark, NJ...........          $100,000  Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez
SBA......................................  International Trade Alliance, Washington BRIC Export Initiative, Spokane, WA..................................................          $200,000  Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell
SBA......................................  Jackson State University for Economic and Community Development Through Heritage Tourism, Jackson, MS.........................          $650,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker
SBA......................................  Jefferson Local Development Corporation for operating expenses of a revolving loan fund to support small business development,          $150,000  Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester
                                            Whitehall, MT.
SBA......................................  Johnson and Wales University, Higher Education Consortium for Rhode Island Entrepreneurship, Providence, RI...................          $200,000  Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse
SBA......................................  Johnson State College, Upward Bound, Lamoille County, VT......................................................................           $50,000  Senator Bernard Sanders
SBA......................................  Kaskaskia College, job counseling and training initiative, Centralia, IL......................................................          $150,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Kennebec Valley Council of Governments, Rural Maine Employment Initiative, Fairfield, ME......................................          $400,000  Senator Susan Collins
SBA......................................  Lawrence-Douglas County Biosciences Authority, Bioscience & Technology Business Center, Lawrence, KS..........................          $125,000  Senators Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts
SBA......................................  Lewis and Clark Community College, job counseling and training initiative, Godfrey, IL........................................          $150,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Lincoln County, Alamo Industrial Park Development, Alamo, NV..................................................................          $150,000  Senator Harry Reid
SBA......................................  Lyndon State College, Center for Business Education and Rural Entrepreneurship, Lyndonville, VT...............................          $250,000  Senator Patrick Leahy
SBA......................................  Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick Science and Technology Business Incubator, Brunswick, ME.................          $750,000  Senator Susan Collins
SBA......................................  Midwest China Hub Commission, St. Louis, MO...................................................................................        $1,000,000  Senator Christopher Bond
SBA......................................  Mississippi State University Entrepreneurship Center, Starkville, MS..........................................................          $650,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker
SBA......................................  Mississippi Technology Alliance, Center for Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Ridgeland, MS....................................        $1,000,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker
SBA......................................  Montclair State University, Institute for Sustainability Studies Business Incubator, Montclair, NJ............................          $275,000  Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez
SBA......................................  Mount Washington Valley Economic Council, North Country Small Business Education Center, Conway, NH...........................          $100,000  Senator Jeanne Shaheen
SBA......................................  National Centers of Excellence Regional Technology Deployment Pilot Project, Orem, UT.........................................          $600,000  Senators Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch
SBA......................................  Nevada Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology, Small Business Entrepreneur Training, Reno, NV.............................          $150,000  Senator Harry Reid
SBA......................................  Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont, Farmer-to-Farmer Mentor Program for business development, Chittenden County,           $75,000  Senator Bernard Sanders
                                            VT.
SBA......................................  Northern Kentucky University College of Informatics, Highland Heights, KY.....................................................          $250,000  Senator Mitch McConnell
SBA......................................  Northern Maine Acadian Development, Madawaska, ME.............................................................................        $1,000,000  Senator Susan Collins
SBA......................................  Northern Michigan University Upper Peninsula Center for Community and Economic Development, Marquette, MI.....................          $100,000  Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow
SBA......................................  Ohio University, Small Business Development for Appalachian Ohio's Emerging Biomass Industry, Athens, OH......................          $125,000  Senators George Voinovich, Sherrod Brown
SBA......................................  Oregon International Port of Coos Bay for the business center incubator, Coos Bay, OR.........................................          $125,000  Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden
SBA......................................  Pellissippi Research Centre on the Oak Ridge Corridor, Alcoa, TN..............................................................          $650,000  Senator Lamar Alexander
SBA......................................  PIPELINE Entrepreneurial Fellowship, KS.......................................................................................          $125,000  Senator Sam Brownback
SBA......................................  Portland Community College, Swan Island Training Center, Portland, OR.........................................................          $125,000  Senators Jeff Merkley, Ron Wyden
SBA......................................  Prince George's County, Maryland, Africa Trade Office ``Farm to Port'' project, Largo, MD.....................................          $100,000  Senator Benjamin Cardin
SBA......................................  Regional Development Corporation, New Mexico Youth Entrepreneurship Network, Santa Fe, NM.....................................          $100,000  Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall
SBA......................................  Research and Technology Institute of West Michigan for InnovationWorks, technical assistance to inventors, entrepreneurs, and           $100,000  Senators Carl Levin, Debbie Stabenow
                                            existing businesses, Grand Rapids, MI.
SBA......................................  Rock Valley College, job training and small business counseling program, Rockford, IL.........................................          $200,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Rural Enterprise of Oklahoma, Small Business Resource Center, Cameron University, Lawton, OK..................................          $100,000  Senator James Inhofe
SBA......................................  Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Newark Campus, New Jersey Entrepreneurship Development Initiative, Newark, NJ....          $100,000  Senators Frank Lautenberg, Robert Menendez
SBA......................................  Safer Foundation, transitional employment program, Chicago, IL................................................................          $275,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Saint Xavier University, Minority small business initiative, Chicago, IL......................................................          $250,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Saratoga Economic Development Corporation, Saratoga Springs, NY...............................................................          $100,000  Senator Charles Schumer
SBA......................................  Sauk Valley Community College, Job training and certification program, Dixon, IL..............................................          $226,000  Senator Richard Durbin
SBA......................................  Seminole State College's Economic Development Program for Business Recruitment and Retention, Seminole, OK....................          $100,000  Senator James Inhofe
SBA......................................  Sirti Foundation for capacity building and education, technical assistance, and training for technology entrepreneurship,               $500,000  Senators Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell
                                            Spokane,  WA.
SBA......................................  Souris Basin Regional Planning Council, North Dakota Rural Economic Area Partnership Zones, Minot, ND.........................          $300,000  Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan
SBA......................................  Student Assistance Foundation for a financial education program, Helena, MT...................................................          $100,000  Senators Max Baucus, Jon Tester
SBA......................................  Taos Pueblo village economic development, Taos, NM............................................................................          $100,000  Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall
SBA......................................  Tapetes de Lana for economic development, Mora, NM............................................................................          $100,000  Senators Jeff Bingaman, Tom Udall
SBA......................................  The Enterprise Center, Minority Business Development Initiative, Philadelphia, PA.............................................          $100,000  Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter
SBA......................................  The Greater Harlem Chamber of Commerce, Upper Manhattan Tourism and Tourism Related Small Business Initiative, New York, NY...          $125,000  Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Charles
                                                                                                                                                                                              Schumer
SBA......................................  The Nussbaum Center for Entrepreneurship, Business Incubator Renovation, Greensboro, NC.......................................          $100,000  Senator Kay Hagan
SBA......................................  University at Albany, State University of New York, National Clearinghouse for Research and Education in Financial Market               $100,000  Senator Charles Schumer
                                            Regulation, Albany, NY.
SBA......................................  University of Alabama, Rural Health Entrepreneurial Development Project, Tuscaloosa, AL.......................................        $1,250,000  Senator Richard Shelby
SBA......................................  University of Arkansas at Little Rock, Small Business Innovation Center, Little Rock, AR......................................          $275,000  Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor
SBA......................................  University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, Business Support Incubator, Pine Bluff, AR..............................................          $275,000  Senators Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor
SBA......................................  University of Delaware, Delaware Small Business Development Center, Newark, DE................................................          $175,000  Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman
SBA......................................  University of Louisiana at Monroe, Business Incubator Renovation, LA..........................................................          $100,000  Senators David Vitter, Mary Landrieu
SBA......................................  University of Maine at Farmington, Western Maine Rural Small Business Initiative, Farmington, ME..............................          $550,000  Senator Susan Collins
SBA......................................  University of Memphis, Memphis Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Memphis, TN........................................          $400,000  Senator Lamar Alexander
SBA......................................  University of Mississippi, Technology Commercialization Initiative, Oxford, MS................................................          $250,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker
SBA......................................  University of Nevada Reno, Veteran Business and Workforce Development Initiative, Reno, NV....................................          $150,000  Senator Harry Reid
SBA......................................  University of Northern Iowa, MyEntre.Net, A National Entrepreneurship Support Network, Cedar Falls, IA........................          $250,000  Senators Tom Harkin, Charles Grassley
SBA......................................  University of Rhode Island Research Foundation, for technical assistance and outreach to support start-up and emerging                  $250,000  Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse
                                            businesses, South Kingstown, RI.
SBA......................................  University of South Florida Business Incubator Project, Bartow, FL............................................................          $200,000  Senator Bill Nelson
SBA......................................  University of Southern California, Center for Community Development, Los Angeles, CA..........................................          $500,000  Senators Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein
SBA......................................  University of Southern Mississippi, Early Stage Entrepreneur/Commercialization Development, Hattiesburg, MS...................          $650,000  Senators Thad Cochran, Roger Wicker
SBA......................................  University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for business development related to clean water technologies, Milwaukee, WI.................          $250,000  Senator Herb Kohl
SBA......................................  Urban League of Philadelphia Entrepreneurship Center, Philadelphia, PA........................................................           $50,000  Senators Robert Casey, Arlen Specter
SBA......................................  Vermont Worker's Center, financial literacy workshops, Chittenden County, VT..................................................           $75,000  Senator Bernard Sanders
SBA......................................  Virginia Community College System, Virginia Veterans Workforce Development Project, Richmond, VA..............................          $400,000  Senators Mark Warner, Jim Webb
SBA......................................  Washington Hancock Community Agency, Rural Business Energizer Program, Milbridge, ME..........................................          $200,000  Senators Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe
SBA......................................  West Virginia University at Parkersburg, downtown center economic development, Parkersburg, WV................................          $250,000  Senator John Rockefeller
SBA......................................  Western Kentucky University Bowling Green Data Center, Bowling Green, KY......................................................          $750,000  Senator Mitch McConnell
SBA......................................  Western Nevada College, Advanced Manufacturing Workforce Collaborative, Carson City, NV.......................................          $150,000  Senator Harry Reid
SBA......................................  Western New England College for an entrepreneurship initiative, Springfield, MA...............................................          $100,000  Senator John Kerry
SBA......................................  Western Washington University, National Center for Economic Vitality, Bellingham, WA..........................................          $300,000  Senator Patty Murray
SBA......................................  Williston State College for developing curriculum and delivery methods to address workforce shortage, Williston, ND...........          $100,000  Senators Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan
SBA......................................  Wilmington College, Kettering Agriculture and Life Science Small Business incubator, Wilmington, OH...........................          $200,000  Senator Sherrod Brown
SBA......................................  World Trade Center Institute Delaware, Online Training Program, Wilmington, DE................................................           $50,000  Senators Thomas Carper, Ted Kaufman
SBA......................................  YWCA Malden, Financial Education and Advancement for Micro-Enterprises and At-Risk Families, Malden, MA.......................          $100,000  Senator John Kerry
Treasury.................................  Bank On USA demonstration projects, HI........................................................................................        $2,400,000  Senators Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                   JUDICIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Account                                                                               Project                                                                  Funding                         Member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA......................................  California, Los Angeles, United States Courthouse.............................................................................       $92,000,000  The Judiciary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                                                                 PRESIDENTIALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Account                                                                               Project                                                                  Funding                         Member
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA......................................  California, Calexico, Calexico West Land Port of Entry........................................................................       $84,359,000  The President
GSA......................................  Colorado, Lakewood, Denver Federal Center Remediation.........................................................................        $7,957,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths DHS Consolidation and Development............................................      $267,675,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths West Campus Infrastructure...................................................       $99,281,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths Historic Preservation Mitigation.............................................        $4,990,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, St. Elizabeths Highway Interchange..........................................................        $8,350,000  The President
GSA......................................  Maine, Calais, Ferry Point Land Port of Entry.................................................................................        $1,552,000  The President
GSA......................................  Maryland, White Oak, Food and Drug Administration Consolidation...............................................................      $173,773,000  The President, Senators Benjamin Cardin,
                                                                                                                                                                                              Barbara Mikulski
GSA......................................  Michigan, Detroit, P. V. McNamara Federal Building FBI Garage.................................................................        $3,658,000  The President
GSA......................................  West Virginia, Martinsburg, IRS Annex.........................................................................................       $24,767,000  The President
GSA......................................  California, Los Angeles, Federal Building/Parking Garage......................................................................       $51,217,000  The President
GSA......................................  California, Richmond, Frank Hagel Federal Building............................................................................      $113,620,000  The President
GSA......................................  California, San Diego, Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse and Federal Building.......................................       $22,336,000  The President
GSA......................................  California, Van Nuys, James C. Corman Federal Building........................................................................       $11,039,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse...............................................       $22,900,000  The President
GSA......................................  District of Columbia, Washington, West Wing Design Phase II...................................................................        $6,245,000  The President
GSA......................................  Indiana, Indianapolis, Major General Emmett J. Bean Federal Center............................................................       $65,813,000  The President
GSA......................................  New York, New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse..........................................................       $28,000,000  The President
ONDCP....................................  National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws...................................................................................        $1,187,500  The President
ONDCP....................................  National Drug Court Institute.................................................................................................        $1,000,000  The President
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2011
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                             compared with (+ or -)
                                Item                                       2010       Budget estimate     Committee    ---------------------------------
                                                                      appropriation                     recommendation        2010
                                                                                                                         appropriation   Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
                        Departmental Offices
Salaries and expenses..............................................         304,888          346,401          334,900          +30,012          -11,501
    Executive direction............................................         (21,983)         (38,587)         (35,587)        (+13,604)         (-3,000)
    Economic policies and programs.................................         (47,249)         (70,562)         (68,362)        (+21,113)         (-2,200)
    Financial policies and programs................................         (48,580)         (91,212)         (84,912)        (+36,332)         (-6,300)
    Terrorism and financial intelligence...........................         (64,611)        (102,613)        (102,613)        (+38,002)  ...............
    Treasury-wide management.......................................         (22,679)         (43,426)         (43,426)        (+20,747)  ...............
    Administration.................................................         (99,786)  ...............  ...............        (-99,786)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         304,888          346,401          334,900          +30,012          -11,501
Department-wide systems and capital investments programs...........           9,544           22,000           13,000           +3,456           -9,000
Office of Inspector General........................................          29,700           30,269           33,269           +3,569           +3,000
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration..................         152,000          155,452          155,452           +3,452   ...............
Special Inspector General for TARP.................................          23,300           49,600           49,600          +26,300   ...............
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network...............................         111,010          100,419          121,669          +10,659          +21,250
Treasury forfeiture fund (rescission)..............................         -90,000          -62,000          -81,750           +8,250          -19,750
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Departmental Offices..................................         540,442          642,141          626,140          +85,698          -16,001
Financial Management Service.......................................         244,132          235,253          235,253           -8,879   ...............
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................         103,000          106,168          101,000           -2,000           -5,168
    Offsetting collections.........................................  ...............         -75,000   ...............  ...............         +75,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Direct appropriation.........................................         103,000           31,168          101,000           -2,000          +69,832
Bureau of the Public Debt..........................................         182,244          175,985          175,985           -6,259   ...............
Community development financial institutions fund program account..         246,750          250,000          302,400          +55,650          +52,400
    Capital Magnet Fund (by transfer)..............................         (80,000)  ...............  ...............        (-80,000)  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         246,750          250,000          302,400          +55,650          +52,400
Payment of government losses in shipment...........................           2,000            2,000            2,000   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Department of the Treasury, non-IRS...................       1,318,568        1,336,547        1,442,778         +124,210         +106,231
                      Internal Revenue Service
Taxpayer services..................................................       2,278,830        2,321,975        2,331,468          +52,638           +9,493
Enforcement........................................................       4,904,000        5,007,400        5,682,880         +778,880         +675,480
Enhanced tax enforcement activities................................         600,000          790,000   ...............        -600,000         -790,000
Operations support.................................................       4,083,884        4,108,000        4,088,000           +4,116          -20,000
Business systems modernization.....................................         263,897          386,908          386,908         +123,011   ...............
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration.........................          15,512           18,987           18,987           +3,475   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Internal Revenue Service..............................      12,146,123       12,633,270       12,508,243         +362,120         -125,027
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title I, Department of the Treasury...................      13,464,691       13,969,817       13,951,021         +486,330          -18,796
          Appropriations...........................................     (13,554,691)     (14,031,817)     (14,032,771)       (+478,080)           (+954)
          Rescissions..............................................        (-90,000)        (-62,000)        (-81,750)         (+8,250)        (-19,750)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
 TITLE II--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED
                          TO THE PRESIDENT
                          The White House
Salaries and expenses (including Office of Policy Development).....          59,143           59,859           59,859             +716   ...............
Compensation of the President......................................             450              450              450   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses.................................          59,593           60,309           60,309             +716   ...............
Executive Residence at the White House:
    Operating expenses.............................................          13,838           14,006           14,006             +168   ...............
    White House repair and restoration.............................           2,500            2,005            2,005             -495   ...............
Council of Economic Advisers.......................................           4,200            4,403            4,403             +203   ...............
National Security Council and Homeland Security Council............          12,231           14,134           14,134           +1,903   ...............
Office of Administration...........................................         115,280          115,280          115,280   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, The White House.......................................         207,642          210,137          210,137           +2,495   ...............
Office of Management and Budget....................................          92,863           92,863           94,863           +2,000           +2,000
Government-wide Management Councils................................         (17,000)         (20,000)         (17,000)  ...............         (-3,000)
               Office of National Drug Control Policy
Salaries and expenses..............................................          29,575           26,196           29,000             -575           +2,804
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center...........................           5,000   ...............  ...............          -5,000   ...............
High intensity drug trafficking areas program......................         239,000          209,950          239,000   ...............         +29,050
Other Federal drug control programs................................         154,400          165,300          175,825          +21,425          +10,525
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of National Drug Control Policy................         427,975          401,446          443,825          +15,850          +42,379
Unanticipated needs................................................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............
Partnership fund for program integrity innovation..................          37,500   ...............  ...............         -37,500   ...............
Integrated, efficient and effective uses of information technology.  ...............          50,000           40,000          +40,000          -10,000
Special Assistance to the President and Official Residence of the
 Vice President:
    Salaries and expenses..........................................           4,604            4,657            4,657              +53   ...............
    Operating expenses.............................................             330              335              335               +5   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title II, Executive Office of the President and Funds          771,914          760,438          794,817          +22,903          +34,379
       Appropriated to the President...............................
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                      TITLE III--THE JUDICIARY
                 Supreme Court of the United States
Salaries and expenses:
    Salaries of justices...........................................           2,166            2,197            2,197              +31   ...............
    Other salaries and expenses....................................          71,868           75,561           75,561           +3,693   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................          74,034           77,758           77,758           +3,724   ...............
Care of the building and grounds...................................          14,525           14,788           14,788             +263   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Supreme Court of the United States....................          88,559           92,546           92,546           +3,987   ...............
       United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Salaries and expenses:
    Salaries of judges.............................................           2,491            2,502            2,502              +11   ...............
    Other salaries and expenses....................................          30,069           33,357           31,418           +1,349           -1,939
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed Circuit.............          32,560           35,859           33,920           +1,360           -1,939
             United States Court of International Trade
Salaries and expenses:
    Salaries of judges.............................................           1,715            1,851            1,851             +136   ...............
    Other salaries and expenses....................................          19,635           20,417           20,417             +782   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, U.S. Court of International Trade.....................          21,350           22,268           22,268             +918   ...............
  Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
Salaries and expenses:
    Salaries of judges and bankruptcy judges.......................         340,000          332,565          318,419          -21,581          -14,146
    Other salaries and expenses....................................       4,671,018        4,977,216        4,921,632         +250,614          -55,584
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Salaries and expenses..............................       5,011,018        5,309,781        5,240,051         +229,033          -69,730
Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.............................           5,428            4,785            4,785             -643   ...............
Defender services..................................................         977,748        1,081,195        1,072,253          +94,505           -8,942
Fees of jurors and commissioners...................................          61,861           64,108           55,590           -6,271           -8,518
Court security.....................................................         452,607          495,038          495,038          +42,431   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial       6,508,662        6,954,907        6,867,717         +359,055          -87,190
       Services....................................................
         Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Salaries and expenses..............................................          83,075           87,255           87,255           +4,180   ...............
                      Federal Judicial Center
Salaries and expenses..............................................          27,328           28,694           28,694           +1,366   ...............
                     Judicial Retirement Funds
Payment to judiciary trust funds...................................          82,374           90,361           90,361           +7,987   ...............
                United States Sentencing Commission
Salaries and expenses..............................................          16,837           17,595           17,595             +758   ...............
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title III, the Judiciary..............................       6,860,745        7,329,485        7,240,356         +379,611          -89,129
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                   TITLE IV--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                           FEDERAL FUNDS
Federal payment for Resident Tuition Support.......................          35,100           35,100           35,100   ...............  ...............
Federal payment for Emergency Planning and Security Costs in the             15,000           15,000           15,000   ...............  ...............
 District of Columbia..............................................
Federal payment to the District of Columbia Courts.................         261,180          247,400          258,351           -2,829          +10,951
Federal payment for defender services in the in District of                  55,000           55,000           55,000   ...............  ...............
 Columbia Courts...................................................
Federal payment to the Court Services and Offender Supervision              212,408          217,783          217,783           +5,375   ...............
 Agency for the District of Columbia...............................
Federal payment to the District of Columbia Public Defender Service          37,316           40,690           40,690           +3,374   ...............
Federal payment to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer                  20,000           25,000           25,000           +5,000   ...............
 Authority.........................................................
Federal payment to the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council.......           2,000            1,800            1,800             -200   ...............
Federal payment for judicial commissions...........................             500              500              500   ...............  ...............
Federal payment to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer of the           1,850   ...............           1,000             -850           +1,000
 District of Columbia..............................................
Federal payment for school improvement.............................          75,400           52,400           52,400          -23,000   ...............
Federal payment to jump start public school reform.................  ...............          20,000           20,000          +20,000   ...............
Federal payment for consolidated laboratory facility...............          15,000   ...............  ...............         -15,000   ...............
Federal payment for the D.C. National Guard........................             375            2,000            1,375           +1,000             -625
Federal payment for housing for the homeless.......................          17,000           10,000           10,000           -7,000   ...............
Federal payment for youth services.................................           4,000   ...............  ...............          -4,000   ...............
Federal payment for redevelopment of the St. Elizabeths Hospital     ...............           2,000            2,000           +2,000   ...............
 campus............................................................
Federal payment for HIV/AIDS prevention............................  ...............           5,000            3,000           +3,000           -2,000
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, Title IV, District of Columbia........................         752,129          729,673          738,999          -13,130           +9,326
                                                                    ====================================================================================
                TITLE V--OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Administrative Conference of the United States.....................           1,500            3,200            3,200           +1,700   ...............
Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation.........................             750   ...............             750   ...............            +750
Commodity Futures Trading Commission...............................         168,800          216,000          286,000         +117,200          +70,000
    Financial regulatory reform contingent appropriations..........  ...............          45,000   ...............  ...............         -45,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Commodity Futures Trading Commission..................         168,800          261,000          286,000         +117,200          +25,000
Consumer Product Safety Commission.................................         118,200          118,600          118,600             +400   ...............
                   Election Assistance Commission
Salaries and expenses..............................................          17,959           16,800           16,800           -1,159   ...............
Election reform programs...........................................          75,000   ...............  ...............         -75,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Election Assistance Commission........................          92,959           16,800           16,800          -76,159   ...............
                 Federal Communications Commission
Salaries and expenses..............................................         335,794          352,500          355,500          +19,706           +3,000
Offsetting fee collections--current year...........................        -335,794         -351,500         -355,500          -19,706           -4,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Direct appropriation.........................................  ...............           1,000   ...............  ...............          -1,000
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: Office of Inspector General          (37,942)         (47,916)         (47,916)         (+9,974)  ...............
 (by transfer).....................................................
Federal Election Commission........................................          66,500           68,800           70,800           +4,300           +2,000
Federal Labor Relations Authority..................................          24,773           26,000           26,000           +1,227   ...............
                      Federal Trade Commission
Salaries and expenses..............................................         291,700          314,000          314,000          +22,300   ...............
Offsetting fee collections--current year...........................        -102,000          -96,000          -96,000           +6,000   ...............
Offsetting fee collections, telephone database.....................         -21,000          -19,000          -21,000   ...............          -2,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Direct appropriation.........................................         168,700          199,000          197,000          +28,300           -2,000
                  General Services Administration
                       Federal Buildings Fund
Appropriations.....................................................        (537,900)        (291,900)        (296,800)       (-241,100)         (+4,900)
Limitations on availability of revenue:
    Construction and acquisition of facilities.....................         894,037          676,362          768,362         -125,675          +92,000
    Repairs and alterations........................................         413,776          703,467          716,367         +302,591          +12,900
    Installment acquisition payments...............................         140,525          135,540          135,540           -4,985   ...............
    Rental of space................................................       4,804,871        5,291,946        5,216,946         +412,075          -75,000
    Building operations............................................       2,290,376        2,346,348        2,321,348          +30,972          -25,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Limitations on availability of revenue.............       8,543,585        9,153,663        9,158,563         +614,978           +4,900
Repayment of debt..................................................          66,360           71,270           71,270           +4,910   ...............
Rental income to fund..............................................      -8,223,000       -8,871,000       -8,871,000         -648,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Federal Buildings Fund................................         386,945          353,933          358,833          -28,112           +4,900
Government-wide policy.............................................          59,665           85,121           77,621          +17,956           -7,500
Operating expenses.................................................          72,881           72,203           72,203             -678   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................          59,000           62,905           61,025           +2,025           -1,880
Electronic Government Fund.........................................          34,000           35,000           20,000          -14,000          -15,000
Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents..................           3,756            3,907            3,907             +151   ...............
Federal acquisition workforce initiatives fund.....................  ...............          24,900           17,000          +17,000           -7,900
Federal Citizen Information Center Fund............................          36,515           36,825           36,825             +310   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, General Services Administration.......................         652,762          674,794          647,414           -5,348          -27,380
Harry S Truman Scholarship Foundation..............................             660   ...............             950             +290             +950
                   Merit Systems Protection Board
Salaries and expenses..............................................          40,339           41,621           41,621           +1,282   ...............
Limitation on administrative expenses..............................           2,579            2,579            2,579   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Merit Systems Protection Board........................          42,918           44,200           44,200           +1,282   ...............
          Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation
Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Trust Fund....................           2,500            2,200            3,000             +500             +800
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund..............................           3,800            3,800            3,800   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Morris K. Udall and Stewart L. Udall Foundation.......           6,300            6,000            6,800             +500             +800
            National Archives and Records Administration
Operating expenses.................................................         339,770          348,689          348,689           +8,919   ...............
    Reduction of debt..............................................         -13,000          -14,000          -14,000           -1,000   ...............
Office of the Inspector General....................................           4,100            4,250            4,250             +150   ...............
Electronic records archive.........................................          85,500           85,500           72,000          -13,500          -13,500
Repairs and restoration............................................          27,500           11,848           11,848          -15,652   ...............
National Historical Publications and Records Commission: Grants              13,000           10,000           10,000           -3,000   ...............
 program...........................................................
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, National Archives and Records Admin...................         456,870          446,287          432,787          -24,083          -13,500
                National Credit Union Administration
Central liquidity facility:
    (Limitation on admin expenses, corporate funds)................          (1,250)          (1,250)          (1,250)  ...............  ...............
Community development credit union revolving loan fund.............           1,250            2,000            2,000             +750   ...............
Office of Government Ethics........................................          14,000           14,227           14,227             +227   ...............
                   Office of Personnel Management
Salaries and expenses..............................................         102,970           95,769           96,439           -6,531             +670
    Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities................  ...............             670   ...............  ...............            -670
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         102,970           96,439           96,439           -6,531   ...............
    Limitation on administrative expenses..........................         112,738          121,738          121,738           +9,000   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................           3,148            2,136            3,322             +174           +1,186
    Limitation on administrative expenses..........................          21,215           20,428           21,888             +673           +1,460
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits.............       9,814,000       10,467,000       10,467,000         +653,000   ...............
Govt Payment for Annuitants, Employee Life Insurance...............          48,000           50,000           50,000           +2,000   ...............
Payment to Civil Svc Retirement and Disability Fund................      10,276,000       10,076,000       10,076,000         -200,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Office of Personnel Management........................      20,378,071       20,833,741       20,836,387         +458,316           +2,646
          Mandatory................................................     (20,138,000)     (20,593,000)     (20,593,000)       (+455,000)  ...............
          Discretionary............................................        (240,071)        (240,741)        (243,387)         (+3,316)         (+2,646)
Office of Special Counsel..........................................          18,495           19,486           19,486             +991   ...............
Postal Regulatory Commission.......................................          14,333           14,450           14,450             +117   ...............
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board........................           1,500            1,683            1,500   ...............            -183
                 Securities and Exchange Commission
Salaries and expenses..............................................       1,111,000        1,234,000        1,300,000         +189,000          +66,000
    Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities................  ...............             483   ...............  ...............            -483
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................       1,111,000        1,234,483        1,300,000         +189,000          +65,517
Prior year unobligated balances....................................         -16,084   ...............  ...............         +16,084   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Direct appropriation.........................................       1,094,916        1,258,483        1,300,000         +205,084          +41,517
Financial regulatory reform, contingent appropriations.............  ...............          24,000   ...............  ...............         -24,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Direct appropriation.........................................  ...............          24,000   ...............  ...............         -24,000
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Securities and Exchange Commission....................       1,094,916        1,258,483        1,300,000         +205,084          +41,517
Selective Service System...........................................          24,275           25,400           25,400           +1,125   ...............
                   Small Business Administration
Salaries and expenses..............................................         433,438          444,269          464,000          +30,562          +19,731
    Acquisition workforce capacity and capabilities................  ...............           1,767   ...............  ...............          -1,767
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal.....................................................         433,438          446,036          464,000          +30,562          +17,964
Office of Inspector General........................................          16,300           18,000           18,000           +1,700   ...............
Surety bond guarantees revolving fund..............................           1,000            1,000            1,000   ...............  ...............
Business Loans Program Account:
    Direct loans subsidy...........................................           3,000            3,765            4,000           +1,000             +235
    Guaranteed loans subsidy.......................................          80,000          165,386          195,386         +115,386          +30,000
    Administrative expenses........................................         153,000          157,000          157,000           +4,000   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Business loans program account........................         236,000          326,151          356,386         +120,386          +30,235
Disaster Loans Program Account:
    Guaranteed loans subsidy.......................................           1,690   ...............  ...............          -1,690   ...............
    Administrative expenses........................................          76,588          203,000          203,000         +126,412   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Disaster loans program account........................          78,278          203,000          203,000         +124,722   ...............
Salaries and expenses (Sec. 523)...................................          59,000   ...............          60,600           +1,600          +60,600
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Small Business Administration.........................         824,016          994,187        1,102,986         +278,970         +108,799
                    United States Postal Service
Payment to the Postal Service Fund.................................          29,000           29,000           29,000   ...............  ...............
    Advance appropriations.........................................          89,328           74,905           74,905          -14,423   ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Payment to the Postal Service Fund....................         118,328          103,905          103,905          -14,423   ...............
Office of Inspector General........................................         244,397          244,397          244,397   ...............  ...............
                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, United States Postal Service..........................         362,725          348,302          348,302          -14,423   ...............
United States Tax Court............................................          49,241           52,201           54,625           +5,384           +2,424
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Total, title V, Independent Agencies.........................      24,584,514       25,429,841       25,570,664         +986,150         +140,823
          Appropriations...........................................     (24,495,186)     (25,354,936)     (25,495,759)     (+1,000,573)       (+140,823)
          Advances.................................................         (89,328)         (74,905)         (74,905)        (-14,423)  ...............
          (by transfer)............................................         (37,942)         (47,916)         (47,916)         (+9,974)  ...............
      (Discretionary total)........................................      (4,446,514)      (4,836,841)      (4,977,664)       (+531,150)       (+140,823)
                                                                    ====================================================================================
      Grand total..................................................      46,433,993       48,219,254       48,295,857       +1,861,864          +76,603
          Appropriations...........................................     (46,434,665)     (48,206,349)     (48,302,702)     (+1,868,037)        (+96,353)
          Rescissions..............................................        (-90,000)        (-62,000)        (-81,750)         (+8,250)        (-19,750)
          Advances.................................................         (89,328)         (74,905)         (74,905)        (-14,423)  ...............
          (by transfer)............................................        (117,942)         (47,916)         (47,916)        (-70,026)  ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------