Assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis consist of the following as of December 31, 2010 and 2009:
## Table 0 ##
In addition to $105 million invested in money market and government funds as of December 31, 2010, we had $16 million of cash invested in short-term time deposits, and $92 million in interest bearing and non-interest bearing bank accounts.
In addition to $405 million invested in money market and government funds as of December 31, 2009, we had $346 million of cash invested in short-term time deposits, and $113 million in interest bearing and non-interest bearing bank accounts.
Changes in the fair value of recurring fair value measurements using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3) during the year ended December 31, 2010 were as follows (in millions):
## Table 1 ##
Non-Recurring Fair Value Measurements We hold certain assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a non-recurring basis in periods subsequent to initial recognition.
The fair value of a cost method investment is not estimated if there are no identified events or changes in circumstances that may have a significant adverse effect on the fair value of the investment.
The aggregate carrying amount of our cost method investments was $43 million as of December 31, 2010 and $58 million as of December 31, 2009.
During 2010, we recorded $1.882 billion of impairment charges to adjust our goodwill and certain intangible assets to their fair values, and $16 million of losses to write down certain cost method investments to their fair values, because we deemed the decline in the values of the investments to be other-thantemporary.
We wrote down goodwill attributable to our U. S.  CRM reporting unit, discussed in Note D—Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets, with a carrying amount of $3.296 billion to its estimated fair value of $1.479 billion, resulting in a write-down of $1.817 billion.
In addition, we recorded a loss of $60 million to write down certain of our Peripheral Interventions intangible assets, discussed in Note D, to their estimated fair values of $14 million; and a loss of $5 million, discussed in Note D, to write off the remaining value associated with certain other intangible assets.
These adjustments fall within Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, due to the use of significant unobservable inputs to determine fair value.
The fair value measurements were calculated using unobservable inputs, primarily using the income approach, specifically the discounted cash flow method.
The amount and timing of future cash flows within our analysis was based on our most recent operational budgets, long range strategic plans and other estimates.
The fair value of our outstanding debt obligations was $5.654 billion as of December 31, 2010 and $6.111 billion as of December 31, 2009, which was determined by using primarily quoted market prices for our publicly registered senior notes, classified as Level 1 within the fair value hierarchy.
Refer to Note G—Borrowings and Credit Arrangements for a discussion of our debt obligations.
recognized the associated revenue over the related service period.
On January 1, 2011, we adopted ASC Update No.2009- 13, Revenue Recognition (Topic 605)- Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements.
The consensus in Update No.2009-13 supersedes certain guidance in Topic 605 (formerly EITF Issue No.00-21, Multiple-Element Arrangements).
Update No.2009-13 provides principles and application guidance to determine whether multiple deliverables exist, how the individual deliverables should be separated and how to allocate the revenue in the arrangement among those separate deliverables, including requiring the use of the relative selling price method.
The adoption of Update No.2009-13 did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.
We generally allow our customers to return defective, damaged and, in certain cases, expired products for credit.
We base our estimate for sales returns upon historical trends and record the amount as a reduction to revenue when we sell the initial product.
In addition, we may allow customers to return previously purchased products for next-generation product offerings.
For these transactions, we defer recognition of revenue on the sale of the earlier generation product based upon an estimate of the amount of product to be returned when the next-generation products are shipped to the customer.
We also offer sales rebates and discounts to certain customers.
We treat sales rebates and discounts as a reduction of revenue and classify the corresponding liability as current.
We estimate rebates for products where there is sufficient historical information available to predict the volume of expected future rebates.
If we are unable to estimate the expected rebates reasonably, we record a liability for the maximum rebate percentage offered.
We have entered certain agreements with group purchasing organizations to sell our products to participating hospitals at negotiated prices.
We recognize revenue from these agreements following the same revenue recognition criteria discussed above.
Warranty Obligations We offer warranties on certain of our product offerings.
Approximately 85 percent of our warranty liability as of December 31, 2010 related to implantable devices offered by our CRM business, which include defibrillator and pacemaker systems.
Our CRM products come with a standard limited warranty covering the replacement of these devices.
We offer a full warranty for a portion of the period post-implant, and a partial warranty over the remainder of the useful life of the product.
We estimate the costs that we may incur under our warranty programs based on the number of units sold, historical and anticipated rates of warranty claims and cost per claim, and record a liability equal to these estimated costs as cost of products sold at the time the product sale occurs.
We assess the adequacy of our recorded warranty liabilities on a quarterly basis and adjust these amounts as necessary.
Changes in our product warranty accrual during 2010, 2009 and 2008 consisted of the following (in millions):
## Table 2 ##
Inventories We state inventories at the lower of first-in, first-out cost or market.
We base our provisions for excess, expired and obsolete inventory primarily on our estimates of forecasted net sales.
A significant change in the timing or level of demand for our products as compared to forecasted amounts may result in recording additional provisions for excess, expired and obsolete inventory in the future.
Further, the industry in which we participate is characterized by rapid product development and frequent new product introductions.
Uncertain timing of next-generation product approvals, variability in product launch strategies, product recalls and variation in product utilization all affect our estimates related to excess, expired and obsolete inventory.
Approximately 40 percent of our finished goods inventory as of December 31, 2010 and 2009 was at customer locations pursuant to consignment arrangements.
Property, Plant and Equipment We state property, plant, equipment, and leasehold improvements at historical cost.
We charge expenditures for maintenance and repairs to expense and capitalize additions and improvements that extend the life of the underlying asset.
We generally provide for depreciation using the straight-line method at rates that approximate the estimated useful lives of the assets.
We depreciate buildings and improvements over a 20 to 40 year life; equipment, furniture and fixtures over a three to ten year life; and leasehold improvements over the shorter of the useful life of the improvement or the term of the related lease.
Depreciation expense was $303 million in 2010, $323 million in 2009, and $321 million in 2008.
ASIAN INDUSTRIAL PACKAGING net sales for 2007 were $265 million compared with $180 million in 2006.
In 2005, net sales were $105 million subsequent to International Paper’s acquisition of a majority interest in this business in August 2005.
Operating profits totaled $6 million in 2007 and $3 million in 2006, compared with a loss of $4 million in 2005.
Consumer Packaging Demand and pricing for Consumer Packaging products correlate closely with consumer spending and general economic activity.
In addition to prices and volumes, major factors affecting the profitability of Consumer Packaging are raw material and energy costs, freight costs, manufacturing efficiency and product mix.
CONSUMER PACKAGING net sales increased 12% compared with 2006 and 24% compared with 2005.
Operating profits rose 15% from 2006 and 24% from 2005 levels.
Benefits from improved average sales price realizations ($52 million), higher sales volumes for U. S.  and European coated paperboard ($9 million), favorable mill operations ($14 million) and contributions from International Paper & Sun Cartonboard Co. , Ltd.  acquired in 2006 ($16 million), were partially offset by higher raw material and energy costs ($53 million), an unfavorable mix of products sold ($4 million), increased freight costs ($5 million) and other costs ($3 million).

<table><tr><td>Contingent consideration liability recorded</td><td>$-69</td></tr><tr><td>Fair value adjustment</td><td>-2</td></tr><tr><td> Balanceas of December 31, 2010</td><td>$-71</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="4"> As of December 31, 2010</td><td colspan="4"> As of December 31, 2009</td></tr><tr><td><i>(in millions)</i></td><td> Level 1</td><td> Level 2</td><td> Level 3</td><td> Total</td><td> Level 1</td><td> Level 2</td><td> Level 3</td><td> Total</td></tr><tr><td> Assets</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Money market funds</td><td>$105</td><td></td><td></td><td>$105</td><td>$405</td><td></td><td></td><td>$405</td></tr><tr><td>Currency hedge contracts</td><td></td><td>$82</td><td></td><td>82</td><td></td><td>56</td><td></td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$105</td><td>$82</td><td></td><td>$187</td><td>$405</td><td>$56</td><td></td><td>$461</td></tr><tr><td> Liabilities</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Currency hedge contracts</td><td></td><td>$189</td><td></td><td>$189</td><td></td><td>$110</td><td></td><td>$110</td></tr><tr><td>Accruedcontingent consideration</td><td></td><td></td><td>$71</td><td>71</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td>$189</td><td>$71</td><td>$260</td><td></td><td>$110</td><td></td><td>$110</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td></td><td colspan="3">Year Ended December 31,</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2010</td><td>2009</td><td>2008</td></tr><tr><td> Beginning balance</td><td>$55</td><td>$62</td><td>$66</td></tr><tr><td>Provision</td><td>15</td><td>29</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>Settlements/ reversals</td><td>-27</td><td>-36</td><td>-39</td></tr><tr><td> Ending balance</td><td>$43</td><td>$55</td><td>$62</td></tr></table>

Question: What's the difference of Total of Currency hedge contracts between 2010 and 2009? (in million)
Answer: 79.0