```

[Senate Report 110-426]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 890
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     110-426

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

 
   AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2009
                                _______
                                

    July 21 (legislative day, July 17), 2008.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                                 REPORT

                         [To accompany S. 3289]

    The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 3289) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, 
reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2009

Total of bill as reported to the Senate................. $97,203,926,000
Amount of 2008 appropriations...........................  90,651,967,000
Amount of 2009 budget estimate..........................  95,543,969,000
Bill as recommended to Senate compared to--
    2008 appropriations.................................  +6,551,959,000
    2009 budget estimate................................  +1,659,957,000

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Summary of the Bill:
    Overview and Summary of the Bill.............................     5
    Fiscal Constraints on the Agriculture, Rural Development, 
      Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
      Subcommittee...............................................     5
    Reports to Congress..........................................     6
    USDA Departmental Office of Ethics Activities................     7
Title I:
    Agricultural Programs:
        Production, Processing, and Marketing:
            Office of the Secretary..............................     8
            Executive Operations.................................    10
            Office of the Chief Information Officer..............    11
            Office of the Chief Financial Officer................    12
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights...    12
            Office of Civil Rights...............................    13
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.    13
            Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental 
              Payments...........................................    13
            Hazardous Materials Management.......................    14
            Departmental Administration..........................    14
            Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
              Relations..........................................    15
            Office of Communications.............................    15
            Office of Inspector General..........................    16
            Office of the General Counsel........................    16
            Office of the Under Secretary for Research, 
              Education, and Economics...........................    17
            Economic Research Service............................    18
            National Agricultural Statistics Service.............    19
            Agricultural Research Service........................    19
            Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
              Service............................................    24
            Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
              Regulatory Programs................................    34
            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...........    34
            Agricultural Marketing Service.......................    46
            Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 
              Administration.....................................    49
            Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety........    50
            Food Safety and Inspection Service...................    50
            Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
              Agricultural Services..............................    52
            Farm Service Agency..................................    52
            Risk Management Agency...............................    56
        Corporations:
            Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund..............    57
            Commodity Credit Corporation Fund....................    57
Title II:
    Conservation Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
          Environment............................................    60
        Natural Resources Conservation Service...................    61
Title III:
    Rural Development Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development......    70
        Rural Housing Service....................................    71
        Rural Business--Cooperative Service......................    79
        Renewable Energy Program.................................    83
        Rural Utilities Service..................................    84
Title IV:
    Domestic Food Programs:
        Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and 
          Consumer Services......................................    90
        Food and Nutrition Service...............................    90
Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign 
  Agricultural Service...........................................   100
Title VI:
    Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration:
        Food and Drug Administration.............................   106
        Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration...........   113
Title VII: General Provisions....................................   114
Program, Project, and Activity...................................   117
Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the Sen- 
  ate............................................................   117
Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 
  of the Senate..................................................   118
Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of 
  the 
  Senate.........................................................   118
Budgetary Impact of Bill.........................................   121
Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items............   121

                           BREAKDOWN BY TITLE

    The amounts of obligational authority for each of the seven 
titles are shown in the following table. A detailed tabulation, 
showing comparisons, appears at the end of this report. 
Recommendations for individual appropriation items, projects 
and activities are carried in this report under the appropriate 
item headings.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2009 Committee
                                           2008          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I: Agricultural programs....         24,450,902         24,412,241
Title II: Conservation programs...            937,547            970,163
Title III: Rural economic and               2,333,957          2,887,855
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..         60,056,845         65,011,562
Title V: Foreign assistance and             1,476,470          1,503,056
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agency and FDA..          1,716,770          2,051,397
Title VII: General provisions.....            -56,068           -100,048
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                    90,916,423         96,736,226
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing, 
economic and community development, and telecommunication and 
electrification assistance; and various export and 
international activities of the USDA.
    The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA].
    Given the budgetary constraints that the Committee faces, 
the bill as reported provides the proper amount of emphasis on 
agricultural and rural development programs and on other 
programs and activities funded by the bill. It is within the 
subcommittee's allocation for fiscal year 2009.
    All accounts in the bill have been closely examined to 
ensure that an appropriate level of funding is provided to 
carry out the programs of USDA, FDA, and FCA. Details on each 
of the accounts, the funding level, and the Committee's 
justifications for the funding levels are included in the 
report.
    The Committee has encouraged the consideration of grant and 
loan applications from various entities. The Committee expects 
the Department only to approve those applications judged 
meritorious when subjected to the established review process.

FISCAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 
            ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES SUBCOMMITEE

    Programmatic demands on the Appropriations subcommittee on 
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies (Agriculture subcommittee) have escalated 
at a rapid pace over the past several years. The President's 
budget for agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee 
for fiscal year 2009 demonstrates a major failure to recognize 
the expectations of the American people who rely on programs 
that provide basic safeguards for public safety and a 
reasonable level of Federal support for basic services. This is 
especially true for programs impacted by rapidly rising food 
costs, some of which the President proposed to eliminate. 
Similarly, while the President did propose a $500,000,000 
increase in rental subsidies for rural families otherwise faced 
with eviction this coming year, the budget also proposed to 
eliminate more than $1,000,000,000 in single family housing 
loans that would otherwise help rural households cope with the 
ongoing housing crisis. The costs to maintain these vital 
services are a responsibility taken seriously by the 
Agriculture subcommittee which refuses to turn a blind eye on 
those Americans who rely on these programs for protection and 
to sustain a modest standard of living for their families.
    The Congress has recently enacted a $300,000,000,000 farm 
bill, yet that legislation failed to provide the United States 
Department of Agriculture [USDA] the resources necessary to 
carry out these expanding farm bill programs and that burden 
has fallen squarely on the Agriculture subcommittee. Systems 
failures experienced by USDA in recent years due to antiquated 
technologies will only worsen given the new demands placed on 
agency personnel and equipment without prudent investment to 
maintain and upgrade human and technological capital. A new 
Farm Bill will provide little benefit to the American people if 
USDA is allowed to suffer further erosion in staffing 
resources, tools for program administration, and workplace 
safety requirements. The Agriculture subcommittee believes the 
agencies under its jurisdiction should be provided resources 
necessary to ensure that USDA lives up to its expectations as 
one of the major departments of the Federal Government, and 
should not be allowed to fall into decline.
    The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] holds a 
responsibility for public heath and safety unequaled by any 
other agency in the Federal Government. Every American relies 
each and every day on items for which FDA is charged with 
ensuring product safety and efficacy. Yet historic growth in 
drug and device technologies and a rapid expansion in the 
global marketplace for food and other products have placed 
extraordinary pressure on FDA's comparatively modest resources. 
As a result, American consumer confidence is at risk and 
Americans are questioning the safety of the food they consume 
and the pharmaceuticals and medical treatments their doctors 
prescribe and pharmacists dispense. Clearly, providing 
necessary resources to FDA is a paramount responsibility of the 
Agriculture subcommittee.
    For the reasons stated above, the fiscal constraints on the 
Agriculture subcommittee for fiscal year 2009 are severe. 
Accordingly, the Committee recommends programmatic increases 
that are directly tied to the most basic of Federal 
responsibilities. Namely, these include public (including food 
and drug) safety, food security, family shelter, protection 
from invasive species and related emergency threats, and 
departmental/agency integrity (including workplace safety and 
security). These limitations are sobering. However, given the 
limited resources, the growing demands, and the expectations of 
the American people, the Committee believes the priorities set 
forth in this appropriations bill are the right and necessary 
investments at this time.

                          REPORTS TO CONGRESS

    The Committee has, throughout this report, requested 
agencies to provide studies and reports on various issues. The 
Committee utilizes these reports to evaluate program 
performance and make decisions on future appropriations. The 
Committee requests that all studies and reports be provided as 
one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120 
days after the date of enactment, unless an alternative 
submission schedule is specifically stated in the report 
request.

             USDA DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE OF ETHICS ACTIVITIES

    In order to streamline and make more efficient the USDA 
Office of Ethics activities, the President's budget assumes the 
transfer of $3,424,000 from multiple agencies within the 
Department to a centralized Office of Ethics within the 
Departmental Administration account. The Committee concurs with 
this action and the account for each affected agency, as 
reflected in the fiscal year 2008 level, includes a reduction 
by the amount transferred to Departmental Administration for 
this purpose.

                                TITLE I

                         AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

                 Production, Processing, and Marketing

                        Office of the Secretary

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $5,061,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      19,749,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,174,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture, assisted by the Deputy 
Secretary, Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries, Chief 
Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and members of 
their immediate staffs, directs and coordinates the work of the 
Department. This includes developing policy, maintaining 
relationships with agricultural organizations and others in the 
development of farm programs, and maintaining liaison with the 
Executive Office of the President and Members of Congress on 
all matters pertaining to agricultural policy.
    The general authority of the Secretary to supervise and 
control the work of the Department is contained in the Organic 
Act (7 U.S.C. 2201-2202). The delegation of regulatory 
functions to Department employees and authorization of 
appropriations to carry out these functions is contained in 7 
U.S.C. 450c-450g.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,174,000 for 
the Office of the Secretary.
    Animal Fighting.--The Committee is very concerned about 
reports of illegal animal fighting activities and directs the 
Secretary to work with relevant agencies on the most effective 
and proper means for investigating and enforcing laws and 
regulations regarding these activities.
    Civil Rights.--Recent testimony presented by the Government 
Accountability Office paints a very disturbing picture of the 
management of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 
Rights. According to GAO, the office among other deficiencies, 
is incapable of accurately tracking the number of complaints, a 
most basic function. Because this has been an ongoing issue for 
the Department, the Committee can only believe this is due to a 
lack of commitment to the mission of the office. The Committee 
directs the Secretary to personally review the situation, and 
then develop and implement a plan that will effectively 
eliminate the current backlog in a timely manner, while also 
putting USDA on a footing to prevent a backlog from developing 
in the future. The Secretary may not delegate this directive. 
The Secretary shall submit the required plan to the Committee 
no later than October 15, 2008.
    Greenbook and Working Capital Fund Charges.--The Committee 
is concerned that charges assessed to agencies by the USDA have 
grown excessively over the last few years. The disclosure of 
these charges to Congress is limited and may impact program 
delivery. Beginning with the fiscal year 2010 budget submission 
and for each year thereafter, the Committee directs the USDA to 
explicitly present greenbook and working capital fund charges 
for each agency in budget justifications, including prior year, 
current year, and budget year charges, a description of how the 
charges are assessed, and the proposed use of the funding that 
has been charged to the agency.
    Inherent Function of Government.--The Committee expects 
that none of the funds recommended for Rural Development or the 
Farm Service Agency should be used to enter into or renew a 
contract for any activity that is best suited as an inherent 
function of Government, without prior approval from the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate. Such 
activities may include, but are not limited to, any function 
that affects eligibility determination, disbursement, 
collection or accounting for Government subsidies provided 
under any of the direct or guaranteed loan programs of the 
Rural Development mission area or the Farm Service Agency.
    International Humanitarian Food Assistance.--The Committee 
continues its strong support for programs that provide 
emergency food assistance throughout the world and work to 
achieve sustainable food security. Contributions by individuals 
with special expertise in humanitarian food assistance and 
international agricultural challenges are extremely critical as 
we witness a rising crisis of world hunger due in part to 
climate change, shifting world commodity markets, civil unrest 
and other factors. Funds are provided in this bill to support 
the Borlaug Fellowship Program, authorized in the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, and the Committee 
believes this program will play an important role in expanding 
the agricultural knowledge base throughout the world in order 
to increase food production on a sustainable basis. In 
addition, the Committee is aware of the ``Borlaug Dialogue'' 
(and its associated functions) which provides a forum for world 
leadership related to international food assistance. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to support this activity and 
for the Department to maintain a strong role in the fight 
against world hunger.
    The differing nutritional needs of populations, 
particularly in areas with high incidents of HIV/AIDS and other 
diseases, makes the composition and quality of foods available 
through programs such as Public Law 480 and the McGovern-Dole 
Food for Education Program extremely important elements in the 
delivery of humanitarian food assistance. The Committee is 
aware that the Department has taken actions within USDA during 
fiscal year 2008 to ensure that food aid recipients have access 
to products that better reflect dietary needs among varying 
populations. However, these steps have not yet translated to 
actual procurement and distribution changes in the field. The 
Secretary is directed to continue working with the U.S. Agency 
for International Development and affected stakeholders toward 
modifications which are necessary to improve nutritional 
benefits while maintaining efficiency in procurement and 
payment practices. The Committee further requests the 
Department to keep the Committee apprised of ongoing studies on 
this subject.

                          Executive Operations

    Executive operations were established as a result of the 
reorganization of the Department to provide a support team for 
USDA policy officials and selected departmentwide services. 
Activities under the executive operations include the Office of 
the Chief Economist, the National Appeals Division, the Office 
of Budget and Program Analysis, and the Office of Homeland 
Security.

                            CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $10,414,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      12,584,000
Committee recommendation................................      10,651,000

    The Office of the Chief Economist advises the Secretary of 
Agriculture on the economic implications of Department policies 
and programs. The Office serves as the single focal point for 
the Nation's economic intelligence and analysis, risk 
assessment, energy and new uses, and cost-benefit analysis 
related to domestic and international food and agriculture 
issues, and is responsible for coordination and review of all 
commodity and aggregate agricultural and food-related data used 
to develop outlook and situation material within the 
Department.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,651,000 
for the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for preferred procurement 
and labeling for biobased products.

                       NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $14,365,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      15,402,000
Committee recommendation................................      14,711,000

    The National Appeals Division conducts administrative 
hearings and reviews of adverse program decisions made by the 
Rural Development mission area, the Farm Service Agency, the 
Risk Management Agency, and the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,711,000 
for the National Appeals Division.

                 OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $8,212,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       9,054,000
Committee recommendation................................       8,449,000

    The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides 
direction and administration of the Department's budgetary 
functions including development, presentation, and execution of 
the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for 
program, budget, and related implications; analyzes program and 
resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of 
pertinent data to aid the Secretary and departmental policy 
officials and agency program managers in the decision-making 
process; and provides departmentwide coordination for and 
participation in the presentation of budget-related matters to 
the committees of the Congress, the media, and interested 
public. The Office also provides departmentwide coordination of 
the preparation and processing of regulations and legislative 
programs and reports.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,449,000 for 
the Office of Budget and Program Analysis.

                      OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $924,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       2,617,000
Committee recommendation................................         974,000

    The Office of Homeland Security formulates emergency 
preparedness policies and objectives for the Department of 
Agriculture [USDA]. The Office directs and coordinates all of 
the Department's program activities that support USDA emergency 
programs and liaison functions with the Congress, the 
Department of Homeland Security, and other Federal departments 
and agencies involving homeland security, natural disasters, 
other emergencies, and agriculture-related international civil 
emergency planning and related activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $974,000 for 
the Office of Homeland Security.

                Office of the Chief Information Officer

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $16,246,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      18,305,000
Committee recommendation................................      16,527,000

    The Office of the Chief Information Officer was established 
in August 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), pursuant to the 
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, which required the establishment of 
a Chief Information Officer for major Federal agencies. This 
office provides policy guidance, leadership, coordination, and 
direction to the Department's information management and 
information technology investment activities in support of USDA 
program delivery, and is the lead office in USDA e-gov efforts. 
The Office provides long-range planning guidance, implements 
measures to ensure that technology investments are economical 
and effective, coordinates interagency information resources 
management projects, and implements standards to promote 
information exchange and technical interoperability. In 
addition, the Office of the Chief Information Officer is 
responsible for certain activities financed under the 
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235). The Office 
also provides telecommunication and automated data processing 
[ADP] services to USDA agencies through the National 
Information Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, 
Colorado, and Kansas City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational 
services are also provided to the Office of the General 
Counsel, Office of Communications, the Office of the Chief 
Financial Officer, and Executive Operations.
    On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of 
the Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT 
organization within the office of the Chief Information 
Officer; this converged organization is named Information 
Technology Services and replaces a network of cross-agency 
teams used to coordinate IT infrastructure investment within 
the SCA and allows for unified management of the IT 
infrastructure.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,527,000 
for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

                 Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $5,809,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       6,221,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,954,000

    The Office of the Chief Financial Officer is responsible 
for the dual roles of chief financial management policy officer 
and chief financial management advisor to the Secretary and 
mission area heads. The Office provides leadership for all 
financial management, accounting, travel, Federal assistance, 
and performance measurement activities within the Department. 
The Office is also responsible for the management and operation 
of the National Finance Center and the Departmental Working 
Capital Fund. In addition, the Office provides budget, 
accounting, and fiscal services to the Office of the Secretary, 
Departmental staff offices, Office of the Chief Information 
Officer, Office of Communications, and Executive Operations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,954,000 for 
the Chief Financial Officer.

           Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $847,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         897,000
Committee recommendation................................         871,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 
provides oversight of civil rights and related functions. This 
includes coordination of the administration of civil rights 
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of 
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and 
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $871,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $20,353,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      21,551,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,798,000

    The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership 
responsibility for all departmentwide civil rights activities. 
These activities include employment opportunity as well as 
program non-discrimination policy development, analysis, 
coordination, and compliance. The Office is responsible for 
providing leadership in facilitating the fair and equitable 
treatment of Department of Agriculture [USDA] employees, and 
for monitoring program activities to ensure that all USDA 
programs are delivered in a non-discriminatory manner. The 
Office's outreach functions provide leadership, coordination, 
facilitation, and expertise to internal and external partners 
to ensure equal and timely access to USDA programs for all 
constituents, with emphasis on the underserved, through 
information sharing, technical assistance, and training.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,798,000 
for the Office of Civil Rights.

          Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $668,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         739,000
Committee recommendation................................         687,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 
directs and coordinates the work of the departmental staff in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress relating to real 
and personal property management, personnel management, ethics, 
and other general administrative functions. In addition, the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is 
responsible for certain activities financed under the 
Department's Working Capital Fund (7 U.S.C. 2235).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $687,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.

        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $194,878,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     231,105,000
Committee recommendation................................     226,432,000

    Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.--
Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building 
Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in 
leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. 
Annual appropriations finance payments to the General Services 
Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services. 
Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs 
D.C. complex buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major 
nonrecurring repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates 
pursuant to the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, and 
agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to 
appeal. For the last several years the Department has 
implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff more 
efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety 
hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $226,432,000 
for Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for this account as compared to the fiscal year 
2008 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2009 budget      Committee
                                                                   2008 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rental Payments.................................................         156,590         168,901         168,901
Building Operations.............................................          38,288          48,704          44,031
DHS Building Security...........................................  ..............          13,500          13,500
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         194,878         231,105         226,432
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Hazardous Materials Management

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $4,852,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      12,281,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,933,000

    Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act and the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act, the Department has the responsibility to meet 
the same standards regarding the storage and disposition of 
hazardous materials as private businesses. The Department is 
required to contain, clean up, monitor, and inspect for 
hazardous materials in areas under the Department's 
jurisdiction.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,933,000 for 
Hazardous Materials Management.

                      Departmental Administration

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $22,982,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      28,637,000
Committee recommendation................................      27,011,000

    Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that 
provide staff support to top policy officials and overall 
direction and coordination of administrative functions of the 
Department. These activities include departmentwide programs 
for human resource management, ethics, occupational safety and 
health management, real and personal property management, 
procurement, contracting, motor vehicle and aircraft 
management, supply management, emergency preparedness, small 
and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory 
hearing and administrative proceedings conducted by the 
Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer.
    Departmental Administration is also responsible for 
representing USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies 
and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide 
trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, 
and standards. In addition, Departmental Administration engages 
in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-
wide compliance with applicable laws, rules, and regulations 
pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and 
general officers of the Department.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,011,000 
for Departmental Administration.

     Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $3,768,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       4,099,000
Committee recommendation................................       3,877,000

    The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations maintains a liaison with the Congress and White House 
on legislative matters. It also provides for overall direction 
and coordination in the development and implementation of 
policies and procedures applicable to the Department's intra- 
and inter-governmental relations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,877,000 for 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional 
Relations.
    The Committee allows these funds to be transferred to 
support congressional relations' activities at the agency 
level. Within 30 days from the enactment of this act, the 
Secretary shall notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the allocation of these funds by USDA agency, 
along with an explanation for the agency-by-agency distribution 
of the funds as well as the staff years funded by these 
transfers.

                        Office of Communications

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $9,273,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       9,961,000
Committee recommendation................................       9,514,000

    The Office of Communications provides direction, 
leadership, and coordination in the development and delivery of 
useful information through all media to the public on USDA 
programs. The Office serves as the liaison between the 
Department and the many associations and organizations with an 
interest in USDA's mission areas.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,514,000 for 
the Office of Communications.

                    Office of the Inspector General

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $79,492,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      85,766,000
Committee recommendation................................      81,517,000

    The Office of the Inspector General was established October 
12, 1978, by the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-
452). This act expanded and provided specific authorities for 
the activities of the Office of the Inspector General which had 
previously been carried out under the general authorities of 
the Secretary of Agriculture.
    The Office is administered by an inspector general who 
reports directly to the Secretary of Agriculture. Functions and 
responsibilities of this Office include direction and control 
of audit and investigative activities within the Department, 
formulation of audit and investigative policies and procedures 
regarding Department programs and operations, and analysis and 
coordination of program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,517,000 
for the Office of the Inspector General. The Committee 
recommendation includes the fiscal year 2008 level for OIG to 
continue to address violations of section 26 of the Animal 
Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to coordinate with State and 
local law enforcement personnel in this effort.
    Audit.--The Delta Regional Authority [DRA] Act of 2000 
mandates that the OIG conduct recurring audits of the DRA. The 
August 2006 audit of DRA's grant process found no anomalies, 
which resulted in no monetary recoveries to DRA or USDA and 
produced no substantial recommendations. Since DRA receives 
funding from USDA annually, OIG currently has authority to 
audit DRA at any time. The Committee believes that continuing 
this audit mandate will further dilute resources within the OIG 
and potentially distract from more urgent oversight work. A 
general provision is included that terminates the audit 
mandate.

                     Office of the General Counsel

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $38,952,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      42,852,000
Committee recommendation................................      40,083,000

    The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal 
advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all 
agencies, offices, and corporations of the Department. The 
Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; 
non-litigation debt collection proceedings; State water rights 
adjudications; proceedings before the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime 
Administration, and International Trade Commission; and, in 
conjunction with the Department of Justice, in judicial 
proceedings and litigation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,083,000 
for the Office of the General Counsel.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $592,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         654,000
Committee recommendation................................         609,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, 
and Economics provides direction and coordination in carrying 
out the laws enacted by the Congress for food and agricultural 
research, education, extension, and economic and statistical 
information. The Office has oversight and management 
responsibilities for the Agricultural Research Service; 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; 
Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $609,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and 
Economics.
    Biofuels Internship Program.--The Department is encouraged 
to study the value of creating an internship pilot program that 
would focus on producing agricultural biofuels from biomass. In 
determining the value of creating this internship program, the 
Department should consider allowing economically disadvantaged 
and minority students pursuing an undergraduate program in 
agriculture with direct relevance to biofuels and renewable 
energy to gain practical work experience through placements 
within Congress, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 
Department of Energy, private companies, and non-profit 
organizations. The Department should evaluate whether this 
internship program would enhance ongoing efforts to develop a 
skilled workforce in the area of alternative energy, and 
contribute to related national efforts to enhance agriculture 
production and economic development in the U.S. agriculture 
sector.
    Invasive Species.--The Committee recognizes the increasing 
threat of the invasive species Phragmites to wetlands and 
wildlife in many national watersheds including the Great Lake, 
Chesapeake Bay, Upper Mississippi, and the Platte River, and 
therefore there is a need to research and find cost efficient 
means for the long term control and reduction of Phragmites. 
The Committee encourages the Secretary to address this emerging 
problem.
    Methyl Bromide.--The Committee is aware that the Department 
is working with the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] on a 
meta-analysis of methyl bromide. The Committee supports this 
analysis and encourages the Department to continue to work with 
the EPA until the results are complete.
    Northwest Michigan Horticultural Research Station.--The 
Committee is aware of the significant contributions the 
Northwest Michigan Horticultural Research Station has made to 
cherry growers throughout the United States, particularly in 
Utah. The Committee encourages the Department to strongly 
support the work of the research station and to provide 
additional funds, as available, for enhanced research.
    REE Reorganization.--The Committee notes the intent of the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 to improve the 
coordination of the Department's research portfolio. The USDA's 
research and education system has been and remains a key to 
maintaining a safe, economic, and abundant supply of food and 
fiber for the American people. The Department's research and 
education programs must continue to be effective and efficient 
to meet the difficult and complex issues confronting farmers, 
ranchers, industry and consumers alike. The Committee expects 
that the reorganization, once in place, will avoid duplication 
and layering of administrative functions. Indeed, the Congress 
expects management efficiencies, if not cost savings, as a 
result of the newly authorized legislation. Appropriations, as 
noted elsewhere in this report, are limited and spending is 
constrained.
    In this regard, the Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide the Committee fiscal year 2008 baseline amounts for 
management funding levels for each of the four mission-area 
agencies as well as REE operations at headquarters; any 
administrative and management contracts issued at headquarters; 
and greenbook and working capital funds costs. These reports 
and associated costs will provide the Committee with a baseline 
to compare reorganization costs and to ensure the American 
people that USDA is committed to reduced bureaucracy and 
enhanced program results.

                       Economic Research Service

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $77,324,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      82,106,000
Committee recommendation................................      78,209,000

    The Economic Research Service [ERS] provides economic and 
other social science information and analysis for public and 
private decisions on agriculture, natural resources, food, and 
rural America. The information ERS produces is for use by the 
general public and to help the executive and legislative 
branches develop, administer, and evaluate agricultural and 
rural policies and programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $78,209,000 
for the Economic Research Service. The Committee directs that 
no less than the fiscal year 2008 level be used to carry out 
the Organic Production and Market Data Initiative.

                National Agricultural Statistics Service

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $162,137,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     153,475,000
Committee recommendation................................     149,115,000

    The National Agricultural Statistics Service [NASS] 
administers the Department's program of collecting and 
publishing current national, State, and county agricultural 
statistics. These statistics provide accurate and timely 
projections of current agricultural production and measures of 
the economic and environmental welfare of the agricultural 
sector which are essential for making effective policy, 
production, and marketing decisions. NASS also furnishes 
statistical services to other USDA and Federal agencies in 
support of their missions, and provides consulting, technical 
assistance, and training to developing countries.
    The Service is also responsible for administration of the 
Census of Agriculture, which is taken every 5 years and 
provides comprehensive data on the agricultural economy 
including: data on the number of farms, land use, production 
expenses, farm product values, value of land and buildings, 
farm size and characteristics of farm operators, market value 
of agricultural production sold, acreage of major crops, 
inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation 
practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $149,115,000 
for the National Agricultural Statistics Service. Included in 
this amount is $37,265,000 for the Census of Agriculture.
    Chemical Use Data.--The Committee directs NASS to carry out 
the Chemical Use Data study. Further, the Committee expects the 
agency not to disrupt ongoing market analysis reporting and to 
notify the Committee in advance of any termination of other 
ongoing NASS activities.
    Organic Data Collection.--The Committee encourages NASS to 
take all necessary steps, including a follow-up Census of 
Agriculture survey, to collect in-depth coverage on acreage, 
yield, production, inventory, production practices, sales and 
expenses, marketing channels, and demographics of the organics 
industry.
    Potato Objective Yield Survey.--The Committee expects NASS 
to continue the potato objective yield survey.

                     Agricultural Research Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,120,635,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,037,016,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,134,084,000

    The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for 
conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil, 
water, and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; 
commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the 
integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a 
wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of 
science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental 
conditions.
    ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National 
Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information 
and library services through traditional library functions and 
modern electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public 
and private organizations, and individuals.
    As the U.S. Department of Agriculture's in-house 
agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for 
conducting and leading the national agricultural research 
effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas: 
research on broad regional and national problems, research to 
support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to 
meet national emergencies, research support for international 
programs, and scientific resources to the executive branch and 
Congress.
    The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and 
technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality 
agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to 
meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to 
provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living 
of all Americans. This mission focuses on the development of 
technical information and technical products which bear 
directly on the need to: (1) manage and use the Nation's soil, 
water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation's 
environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of agricultural 
products by observing practices that will maintain a 
sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the 
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve 
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's 
balance of payments.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,134,084,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Agricultural Research Service.
    The Committee recognizes the successful history of ARS, the 
premier in-house USDA research agency, and strongly supports 
ongoing research activities vital to protecting this Nation's 
food supply, environment, rural communities, and working toward 
energy independence.
    The fiscal year 2009 appropriation includes $15,125,000 for 
pay costs and $3,000,000 for research enhancements for food 
security in specific areas of pests and disease affecting 
domestic production and to support the USDA mission in fighting 
world hunger. Of the total appropriation for fiscal year 2009, 
the Committee recommends $1,115,959,000 to continue ongoing 
research programs and activities at the locations and at levels 
no less than provided in fiscal year 2008. The Committee 
concurs with the President's fiscal year 2009 proposal as it 
relates to the following: Invasive Weed Management Research; 
Lyme Disease 4 Poster Project; Mosquito Trapping Research/West 
Nile Virus; National Corn to Ethanol Research Pilot Plant; 
NutriCore/Nutrition Interventions; Source Water Protection 
Initiatives; and Vector-Borne Diseases. In addition, the 
Committee provides the following directives:
    Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory.--The 
fiscal year 2009 budget request proposes to relocate the 
Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory [ABADRL] 
from its current location in Laramie, Wyoming. Before deciding 
whether it is appropriate to relocate the lab, the Committee 
requests ARS to provide a report describing the current status 
of the laboratory's facilities and research. Additionally, the 
Committee requests ARS to provide an assessment of no fewer 
than two locations that could serve as the new location of 
ABADRL. When selecting the locations to assess, ARS should 
consider the facilities, capacity, expertise, and synergies 
relevant to fulfilling and expediting the ABADRL mission that 
are offered by each potential location. Any remarkable fiscal 
issues should also be noted.
    Biomass Feedstock.--The Committee directs that fiscal year 
2008 funding for precision agriculture at the Northern Great 
Plains Research Laboratory in Mandan, ND, shall be made 
available to expand biomass feedstock research at that 
location.
    Center for Agroforestry.--The Committee expects that the 
funds made available for the Center for Agroforestry be used to 
continue research into all five temperate-zone agroforestry 
practices applicable in Midwestern states.
    Combating World Hunger.--Agricultural research, exemplified 
by the work of the ARS, is a leading reason for the U.S. 
prominence in food production throughout the world. However, we 
continue to witness devastating images of people in undeveloped 
and developing countries struggle with chronic hunger. The toll 
of that struggle on the human spirit is appalling and the costs 
in lives and the redirection of resources from other parts of 
the world to meet growing international assistance needs argues 
strongly for the development of sustainable food systems in 
those countries now dependent on foreign assistance. To help 
meet that need, the Committee recommendation includes 
$1,000,000 for research in the area of agriculture production 
designed to assist farming regions in which populations are now 
the beneficiaries of international food assistance.
    Human Nutrition.--The Committee recognizes the need to 
investigate diet-related health problems, which include obesity 
and its associated illnesses and that these needs are 
particularly great in rural and Native American communities. 
Accordingly, the Committee continues support for the ARS Grand 
Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, which provides unique 
contributions related to these nutrition-related challenges and 
maintains funding for the Center. Further, the Committee 
directs the agency to continue development of the Center's 
programs to address obesity and diet-related health issues in 
rural and Native American communities, the study of minerals 
and other nutrients contained in widely consumed foods 
contributing to healthy diets, and the role of nutrition in 
preventing chronic diseases among all Americans.
    The Human Nutrition Centers, including the Center in Little 
Rock, Arkansas, focus on the effects of dietary factors and 
nutritional status (including body composition) on disease 
prevention and maintenance of good health. The Committee 
recommends that particular attention be given to critical 
periods of development and vulnerable stages of life (including 
the nutritional status of women at the time of conception; 
nutritional issues during pregnancy and lactation; and diets, 
nutrition, and the development of eating behaviors during 
childhood, adolescence, and later stages of life). The 
Committee further recommends attention to disease prevention of 
cancer, cardiovascular disease, and bone and muscle disease. 
Other extremely important areas requiring continued attention 
include brain development and cognitive function in children; 
maintenance of cognitive function and vision in the elderly; 
the developmental origins of adult health and disease; the 
effects of non-nutrient bioactive food components; the 
development, function, and enhancement of the immune system; 
the understanding of dietary influences on inflammation; and 
gene/nutrient interactions.
    The Committee is aware of need for upgrades of the 
Metabolic Diet Facility at the Human Nutrition Research Center 
on Aging at Tufts University and encourages ARS to initiate 
such improvements from within available funds.
    National Agricultural Library [NAL] Digitop.--The NAL 
initiated a digitop information service in 2004 to 
electronically deliver published information about agriculture, 
forestry, and related fields to individuals, universities, and 
other institutions and customers. This program provides 
continuous access to key data bases, journals, and other 
electronic resources. The Committee expects the NAL to complete 
its plan to encompass its total portfolio of services under the 
digitop umbrella and provide a report on the status of this 
activity.
    Phytoestrogen Research.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of phytoestrogen research at the Southern Research 
Center in collaboration with the Center for Bioenvironmental 
Research at Tulane and Xavier Universities and the Laboratory 
for Soy Products and Health at the University of Toledo. 
Funding in this bill is provided to support research to 
characterize phytoestrogenic compound and determine structure 
activity relationships in animal system bioassays.
    Pollinator Recovery.--The Committee continues its strong 
concern for reports of Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD] and 
indications that this threat to the U.S. food supply is 
spreading. Honey bees and other pollinators perform a vital 
function relating to the production of much of our fruit and 
vegetable production, and the threat of CCD places this 
production at high risk. The Committee provides a total of 
$10,439,000 for ARS research related to pollinator species, 
including an increase of $1,000,000 above the fiscal year 2008 
level specifically tied to research on the cause and control of 
CCD. The Committee requests a report on the progress of the 
agency relating to CCD, the specific areas of pollinator 
research conducted at the various ARS locations, and the manner 
in which those activities relate to the subject of CCD.
    Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee is aware 
that at present there is no Great Lakes research program 
directed to the problem of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS] 
or other emerging diseases in fish. There is a critical need 
for the monitoring, diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment and 
prevention of VHS and other such diseases, and the Committee 
encourages ARS to work with research institutions around the 
Great Lakes to ascertain the extent to which VHS is present in 
U.S. waters, develop an effective vaccine to VHS, and establish 
the genetic basis for resistance to VHS in fish.
    Wheat Stem Rust.--The rapid spread of the wheat stem rust 
known as Ug99, from East Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and 
most recently to the Middle East is of great concern to the 
Committee. Ug99 is a very virulent strain of stem rust and 
could threaten 80 percent of the world's wheat supply 
(including wheat production in the United States) if resistant 
varieties of wheat are not developed. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 to speed efforts to develop 
Ug99 resistant wheat varieties.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $46,752,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      13,220,000
Committee recommendation................................      30,995,000

    The ARS ``Buildings and Facilities'' account was 
established for the acquisition of land, construction, repair, 
improvement, extension, alteration, and purchase of fixed 
equipment or facilities of, or used by, the Agricultural 
Research Service. Routine construction or replacement items 
continue to be funded under the limitations contained in the 
regular account.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,995,000 
for buildings and facilities of the Agricultural Research 
Service.
    Modern research facilities are an important part of the 
ability of ARS to meet the objectives of its mission purpose, 
and the Committee recommends funding to ensure that 
modernization and upgrades of facilities are achieved.
    Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee is unable to 
recommend full funding to complete the construction of all 
ongoing projects. The following table summarizes the 
Committee's recommendations for Agricultural Research Service 
Buildings and Facilities:

         AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                                         Recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture Research Center; Pullman, WA..............             1,870
Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory;                  1,780
 Alcorn State, MS.....................................
Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT...............             1,600
Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory; Bowling               1,390
 Green, KY............................................
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV.......             1,000
ARS Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT...........             5,561
Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du              2,558
 Sac, WI..............................................
Forage-Animal Production Research Facility; Lexington,             2,085
 KY...................................................
Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station; Hagerman, ID               695
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center;                        2,000
 Stoneville, MS.......................................
National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia,             2,086
 MO...................................................
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI..             2,000
Poultry Science Research Facility; Starkville, MS.....             1,780
Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA..............             3,200
Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE........             1,390
                                                       -----------------
      Total...........................................            30,995
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    National Plant and Genetics Security Center.--The Committee 
directs ARS, when planning and designing the National Plant and 
Genetics Security Center, to include plans for expanded 
vivarium capacity.

      Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service was established by the Secretary of Agriculture on 
October 1, 1994, under the authority of the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6912). The 
mission is to work with university partners and customers to 
advance research, extension, and higher education in the food 
and agricultural sciences and related environmental and human 
sciences to benefit people, communities, and the Nation.

                   RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $668,286,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     535,277,000
Committee recommendation................................     629,871,000

    The research and education programs administered by the 
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
[CSREES] are the U.S. Department of Agriculture's principal 
entree to the university system of the United States to support 
higher education in food and agricultural sciences and to 
conduct agricultural research as authorized by the Hatch Act of 
1887 (7 U.S.C. 361a-361i); the Cooperative Forestry Research 
Act of 1962 (16 U.S.C. 582a-7); Public Law 89-106, section (2) 
(7 U.S.C. 450i); the National Agricultural Research, Extension, 
and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the 
Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 
301); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 
Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.); and the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246). 
Through these authorities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and 
assist the State institutions to conduct agricultural research 
and education through the State agricultural experiment 
stations of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the 
territories; by approved schools of forestry; by the 1890 land-
grant institutions, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia 
State University; by colleges of veterinary medicine; and by 
other eligible institutions.
    The research and education programs participate in a 
nationwide system of agricultural research program planning and 
coordination among the State institutions, U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, and the agricultural industry of America.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $629,871,000 
for research and education activities of the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service. In addition to the 
appropriation for research and education activities, this bill 
makes available an additional $68,000,000 in mandatory funding 
for research related to organics, specialty crops, beginning 
farmer and rancher, and renewable energy research. Therefore, 
CSREES will have a total of $697,871,000 in funding for 
research and related activities in fiscal year 2009, which is 
an increase of $29,585,000 above the previous year.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for research and education activities:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
                    RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Payments under Hatch Act...............................          205,602
Cooperative forestry research (McIntire-Stennis).......           26,031
Payments to 1890 Institutions..........................           43,104
Special research grants:
    Advanced genetic technologies, University of                     481
     Kentucky Research Foundation......................
    Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX              149
    Aegilops cylindrica/Biomass (jointed goatgrass),                 200
     Washington State University.......................
    Agricultural diversity, University of Minnesota,                 200
     Crookston.........................................
    Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives,                       248
     Pennsylvania State University.....................
    Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas                      300
     AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
    Alliance for food protection, University of                      130
     Nebraska..........................................
    Animal disease research, University of Wyoming.....              258
    Animal Health, Forages for Advancing Livestock                   291
     Production Project, KY............................
    Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University              1,000
     of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State
     University, Kansas State University...............
    Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York                   200
     State Agricultural Experiment Station, University
     of Michigan.......................................
    Aquaculture product & marketing development, West                521
     Virginia University...............................
    Aquaculture, Louisiana State University                          200
     Agricultural Center...............................
    Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry               385
     Experiment Station................................
    Aquaculture, North Carolina State University.......              242
    Armillaria root rot, Michigan State University.....              111
    Asparagus technology and production, Washington                  184
     State University..................................
    Avian bioscience, University of Delaware...........              100
    Barley for Rural Development, Montana State                      547
     University, University of Idaho...................
    Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University.              223
    Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State                    894
     University, Mississippi State University..........
    Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and                     187
     Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University...
    Center for One Medicine............................              250
    Center for Public Land and Rural Economies, Utah                 223
     State University..................................
    Center for rural studies, University of Vermont                  261
     College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..........
    Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of                   180
     Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..
    Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida......              200
    Competitiveness of agricultural products,                        350
     Washington State University and the University of
     Washington........................................
    Cool season legume research, North Dakota State                  250
     University, University of Idaho, Washington State
     University........................................
    Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality,                      368
     University of Georgia.............................
    Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers,                 480
     The State University of New Jersey................
    Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts...              118
    Crop integration and production, South Dakota State              275
     University........................................
    Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M                   100
     University........................................
    Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State                     372
     University........................................
    Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State                  187
     University........................................
    Designing foods for health, Texas AgriLife                       500
     Research, College Station, TX.....................
    Detection and Food Safety, Auburn University, AL...            1,862
    Drought management, Utah State University..........              670
    Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University,               575
     Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas
     AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
    Environmentally safe products, University of                     200
     Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..
    Floriculture, University of Hawaii.................              259
    Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University......              298
    Food safety, Texas AgriLife Research, College                     74
     Station, TX.......................................
    Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California              750
    Functional Genomics, Utah State University.........            1,192
    Future foods, University of Illinois...............              450
    Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease,                   849
     Mississippi State University......................
    Global change UV/B radiation, Colorado State                   1,500
     University........................................
    Grain sorghum, Kansas State University, Texas Tech               548
     University........................................
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable                      150
     agriculture, Oregon State University, University
     of Idaho, Washington State University.............
    Great Basin Environmental Program, University of                 225
     Nevada--Reno......................................
    High Performance Computing, Utah State University..              559
    Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research                  526
     Center, Baton Rouge, LA...........................
    Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural commodities,               642
     University of Idaho...............................
    Infectious disease research, Colorado State                      609
     University........................................
    Institute of Agriculture--Phytosensors for Crop                  745
     Security, University of Tennessee.................
    Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical                 200
     Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems,
     Purdue University.................................
    Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and                      447
     Extension, Utah State University..................
    Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State                       112
     University........................................
    Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY,                200
     Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX......
    Livestock waste, Iowa State University.............              196
    Lowbush Wild Blueberry research, University of                   184
     Maine.............................................
    Managed Drainage System for Crop Production,                     250
     University of Missouri--Columbia..................
    Maple research, University of Vermont College of                 165
     Agriculture and Life Sciences.....................
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance,                    365
     University of Nebraska............................
    Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue                     200
     University........................................
    Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University..              250
    Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University.........              821
    Montana Sheep Institute, Montana State University..              270
    National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium,              655
     Colorado State University, Cornell University,
     University of Georgia.............................
    National Center for Soybean Technology, University               735
     of Missouri--Columbia.............................
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico              223
     State University..................................
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of                 400
     Nevada--Reno......................................
    New Century Farm, Iowa State University............              300
    New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY..............              559
    New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for                  697
     Agriculture, Mississippi State University.........
    Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State               187
     University........................................
    Organic cropping, Oregon State University..........              149
    Organic cropping, Washington State University......              264
    Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State                       74
     University........................................
    Peach tree short life research, Clemson University,              208
     SC................................................
    Pierce's disease, University of California.........            1,500
    Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable              149
     Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas
     AgriLife Research, College Station, TX............
    Potato Cyst Nematode, University of Idaho..........              372
    Potato research, Oregon State University,                        750
     University of Idaho, Washington State University,
     University of Maine...............................
    Precision agriculture, Auburn University, AL.......              446
    Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky                    502
     Research Foundation...............................
    Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University....              151
    Protein utilization, Iowa State University.........              600
    Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State              1,000
     University........................................
    Ruminant nutrition consortium, University of                     600
     Nebraska--Lincoln, South Dakota State University..
    Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University.....              228
    Seed technology, South Dakota State University.....              300
    Small fruit research, Oregon State University,                   300
     University of Idaho, Washington State University..
    Soil and Environmental Quality, University of                     75
     Delaware..........................................
    Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated                       187
     Agriculture, New Mexico State University..........
    Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico               250
     State University..................................
    Soybean research, National Soybean Research                      500
     Laboratory at the University of Illinois..........
    Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of              175
     Agriculture.......................................
    Sustainable agriculture & natural resources,                     142
     Pennsylvania State University.....................
    Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University..              200
    Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable                  250
     Resources, Virginia Tech..........................
    Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production, University of               149
     Nebraska--Lincoln.................................
    Swine and other animal waste management, North                   372
     Carolina State University.........................
    Tillage, silviculture, waste management, Louisiana               200
     State University..................................
    Tri-state joint peanut research, Auburn University,              440
     AL................................................
    Tropical and subtropical research/T-STAR,                        800
     University of Hawaii..............................
    Uniform farm management program, University of                   250
     Minnesota.........................................
    Virtual plant database enhancement project,                      626
     Missouri Botanical Garden.........................
    Viticulture consortium, Cornell University,                    1,200
     University of California..........................
    Water conservation, Kansas State University........               74
    Water use efficiency and water quality                           368
     enhancements, University of Georgia...............
    Wetland plants, Louisiana State University.........              200
    Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University....              256
    Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State                    237
     University........................................
    Wood utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC,              4,841
     OR, TN, WV).......................................
                                                        ----------------
      Total, special research grants...................           50,749
                                                        ================
Improved pest control:
    Expert IPM decision support system.................              154
    Integrated pest management.........................            2,379
    IR-4 minor crop pest management....................           11,368
    Pest management alternatives.......................            1,412
                                                        ----------------
      Total, Improved pest control.....................           15,313
                                                        ================
1994 institutions research program.....................            1,610
Agriculture and Food Research Initiative...............          200,000
Agriculture and Rural Policy Research..................            2,602
Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving                  3,196
 institutions education grants.........................
Alternative crops......................................              819
Aquaculture centers (sec. 1475)........................            3,928
Capacity building grants (1890 institutions)...........           13,592
Critical Agricultural Materials Act....................            1,083
Graduate fellowships grants............................            3,859
Hispanic education partnership grants..................            6,046
Institution challenge grants...........................            5,654
Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Management...........              983
Multicultural scholars program.........................              981
Payments to the 1994 institutions......................            3,319
Secondary agriculture education........................              983
Sustainable agriculture research and education.........           14,399
Resident instruction grants for insular areas..........              745
Veterinary Medical Services Act........................            5,000
Federal administration:
    Agriculture development in the American Pacific,                 372
     University of Hawaii..............................
    Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State               485
     University........................................
    Agriculture-based industrial lubricants, University              405
     of Northern Iowa..................................
    Applied Agriculture and Environment Research,                    250
     California State University.......................
    Aquaculture Research, Rhode Island Coastal                       298
     Resources Management Council......................
    Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA................              164
    Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS              511
    Botanical research, Utah State University..........              670
    Center for North American studies, Texas AgriLife                200
     Research, College Station, TX.....................
    Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania              340
     Department of Agriculture.........................
    Cotton research, Texas Tech University.............              300
    Council for Agriculture and Technology, Ames, IA...              112
    Electronic Grants Administration System............            2,136
    Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD....              500
    Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University...              112
    Feed efficiency, West Virginia University..........              112
    Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program,                  250
     University of Central Florida.....................
    Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen F. Austin                 298
     State University, TX..............................
    Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center                187
     MATRIC, Iowa State University.....................
    Mississippi Valley State University................            1,067
    NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of                     150
     Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the
     University of Maine...............................
    Office of Extramural Programs......................              440
    Pay Cost...........................................            4,973
    Peer Panels........................................              397
    PM-10 air quality study, Washington State                        150
     University........................................
    Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS...            1,367
    Research, Education, and Economics Information                 2,704
     System............................................
    Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS........              229
    Shellfish, University of Rhode Island..............              261
    Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern                       300
     Mississippi.......................................
    Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo,              223
     OH................................................
    Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV..........              410
                                                        ----------------
      Total, Federal administration....................           20,373
                                                        ================
      Total, CSREES Research and Education Activities..          629,871
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $200,000,000 for the Agriculture and 
Food Research Initiative [AFRI].
    Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 
2008 specifies priority areas within the newly created 
Agriculture Food and Research Initiative [AFRI], including a 
emphasis on conventional (classical) plant and animal breeding. 
The Committee strongly concurs with the intent of this section, 
and requests a report from the agency as to its plans for 
implementing the intent of this important conventional/
classical plant and animal breeding requirement.
    Agricultural Research Enhancement Awards.--The Committee 
remains determined to see that quality research and enhanced 
human resources development in the agricultural and related 
sciences be a nationwide commitment. Therefore, the Committee 
continues its direction that not less than 10 percent of the 
competitive research grant funds be used for USDA's 
agricultural research enhancement awards program (including 
USDA-EPSCoR), in accordance with 7 U.S.C. 450i.
    Agriculture and Rural Policy Research.--The Secretary is 
authorized to make grants and take other actions under 7 U.S.C. 
3155 for research and related activities concerning public 
policy and trade agreements and their effect on the farm and 
agricultural sector; the environment; rural families, 
households, and economies; and consumers, food, and nutrition. 
The Committee recommends $2,602,000 for activities under this 
authority.
    Of the amount available for Agriculture and Rural Policy 
Research [ARPR], $1,213,000 is provided for the Food and 
Agriculture Policy Institute [FAPRI]. Of the amount available 
for FAPRI, $200,000 shall be provided to continue a cooperative 
agreement with the University of Wisconsin relating to dairy 
policy and $149,000 shall be used to conduct analysis of 
rangeland, cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada--Reno.
    In addition, of the amount available for ARPR, $889,000 
shall be available for the Rural Policies Research Institute 
and $500,000 shall be available for the National Drought 
Mitigation Center.
    Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving 
Institutions Education Grants.--The Committee recommends 
$3,196,000 for grants to individual eligible institutions or 
consortia of eligible institutions in Alaska and in Hawaii, 
with grant funds to be awarded equally between Alaska and 
Hawaii to carry out the programs authorized in 7 U.S.C. 3242. 
The Committee directs the agency to fully comply with the use 
of grant funds as authorized.
    Alternative Crops.--The Committee recommends $819,000 for 
alternative crop research to continue and strengthen research 
efforts on canola. The Committee understands that the United 
States does not produce enough canola to meet its consumption 
needs and encourages the Department to seek stakeholder input 
and to provide funds in a manner that reaches those areas most 
likely to see expansions in canola production.
    Community Food Projects.--The Committee expects the 
Department of Agriculture to consider as fully eligible for 
Community Food Project [CFP] grants any program that encourages 
the effective use of community resources to combat hunger and 
the root causes of hunger through the recovery of donated food, 
distribution of meals to nonprofit organizations, and the 
training of unemployed and underemployed adults for careers in 
food service. The Committee considers such programs to meet the 
requisite eligibility standards for CFP grants in that they 
meet the food needs of low-income people, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and 
plan for long-term solutions to address such needs.
    Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The 
Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research 
in Hawaii and expects priorities of this activity (as defined 
by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and 
improvement of germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to 
derive and release new commercial varieties and continue 
research on disease resistance and insect control. The 
Committee also provides funding for tropical and subtropical 
research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation, 
recommendation and distribution of funds through the Pacific 
Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration Groups.
    Forestry and Related Natural Resource Research.--The 
Committee recognizes that forestry and related natural resource 
research were an integral part of the National Research 
Initiative, the predecessor program to the Agriculture and Food 
Research Initiative [AFRI]. As this program has grown, however, 
the allocation of AFRI funds by CSREES for research on forestry 
and related natural resource topics has fallen behind. In the 
future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to 
put a greater emphasis on AFRI funding for forestry and natural 
resources topics with a goal of eventually providing at least 
10 percent of the total funds provided for AFRI for forestry 
and natural resources related research on topics including: 
woody plant systems, including large scale efforts to sequence 
the genome for several economically important tree species, 
technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and 
increased tree growth rates; management of complex forest 
ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity, 
economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative 
management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis, 
geospatial analysis including landscape implications, 
consideration of ecological services, providing decision 
support systems; and development of nanotechnology and 
biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as 
critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy 
security.
    National Veterinary Medical Services Act.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 to carry out the National 
Veterinary Medical Services Act [NVMSA]. In speaking of 
previous funding levels for this purpose, the Secretary has 
noted that ``the modest appropriations to date make 
implementation of this section [NVMSA] impractical''. The level 
recommended by the Committee is a substantial increase from 
fiscal year 2008 and this amount coupled with previously 
appropriated funds will provide the level necessary to 
implement this program. Therefore, the Committee fully expects 
the Secretary to implement NVSMA in fiscal year 2009 which will 
be an important step to place critically necessary animal 
health practitioners in Rural America and as an important 
element in support of homeland security. The Committee further 
requests a report on implementation of this program.
    Special Research Grants.--The Committee recognizes the 
vital relationships between Federal research activities and 
land grant institutions and firmly supports the importance of 
congressionally recognized research priorities. The Special 
Research Grants program was authorized by the Congress to 
promote research among these partners in specific areas of need 
to meet emerging and long-term national and regional 
challenges.
    The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible 
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as 
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the 
purpose of conducting research and related activities to 
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the 
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The 
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided 
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of 
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the 
development of regional research centers, and to generally 
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the 
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can 
only be awarded if it the proposed activity has undergone 
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual 
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research 
or related activity and the merits of the results.
    Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its 
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants 
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included 
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth 
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an 
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal 
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In 
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that 
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research 
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging 
important research priorities and result in a less efficient 
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
    For fiscal year 2009, the Committee continues its 
responsibility of expressing congressional interest and 
intervention in setting research priorities through the 
investment of Federal funds. As the Committee has expressed in 
previous years, specific problems require specific objectives 
and specific attention. Therefore, the individual research 
activities described in this report are intended to accomplish 
the objectives set forth in this report and are not intended to 
extend into ongoing, long-term, indefinite research endeavors. 
The Secretary is encouraged to work with grantees to ensure 
that research conducted with these funds is set to achieve 
specific objectives and to refrain from undertaking research of 
an indefinite nature. The Committee directs the Secretary to 
provide a report by March 1, 2009 regarding the status of grant 
awards for fiscal year 2009 and the specific objectives to be 
sought in each case.

              NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $11,880,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      11,880,000
Committee recommendation................................      11,880,000

    The Native American Institutions Endowment Fund authorized 
by Public Law 103-382 provides an endowment for the 1994 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
Income funds are also available for facility renovation, 
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in 
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,880,000 
for the Native American Institutions Endowment Fund.

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $453,157,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     431,753,000
Committee recommendation................................     464,272,000

    Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-
Lever Act of May 8, 1914. The Department of Agriculture is 
authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, 
cooperative extension work that consists of the development of 
practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of 
instruction and practical demonstrations of existing or 
improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of 
solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, 
related subjects, and to encourage the application of such 
information by demonstrations, publications, through 4-H clubs, 
and other means to persons not in attendance or resident at the 
colleges.
    To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State 
and county extension offices in each State, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American 
Samoa, the Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct 
educational programs to improve American agriculture and 
strengthen the Nation's families and communities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $464,272,000 
for extension activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for extension activities:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Committee
                                                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smith-Lever sections 3(b) and 3(c).....................          288,393
Smith-Lever section 3(d):
    Farm safety........................................            4,726
    Food and nutrition education [EFNEP]...............           65,557
    Indian reservation agents..........................            2,979
    New technologies for extension.....................            1,549
    Pest management....................................            9,791
    Sustainable agriculture............................            4,568
    Youth at risk......................................            7,968
    Youth farm safety education and certification......              463
1890 colleges, Tuskegee University, and West Virginia             37,643
 State University Colleges.............................
1890 facilities grants.................................           17,267
Extension services at the 1994 institutions............            3,298
Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA]...............            4,008
Rural health and safety education......................            1,738
Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database.................              806
Federal administration:
    Ag in the Classroom................................              553
    Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids,                   74
     Urbandale, IA.....................................
    Conservation technology transfer, University of                  400
     Wisconsin Extension...............................
    Dairy education, Iowa State University.............              169
    E-commerce, Mississippi State University...........              246
    Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University,               475
     Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX......
    Extension specialist, Mississippi State University.               98
    General administration.............................            7,433
    Health education leadership, University of Kentucky              628
     Research Foundation...............................
    Iowa vitality center, Iowa State University........              223
    National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa                  168
     Community College.................................
    Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin                   800
     Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public
     Institutions......................................
    Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev                    496
     Foundation, OH....................................
    Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, University of                 350
     Wisconsin Extension...............................
    Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State                     223
     University, Oklahoma State University.............
    Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight,                  298
     University of Maine...............................
    Range improvement, New Mexico State University.....              223
    Rural technologies, Maui Economic Development                    150
     Board, HI.........................................
    Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic                111
     Garden, Glencoe, IL...............................
    Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin                      400
     Extension and Growing Power.......................
                                                        ----------------
      Total, Federal administration....................           13,518
                                                        ----------------
      Total, CSREES Extension Activities...............          464,272
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $55,850,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      20,120,000
Committee recommendation................................      55,850,000

    Section 406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and 
Education Reform Act of 1998 authorizes an integrated research, 
education, and extension competitive grants program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $55,850,000 
for integrated activities of the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service.
    The following table summarizes the Committee's 
recommendations for integrated activities:

 COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]--
                          INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Committee
                                                          recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Quality...........................................          12,649
Food Safety.............................................          14,596
Regional Pest Management Centers........................           4,096
Crops at Risk from FQPA Implementation..................           1,365
FQPA Risk Mitigation Program for Major Food Crop Systems           4,388
Methyl Bromide Transition Program.......................           3,054
Organic Transition Program..............................           1,842
                                                         ---------------
      Total, section 406................................          41,990
                                                         ===============
International Science and Education Grants Program......           1,986
Critical Issues Program.................................             732
Regional Rural Development Centers Program..............           1,312
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative (Homeland                  9,830
 Security)..............................................
                                                         ---------------
      Total, CSREES Integrated Activities...............          55,850
------------------------------------------------------------------------

              OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $6,395,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       6,930,000
Committee recommendation................................................

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee does not include a recommendation for this 
program. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
provides $15,000,000 for this activity and repeals the 
authorization for appropriations.

  Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $716,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         792,000
Committee recommendation................................         737,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and 
Regulatory Programs provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out laws enacted by the Congress with respect to the 
Department's marketing, grading, and standardization activities 
related to grain; competitive marketing practices of livestock, 
marketing orders, and various programs; veterinary services; 
and plant protection and quarantine. The Office has oversight 
and management responsibilities for the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service; Agricultural Marketing Service; and Grain 
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $737,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory 
Programs.

               Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $867,322,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     919,137,000
Committee recommendation................................     860,989,000

    The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under 
the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other 
authorities. The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the 
animal and plant resources of the Nation from diseases and 
pests. These objectives are carried out under the major areas 
of activity, as follows:
    Pest and Disease Exclusion.--The agency conducts inspection 
and quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The 
Agency also participates in inspection, survey, and control 
activities in foreign countries to reinforce its domestic 
activities.
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].--The agency 
collects user fees to cover the cost of inspection and 
quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the 
introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests.
    Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.--The agency conducts 
programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect 
endemic and exotic diseases and pests.
    Pest and Disease Management Programs.--The agency carries 
out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and 
animal diseases that threaten the United States; reduce 
agricultural losses caused by predatory animals, birds, and 
rodents; provide technical assistance to other cooperators such 
as States, counties, farmer or rancher groups, and foundations; 
and ensure compliance with interstate movement and other 
disease control regulations within the jurisdiction of the 
agency.
    Animal Care.--The agency conducts regulatory activities 
that ensure the humane care and treatment of animals and horses 
as the Animal Welfare and Horse Protection Acts require. These 
activities include inspection of certain establishments that 
handle animals intended for research, exhibition, and as pets, 
and monitoring certain horse shows.
    Scientific and Technical Services.--The agency performs 
other regulatory activities, including the development of 
standards for the licensing and testing of veterinary 
biologicals to ensure their safety and effectiveness; 
diagnostic activities to support the control and eradication 
programs in other functional components; applied research to 
reduce economic damage from vertebrate animals; development of 
new pest and animal damage control methods and tools; and 
regulatory oversight of genetically engineered products.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $860,989,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service.
    The following table reflects the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service:

                                   ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Fiscal year
                                                                 Fiscal year      2009 budget       Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted       request       recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION:
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].................           26,874           27,059           26,979
    Cattle Fever Ticks.......................................            7,600            9,907            7,833
    Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease............            8,634            4,000            7,000
    Fruit Fly Exclusion & Detection..........................           60,298           67,406           61,088
    Import/Export............................................           11,158           13,576           12,963
    Overseas Technical & Trade Operations....................  ...............           19,369           15,725
    Screwworm................................................           27,559           28,797           27,635
    Trade Issues Resolution & Management.....................           12,417  ...............  ...............
    Tropical Bont Tick.......................................              421              435              425
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion...................          154,961          170,549          159,648
                                                              ==================================================
PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING:
    Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance..................          122,507          143,585          124,146
    Animal & Plant Health Reg. Enforcement...................           12,352           13,694           12,583
    Avian Influenza..........................................  ...............           59,849           59,849
    Biosurveillance..........................................            1,977  ...............  ...............
    Emergency Management Systems.............................           15,265           18,380           15,619
    Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza........................           51,047  ...............  ...............
    National Veterinary Stockpile............................  ...............            8,166            3,739
    Pest Detection...........................................           27,530           31,363           27,776
    Select Agents............................................            4,221            5,997            4,259
    Wildlife Disease Monitoring & Surveillance...............  ...............            1,300  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring...........          234,899          282,334          247,971
                                                              ==================================================
PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT:
    Aquaculture..............................................            6,807            3,787            6,920
    Biological Control.......................................            9,514           10,158            9,737
    Brucellosis..............................................            9,465            9,211            9,584
    Chronic Wasting Disease..................................           17,682           10,391           17,808
    Contingency Funds........................................              993            4,195            3,025
    Cotton Pests.............................................           37,008           14,162           29,590
    Emerging Plant Pests.....................................          126,964          145,498          127,549
    Golden Nematode..........................................              801              845              816
    Grasshopper..............................................            6,597            4,577            6,456
    Gypsy Moth...............................................            4,769            4,994            4,843
    Imported Fire Ant........................................            1,885            2,158            1,893
    Johne's Disease..........................................           10,539            3,319            6,821
    Low Pathogen Avian Influenza.............................           15,610  ...............  ...............
    Noxious Weeds............................................            1,776            1,150            1,773
    Plum Pox.................................................            2,184            3,225            2,195
    Private Land Initiative for Invasive Species.............  ...............              500  ...............
    Pseudorabies.............................................            2,385            2,532            2,446
    Scrapie..................................................           17,978           17,487           18,145
    Tuberculosis.............................................           15,289           16,948           15,393
    Wildlife Services Operations.............................           74,919           73,258           74,163
    Witchweed................................................            1,504            1,532            1,510
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management..................          364,669          329,927          340,667
                                                              ==================================================
ANIMAL CARE:
    Animal Welfare...........................................           20,498           21,522           20,894
    Horse Protection.........................................              494              499              497
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Animal Care..................................           20,992           22,021           21,391
                                                              ==================================================
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES:
    Biosecurity..............................................            1,938  ...............  ...............
    Biotechnology Regulatory Services........................           11,729           16,306           11,877
    Environmental Compliance.................................            2,627            2,874            2,669
    Plant Methods Development Labs...........................            9,483           10,818            9,712
    Veterinary Biologics.....................................           16,541           19,580           16,922
    Veterinary Diagnostics...................................           23,093           33,241           23,511
    Wildlife Services Methods Development....................           17,755           19,579           17,986
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services............           83,166          102,398           82,677
                                                              ==================================================
MANAGEMENT:
    APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure..............            4,474            5,029            4,474
    Physical/Operational Security............................            4,161            6,879            4,161
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Management...................................            8,635           11,908            8,635
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL, APHIS...........................................          867,322          919,137          860,989
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee is unable to recommend the full increases 
requested in the President's budget for the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service. However, the Committee does 
recommend increases for a number of specific animal and plant 
health programs. The Committee encourages the Secretary to 
continue use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit 
Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover needs as 
identified in the President's budget and any additional 
emergencies as the Secretary determines necessary.

                       PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI]

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes an appropriation of $26,979,000 for the AQI 
appropriated account to conduct preclearance quarantine 
inspections of persons, baggage, cargo, and other articles 
destined for movement from the State of Hawaii to the 
continental United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the United 
States Virgin Islands.
    Interline Activities.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,750,000 for interline activities in Hawaii. The 
State of Hawaii is currently under a Federal quarantine for 
fruit flies. This quarantine requires the predeparture 
inspection of all airline passengers and luggage departing 
Hawaii for the U.S. mainland. Although APHIS currently provides 
funding to pay for inspections at the Honolulu airport, this 
funding will pay for federally required inspections for flights 
originating at neighbor island airports and connecting in 
Honolulu.
    Phytosanitary Standards.--The Committee urges the 
Department to establish protocols that allow shipment of 
untreated fruits and vegetables grown in Hawaii to cold-weather 
States during winter months while maintaining reasonable 
assurances that potential transshipment of such produce will 
not jeopardize the phytosanitary standards of warm weather 
States. The Committee also urges the Department to follow the 
same scientific principles used to justify rules for foreign 
imports in promulgating rules for exports from Hawaii to the 
U.S. mainland.

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $61,088,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection 
program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2008 level shall 
be used to enhance activities to prevent Medflies from moving 
into the United States as well as activities at U.S. borders.

                   PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING

Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $124,146,000 for the animal health monitoring and 
surveillance program.
    Animal Identification.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $9,787,000 to continue implementation of the National 
Animal Identification System.
    Bio-safety.--The Committee recommendation includes $240,000 
to address bio-safety issues relating to antibiotic resistant 
strains of bacterial pathogens in the State of Vermont.
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy [BSE].--The Committee 
recommendation includes $17,799,000 to continue the ongoing BSE 
surveillance program.
    Disease Surveillance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,400,000 to work with North Dakota State University 
and Dickinson State University to develop, test, and implement 
the use of RFID tags for animal identification, strengthening 
pathogen diagnostic and identification capabilities and 
pinpointing problem areas in the traceback systems and methods 
to resolve them.
    National Farm Animal Identification and Records.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $343,000 to allow additional 
producers to participate in the National Farm Animal 
Identification and Records Project, which electronically 
identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from 
birth to slaughter within 48 hours in order to combat animal 
disease outbreaks.
    New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $404,000 for the New Mexico 
Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection 
and reporting system for infectious animal diseases.
    Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,550,000 for a cooperative 
agreement with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
and Consumer Protection to continue work carried out by the 
Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium. The Wisconsin 
Livestock Identification Consortium serves as a national model 
and laboratory for premise registration, a critical first step 
for nationwide animal identification efforts. This work is key 
to national efforts to improve the traceability of livestock 
and manage potential animal diseases thereby protecting public 
health and safety.

Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $12,583,000 for the animal and plant health regulatory 
enforcement program to support Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 
2131 et seq.) compliance inspections.

Avian Influenza

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $59,849,000 for avian influenza activities.
    Delmarva Peninsula.--The Committee is aware of the large 
poultry industry on the Delmarva Peninsula and the presence of 
live poultry markets in the Mid-Atlantic region. In preparation 
for a possible introduction of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza into the United States, the location and 
concentration of this industry, and its proximity to high human 
population centers and the Atlantic flyway for migratory birds, 
require serious response capabilities. Accordingly, the 
Committee encourages the Secretary to work with appropriate 
Delaware State officials and with the University of Delaware, 
to develop proper surveillance, diagnostic, and response 
systems.

Emergency Management Systems

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $15,619,000 for emergency management systems.

National Veterinary Stockpile

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,739,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile.

Pest Detection

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $27,776,000 for pest detection.
    California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $619,000 to continue the 
California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program, which is 
a statewide network of insect traps and other detection tools 
to serve as an early warning system against serious 
agricultural pests in the State of California.
    Import Inspection.--California's agricultural industry is 
highly susceptible to exotic pests due to its international 
border and as home to some of the Nation's busiest seaports. 
The California County Pest Detection Augmentation Program is 
operated at points of entry in California to prevent the 
establishment of serious agricultural and environmental 
invasive pests and diseases. This funding will address the 
growing of interstate shipments from international ports of 
entry in other States, where inspectors are not monitoring for 
the pests that could devastate California agriculture. The 
Committee recommendation includes $738,000 for this program.

                      PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT

Aquaculture

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,920,000 for the aquaculture program.
    Cormorant and Pelican Control.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $569,000 to continue telemetry and 
population dynamics studies and operations to develop 
environmentally and economically sustainable methods to help 
catfish farmers manage cormorant and pelican populations.
    Lamprey Control.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$100,000 for the State of Vermont's Lake Champlain's Fish and 
Wildlife Management Cooperative for the control of sea 
lampreys, which cause invasive species damage and threaten 
State listed endangered species, and are one of the biggest 
threats to the fishing industry in Lake Champlain.
    Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia [VHS].--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,561,000 for the control of VHS in 
the Great Lakes States, which is $3,033,000 above the budget 
request. The Committee encourages APHIS to continue its work in 
the areas of monitoring, diagnosis, epidemiology and prevention 
of VHS, especially in farmed-raised fish (including those for 
enhancement purposes). The Committee also encourages APHIS to 
begin implementation of the National Aquatic Animal Health Plan 
in approaching aquatic animal health issues holistically.

Brucellosis Eradication

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $9,584,000 for brucellosis eradication.
    Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $692,000 for the Greater 
Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to continue 
brucellosis prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication. 
The Committee encourages the coordination of Federal, State, 
and private actions to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in 
the Greater Yellowstone area. This amount shall be equally 
divided between the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD]

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $17,808,000 for the chronic wasting disease 
certification and control program to include additional 
surveillance and disease control activities with free-ranging 
cervids, and to increase State testing capacity for the timely 
identification of the presence of this disease. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,350,000 for the State of Wisconsin, 
$182,000 for the State of Utah, and $38,000 for the State of 
Colorado.

Contingency Funds

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $3,025,000 for APHIS contingency funds, allowing APHIS 
to control outbreaks of insects, plant diseases, animal 
diseases, and pest animals and birds to the extent necessary to 
meet emergency conditions. The contingency fund allows APHIS to 
act rapidly to control emergencies before they can spread and 
cause significant economic damage.

Cotton Pests

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $29,590,000 for the cotton pests program, of which 
$19,780,000 is for boll weevil and $9,810,000 is for pink 
bollworm.

Emerging Plant Pests

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $127,549,000 for the emerging plant pests program. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to make funds available from 
the CCC for activities related to plant pests in fiscal year 
2009, as necessary.
    Asian Long Horned Beetle.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $19,969,000 for Asian long horned beetle.
    Citrus Health Response Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $35,496,000 for the citrus health 
response program.
    Emerald Ash Borer.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$32,493,000 for emerald ash borer. This invasive species has 
been found in Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. The Committee recognizes that the 
emerald ash borer, which poses a significant threat to the 
Nation's population of ash trees, has the potential to cause 
significant economic and ecological damage, and that further 
efforts are required to manage the spread of emerald ash borer 
and develop techniques and technologies to eradicate this 
species.
    The Committee further recognizes that the recent discovery 
of the Emerald Ash Borer in the City of Chicago poses a 
significant threat to the City's tree population and directs 
APHIS to work collaboratively with the City to manage the 
infestation and to provide appropriate resources.
    Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $23,136,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter.
    Karnal Bunt.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,503,000 for karnal bunt.
    Light Brown Apple Moth.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $993,000 for Light Brown Apple Moth. The Committee 
notes that in fiscal year 2007 and 2008, approximately 
$90,000,000 in CCC funding has been made available for Light 
Brown Apple Moth. As of June 2008, however, only $27,000,000 
has been obligated, leaving $63,000,000 in CCC funds available 
to continue APHIS' efforts.
    Potato Cyst Nematode.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $7,715,000 for potato cyst nematode.
    Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramora).--The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,306,000 for sudden oak death. The 
Committee encourages APHIS to use the funding provided to 
promote the research, development, and testing of new systems 
of nursery pest and disease management and for programs of 
inspection and regulation.
    Varroa Mite Suppression.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $500,000 to suppress and limit the varroa mite 
population on the Island of Oahu, and to prevent spread of the 
mite to the neighboring islands. Colony Collapse Disorder [CCD] 
has devastated bee keepers on mainland USA, and is severely 
limiting the supply of bees to those commercial crops requiring 
bee pollination. The Island of Hawaii (Big Island) is free of 
varroa mite and is a major supplier of queen bees to mainland 
bee keepers with the largest supplier of queen bees in the 
United States located in Kona on Big Island.

Grasshopper

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,456,000 for the grasshopper program.
    Mormon Crickets.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,117,000 for grasshopper and Mormon cricket activities in the 
State of Utah to continue control measures. APHIS may use funds 
provided for Mormon cricket activities in Utah for eradication 
and control of the Black Grass Bug in Utah.

Johne's Disease

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $6,821,000 for Johne's disease. The Committee expects 
APHIS to work with the Agricultural Research Service to 
coordinate activities to research and develop an effective 
diagnostic test for Johne's disease with appropriate field 
validation and methods development. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,000,000 for Johne's activities in 
the State of Wisconsin.

Noxious Weeds

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,773,000 for the noxious weeds program.
    Cogongrass Control.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$221,000 for an invasive species program to prevent the spread 
of cogongrass in Mississippi, and requests that the agency take 
necessary steps to address this invasive weed as a regional 
infestation problem.
    Nevada Weed Management.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $250,000 for a weed management program with the State 
of Nevada to control invasive weeds on rangelands that threaten 
the viability of Nevada's agricultural economy.
    Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $187,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to 
increase the availability and distribution of biological 
control organisms used in an integrated weed management system.

Tuberculosis

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $15,393,000 for the tuberculosis program.
    Bovine Tuberculosis in New Mexico.--The Committee is aware 
of a new occurrence of bovine tuberculosis in New Mexico. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to use authorities and 
resources of the Department to provide testing, monitoring, 
surveillance, and other services as needed toward the control 
and eradication of this disease, and for the prompt restoration 
of split-state status for New Mexico.
    Tuberculosis Transmission.--The Committee is concerned 
about the potential threats that wildlife poses for 
transmitting tuberculosis to domestic livestock and directs the 
agency to continue technical and operational assistance to 
Michigan producers to prevent or reduce the transmission of 
tuberculosis between wildlife and cattle. The Committee also 
encourages the agency to continue its research for developing 
methods to minimize the interaction between wildlife and 
livestock.

Wildlife Services Operations

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $74,163,000 for wildlife services operations. The 
Committee does not concur with the budget request to reduce 
funding in the wildlife services operations account to allow 
cooperators to assume a larger share of the costs associated 
with preventing and reducing wildlife damage. The Committee 
provides funding to continue cooperating with States to conduct 
wildlife management programs such as livestock protection, 
migratory bird damage to crops, invasive species damage, 
property damage, human health and safety, and threatened and 
endangered species protection.
    Beaver Management and Control.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $472,000 for beaver management and 
control in the State of Mississippi. The Committee expects the 
agency to make the fiscal year 2009 level of funding available 
to all counties in the State. The Committee commends the 
agency's assistance in cooperative relationships with local and 
Federal partners to reduce beaver damage to cropland and 
forests. The Committee recommendation also includes $221,000 
for beaver management and control in the State of North 
Carolina.
    Blackbird Management.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $282,000 to conduct methods development and continue 
control measures for minimizing blackbird damage in North and 
South Dakota. The Committee recommendation also includes 
$100,000 for blackbird management activities in Louisiana and 
$127,000 for Kansas.
    Cooperative Livestock Protection Program.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $223,000 for the Cooperative Livestock 
Protection Program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to 
provide technical and operational assistance in identifying, 
controlling, and abating damage, animal health problems, and 
economic losses caused by black vultures, Canadian geese, 
European starlings, coyotes, and other wildlife.
    Cormorant Control.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$495,000 for cormorant management and control, which includes 
$148,000 for the State of Michigan, $110,000 for the Lake 
Champlain basin, and $237,000 for Delta States' operations.
    Integrated Predation Management Activities.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $298,000 for integrated predation 
management activities in the State of West Virginia.
    Oral Rabies Vaccination.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $23,650,000 for rabies control activities. The 
Committee expects a portion of the program increase to be 
available for rabies activities in the Appalachian region and 
to further progress already made along the Appalachian Ridge to 
control this disease.
    Tri-State Predator Control.--Due to the increase in 
federally listed endangered species and the reintroduction of 
wolf populations in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, State operation 
accounts for wildlife services have suffered financially, 
therefore the Committee recommendation includes $986,000 for 
the tri-State predator control program in Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming to respond to wolf depredation and monitor wolf 
populations.
    Western States.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,700,000 to continue wildlife control activities in Western 
States.
    Wildlife Services, Hawaii.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $400,000 for the operation of the State Wildlife 
Services office in Hawaii to provide on-site coordination of 
prevention and control activities in Hawaii and the American 
Pacific. The Committee also recommends $700,000 for activities 
in Hawaii and Guam to prevent movement of brown tree snakes 
from Guam to Hawaii, which would be a major ecological disaster 
for Hawaii, and for expanding efforts to control coqui frog 
infestations.
    Wildlife Services South Dakota.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $553,000 for wildlife service 
operations with the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and 
Parks to meet the growing demands of controlling predatory, 
nuisance, and diseased animals.

                              ANIMAL CARE

Animal Welfare

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $20,894,000 for the animal care unit for enforcement 
of the Animal Welfare Act.

                   SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Biotechnology Regulatory Services

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $11,877,000 for biotechnology regulatory services.
    Genetically Modified Products.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $276,000 for a national institute at 
Iowa State University devoted to risk assessment, mitigation, 
and communication for genetically modified agricultural 
products.

Plant Methods Development Laboratories

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $9,712,000 for the Plant Methods Development 
Laboratories Program.
    Sericea Lespedeza.--The Committee recognizes both the 
importance of sericea lespedeza as a field crop in the 
Southeastern United States and the environmental challenges 
sericea lespedeza poses to ecosystems in tallgrass prairielands 
in the Great Plains region. The Committee recommends that APHIS 
provide Federal field crop designations for sericea lespedeza 
on a regional basis so that conservation programs in tallgrass 
prairie regions where sericea lespedeza is an invasive species 
can partner with USDA to find economically and ecologically 
appropriate controls.

Veterinary Diagnostics

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $23,511,000 for veterinary diagnostics.
    Disease Prevention.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$74,000 to develop diagnostics, treatment and prevention for 
diseases, including West Nile Virus, infecting farm-raised 
reptiles. Research has confirmed that reptiles are a major 
vector for West Nile Virus, and the spread of this disease 
appears to be escalating, posing a significant human health 
risk and a great economic cost to the farming industry.
    National Agriculture Biosecurity Center.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $276,000 for the National Agriculture 
Biosecurity Center in the State of Kansas to help protect 
agricultural infrastructure and economy from endemic and 
emerging biological threats.

Wildlife Services Methods Development

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $17,986,000 for wildlife services methods development.
    Berryman Institute.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$1,117,000 to continue the existing program at the Jack 
Berryman Institute for addressing wildlife damage management 
issues, including wildlife disease threats and wildlife 
economics.
    National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $255,000 to continue existing 
research efforts in aquaculture at the National Wildlife 
Research Center field station in the State of Mississippi.
    National Wildlife Research Station, Texas.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $309,000 for the National Wildlife 
Research Station located in the State of Texas for activities 
related to emerging infectious diseases associated with 
wildlife populations and human health.
    Predator Control.--The Committee understands that APHIS is 
currently evaluating a theobromine and caffeine mixture as a 
possible tool for predation management. The Committee also 
understands that this mixture induces mortality with minimal 
pre-mortality symptoms, and because theobromine and caffeine 
are readily available, antidotes exist should it be 
accidentally ingested by livestock or a pet. The Committee 
encourages APHIS to continue evaluating this method, conduct 
field studies, and take the appropriate steps to register these 
compounds with the Environmental Protection Agency.
    Predator Research Station, Utah.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,033,000 for ongoing activities at 
the Utah Predator Research Station, including research on the 
ecology of wildlife depredation, reproductive intervention 
strategies for managing wildlife depredation, and sensory and 
behavioral methods for managing wildlife depredation on 
livestock.
    Rodent Control.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$172,000 to continue the cooperative agreement with the Hawaii 
Agriculture Research Center for rodent control in active 
agricultural areas to contain and prevent the damage caused to 
Hawaii's agriculture.

                          COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES

    In complying with the Committee's directives, the Committee 
expects APHIS not to redirect support for programs and 
activities without prior notification to and approval by the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations in accordance 
with the reprogramming procedures specified in the act. Unless 
otherwise directed, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service shall implement appropriations by programs, projects, 
and activities as specified by the Appropriations Committees. 
Unspecified reductions necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this act are to be implemented in accordance with the 
definitions contained in the program, project, and activity 
section of this report.

                        BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      $7,431,000
Committee recommendation................................       2,000,000

    The APHIS appropriation for ``Buildings and Facilities'' 
funds major nonrecurring construction projects in support of 
specific program activities and recurring construction, 
alterations, preventive maintenance, and repairs of existing 
APHIS facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommendation includes an appropriation of 
$2,000,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow 
APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically 
needed repairs to and replacements of building components, such 
as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized 
basis at APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the 
environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities, 
closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to 
complete the required repairs.

                     Agricultural Marketing Service

                           MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $76,324,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      76,015,000
Committee recommendation................................      71,655,000

    The Agricultural Marketing Service [AMS] was established by 
the Secretary of Agriculture on April 2, 1972. AMS carries out 
programs authorized by more than 50 different statutory 
authorities, the primary ones being the Agricultural Marketing 
Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627); the U.S. Cotton Standards Act 
(7 U.S.C. 51-65); the Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7 
U.S.C. 471-476); the Tobacco Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511-
511q); the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 
499a-499s); the Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031-
1056); and section 32 (15 U.S.C. 713c).
    Programs administered by this agency include the market 
news services, payments to States for marketing activities, the 
Plant Variety Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 2321 et seq.), the 
Federal administration of marketing agreements and orders, 
standardization, grading, classing, and shell egg surveillance 
services, transportation services, wholesale farmers and 
alternative market development, commodity purchases, Perishable 
Agricultural Commodities Act (7 U.S.C. 499a-499b), and market 
protection and promotion activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $71,655,000 
for marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service.
    Horticulture Marketing.--The Committee is aware of an 
innovative urban horticulture planning, development, and 
marketing project in the State of Illinois. The Committee 
encourages the Department to provide appropriate technical and 
financial assistance to the Windy City Harvest initiative.
    Local Purchase.--The Committee is aware that the Iowa Buy 
Fresh/Buy Local works with communities to implement plans to 
create more local commerce around locally grown foods, 
including working with institutional food buyers to develop 
strong linkages to local farmers and processors. The Committee 
encourages AMS to provide technical and financial assistance, 
as appropriate, to this program.
    Organics.--The Committee recommendation includes $3,177,000 
for the National Organic Program [NOP]. The Committee is aware 
that USDA is implementing draft revisions to the National 
Organic Program resulting from the American National Standards 
Institute [ANSI] 2004 and USDA Office of the Inspector General 
[OIG] 2005 audits. The Committee directs the agency to report 
on the status of these revisions by December 2008. Further, the 
Committee believes the agency should work to publish 
regulations for new, updated pasture standards for organic 
ruminants, and if necessary, resolve conflicting standards 
governing the origin of livestock used in organic dairy, and 
hopes to see action on these items in 2009. Finally, the 
Committee expects the NOP to work closely with the National 
Organic Standards Board with respect to Peer Review Panel 
requirements of the Organic Food Production Act and USDA's 
organic regulations.

                 LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2008........................................     $61,233,000
Budget limitation, 2009.................................      62,888,000
Committee recommendation................................      62,888,000

    The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Public Law 
97-35) initiated a system of user fees for the cost of grading 
and classing cotton, tobacco, naval stores, and for warehouse 
examination. These activities, authorized under the U.S. Cotton 
Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 51 et seq.), the Tobacco Inspection Act 
(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Naval Stores Act (7 U.S.C. 91 et 
seq.), the U.S. Warehouse Act (7 U.S.C. 241 et seq.), and other 
provisions of law are designed to facilitate commerce and to 
protect participants in the industry.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $62,888,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service.

          FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

                              (SECTION 32)

                    MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $16,798,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      17,270,000
Committee recommendation................................      17,270,000

    Under section 32 of the Act of August 24, 1935, (7 U.S.C. 
612c), an amount equal to 30 percent of customs receipts 
collected during each preceding calendar year and unused 
balances are available for encouraging the domestic consumption 
and exportation of agricultural commodities. An amount equal to 
30 percent of receipts collected on fishery products is 
transferred to the Department of Commerce. Additional transfers 
to the child nutrition programs of the Food and Nutrition 
Service have been provided in recent appropriations Acts.
    The following table reflects the status of this fund for 
fiscal years 2007-2009:

               ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD--FISCAL YEARS 2007-2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2007  Fiscal year 2008  Fiscal year 2009
                                                                 actual           estimate          estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts)............    $7,029,269,059    $7,563,683,777    $7,979,334,788
    Rescission............................................       -37,601,000      -684,000,000  ................
Less Transfers:
     Food and Nutrition Service...........................    -5,731,073,000    -6,253,548,000    -6,721,834,000
    Commerce Department...................................       -82,817,059       -84,594,777       -84,500,788
    GSA Board of Contract Appeals.........................           -47,345  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Transfers....................................    -5,813,937,404    -6,338,142,777    -6,806,334,788
                                                           =====================================================
Budget Authority..........................................     1,177,730,655       541,541,000     1,173,000,000
Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year..............       146,760,123       500,000,000  ................
Offsetting Collections....................................       139,276,862  ................  ................
Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations......................           119,915  ................  ................
Available for Obligation..................................     1,463,887,555     1,041,541,000     1,173,000,000
Less Obligations:
    Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities)....       465,000,000       465,000,000       465,000,000
    12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement................       199,860,396       150,000,000       150,000,000
    State Option Contract.................................  ................         5,000,000         5,000,000
    Removal of Defective Commodities......................         1,871,239        52,500,000         2,500,000
    Emergency Surplus Removal.............................        56,891,473        89,460,000  ................
    Direct Payments.......................................       101,650,000  ................  ................
    Disaster Relief.......................................        11,316,600         5,000,000         5,000,000
    Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.....................  ................  ................       108,000,000
    Whole Grain Products Study (FSA)......................  ................  ................         4,000,000
    Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases.....  ................       190,000,000       193,000,000
    Estimated Future Needs................................  ................        45,997,000       191,149,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Commodity Procurement........................       836,589,708     1,002,957,000     1,123,649,000
                                                           =====================================================
Administrative Funds:
    Commodity Purchase Support............................        31,146,383        21,786,000        32,081,000
    Marketing Agreements and Orders.......................        15,492,951        16,798,000        17,270,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Administrative Funds.........................        46,639,334        38,584,000        49,351,000
                                                           =====================================================
      Total Obligations...................................       883,229,042     1,041,541,000     1,173,000,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
Returned To Treasury......................................       -80,658,513  ................  ................
Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year................       500,000,000  ................  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds 
of $17,270,000 for the formulation and administration of 
marketing agreements and orders.
    Section 32 Authorities.--Under the authority described in 
clause 3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct 
funds from the section 32 account to increase the purchasing 
power of producers. This practice has been used on various 
occasions to provide direct assistance to producers when market 
forces or natural conditions adversely affect the financial 
condition of farmers and ranchers. The Committee notes the 
importance in the ability of the Secretary to utilize this 
authority, but believes that communication between the 
Department and the Congress should be improved when this 
practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the 
Secretary to provide notification to the Appropriations 
Committee in advance of any public announcement or release of 
section 32 funds under the specific authorities cited above.

                   PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $11,627,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       1,334,000
Committee recommendation................................       1,685,000

    The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program [FSMIP] is 
authorized by section 204(b) of the Agricultural Marketing Act 
of 1946 and is also funded from appropriations. Payments are 
made to State marketing agencies to: identify and test market 
alternative farm commodities; determine methods of providing 
more reliable market information, and develop better commodity 
grading standards. This program has made possible many types of 
projects, such as electronic marketing and agricultural product 
diversification. Current projects are focused on the 
improvement of marketing efficiency and effectiveness, and 
seeking new outlets for existing farm produced commodities. The 
legislation grants the U.S. Department of Agriculture authority 
to establish cooperative agreements with State departments of 
agriculture or similar State agencies to improve the efficiency 
of the agricultural marketing chain. The States perform the 
work or contract it to others, and must contribute at least 
one-half of the cost of the projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,685,000 for 
payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing 
projects and activities. The Committee directs that $360,000 be 
provided to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and 
Consumer Protection to provide food safety training; technical 
assistance for market and business planning; and assistance for 
producers with packaging, label development, and market 
distribution for specialty meat products.

        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $38,514,000
Budget estimate, 2009..........................      44,005,000
Committee recommendation................................      39,182,000

    The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 
[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary's 1994 
reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are 
carried out under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et 
seq.) and other programs under the authority of the 
Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, including the inspection 
and grading of rice and grain-related products; conducting 
official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading 
dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the 
Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), assurance of 
the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry 
markets is provided. The administration monitors competition in 
order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from 
deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and 
poultry prices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,182,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and 
Stockyards Administration.

        LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2008........................................     $42,463,000
Budget limitation, 2009.................................      42,463,000
Committee recommendation................................      42,463,000

    The Agency provides an official grain inspection and 
weighing system under the U.S. Grain Standards Act [USGSA], and 
official inspection of rice and grain-related products under 
the Agricultural Marketing Act [AMA] of 1946. The USGSA was 
amended in 1981 to require the collection of user fees to fund 
the costs associated with the operation, supervision, and 
administration of Federal grain inspection and weighing 
activities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $42,463,000 on 
inspection and weighing services expenses.

             Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $596,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         659,000
Committee recommendation................................         613,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety provides 
direction and coordination in carrying out the laws enacted by 
the Congress with respect to the Department's inspection of 
meat, poultry, and egg products. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $613,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.

                   Food Safety and Inspection Service

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $929,742,000
Budget estimate, 2009..........................     951,946,000
Committee recommendation................................     973,566,000

    The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service are to assure that meat and poultry products are 
wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as 
required by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et 
seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg 
processing plants under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
    The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on 
June 17, 1981, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1000-1, issued 
pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953.
    The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection 
Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic 
plants preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or 
distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and 
establishments that prepare meat or poultry products for export 
to the United States; and provides technical and financial 
assistance to States which maintain meat and poultry inspection 
programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $973,566,000 
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. This amount is 
$21,620,000 above the President's request and is necessary for 
FSIS to carry out new responsibilities mandated by the Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
    Codex Alimentarius.--Codex Alimentarius is critical for the 
protection of consumer health globally and facilitating 
international trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends 
$3,827,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex 
office including international outreach and education.
    Humane Slaughter.--The Committee is pleased that the budget 
request included $3,000,000 for maintenance of the Humane 
Animal Tracking System [HATS]. The Committee recommendation 
includes full funding, and notes that maintenance of this 
system will include costs such as monthly access fees, hardware 
servicing, remote maintenance charges, and any additional 
personnel costs. The additional personnel costs could include 
staff support required to configure and service equipment, as 
well as personnel to provide technical support via the help 
desk.
    The Committee recommends the amount requested in the 
budget, which will maintain no less than 120 full-time 
equivalent positions which have been provided solely for humane 
slaughter enforcement. The Committee continues to believe that 
a portion of this funding should be used to allow additional 
FSIS personnel to continue to work cooperatively with the 
existing District Veterinary Medical Specialists [DVMS], whose 
duties are specifically tied to HMSA enforcement, and to allow 
each DVMS opportunities to visit facilities in other FSIS 
districts to enhance communication and problem solving among 
all districts.
    State Meat Inspection.--The Committee is pleased that 
Public Law 110-246 included language requiring that FSIS fund 
State meat inspection costs at no less than 60 percent of 
eligible State costs, as well as provisions allowing for the 
shipments of meat and poultry from eligible State inspected 
plants in interstate commerce. The Committee notes that the 
Secretary is directed to promulgate regulations regarding this 
provision within 18 months of enactment of Public Law 110-246, 
but encourages the Secretary to begin work to implement these 
provisions immediately.
    The following table represents the Committee's specific 
recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as 
compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget request levels:

                            FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Fiscal year
                                                                    Fiscal year     2009 budget      Committee
                                                                   2008 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety Inspection:
    Federal.....................................................         831,152         850,530         872,150
    State.......................................................          63,421          65,703          65,703
    International...............................................          18,464          18,916          18,916
    PHDCIS......................................................          12,970          12,970          12,970
    Codex Alimentarius..........................................           3,735           3,827           3,827
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................         929,742         951,946         973,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 
                                Services

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $628,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         695,000
Committee recommendation................................         646,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's international affairs (except for foreign 
economic development) and commodity programs. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Farm Service 
Agency (including the Commodity Credit Corporation), Risk 
Management Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $646,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign 
Agricultural Services.

                          Farm Service Agency

    The Farm Service Agency [FSA] was established October 3, 
1994, pursuant to the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and 
Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, Public 
Law 103-354. The FSA administers a variety of activities, such 
as the commodity price support and production adjustment 
programs financed by the Commodity Credit Corporation; the 
Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]; the Emergency Conservation 
Program; the Commodity Operation Programs including the 
warehouse examination function; farm ownership, farm operating, 
emergency disaster, and other loan programs; and the Noninsured 
Crop Disaster Assistance Program [NAP], which provides crop 
loss protection for growers of many crops for which crop 
insurance is not available. In addition, FSA currently provides 
certain administrative support services to the Foreign 
Agricultural Service [FAS] and to the Risk Management Agency 
[RMA].

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from    Total, FSA,
                                                                Appropriations      program       salaries, and
                                                                                    accounts         expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.........................................   $1,125,705,000      304,188,000    1,429,893,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................    1,188,580,000      332,946,000    1,521,526,000
Committee recommendation.....................................    1,164,123,000      331,547,000    1,495,670,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The account Salaries and Expenses, Farm Service Agency, 
funds the administrative expenses of program administration and 
other functions assigned to FSA. The funds consist of 
appropriations and transfers from the CCC export credit 
guarantees, Public Law 480 loans, and agricultural credit 
insurance fund program accounts, and miscellaneous advances 
from other sources. All administrative funds used by FSA are 
consolidated into one account. The consolidation provides 
clarity and better management and control of funds, and 
facilitates accounting, fiscal, and budgetary work by 
eliminating the necessity for making individual allocations and 
allotments and maintaining and recording obligations and 
expenditures under numerous separate accounts.
    The Committee, again, fully funds the information 
technology [IT] needs requested in the President's budget 
proposal. The Committee remains aware of the unstable status of 
the Farm Service Agency computer system which is responsible 
for the calculation and tracking of the agency's payments to 
agricultural producers, and which has resulted in disruption of 
services to U.S. farmers and ranchers. The Department continues 
to submit inadequate and inconsistent budget requests for this 
deteriorating system and has shown an extreme lack of 
cooperation with this Committee in an effort to resolve this 
devolving situation. The Committee continues to stand willing 
to work with the Department to stabilize and modernize the 
system whenever this growing problem reaches a level of 
importance within the Department that matches the one it has 
long since reached in this Committee.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,164,123,000 
for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency.
    Conservation Reserve Program.--As the value of land has 
risen over several consecutive years, some Conservation Reserve 
Program [CRP] participants have recognized the financial 
advantage of breaking their contract and returning 
environmentally sensitive land to production. As this trend 
shows no sign of reversing in the near future, it is 
appropriate to determine the effects of recalculating CRP 
payment rates for existing contracts where the surveyed value 
of land is above the established payment rate for 3 consecutive 
years. The Committee directs the Farm Service Agency to issue a 
report within 90 days of enactment of this Act to assess the 
effects such a policy change would have on program costs, early 
withdrawal rates, and future participation.
    National Agriculture Imagery Program.--The Committee 
recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high resolution 
satellite imagery data or products to meet programmatic 
requirements. The acquisition of high resolution satellite 
imagery will also encourage the development of second 
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our 
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century 
technological innovation.

                         STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $4,369,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       4,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,369,000

    This program is authorized under title V of the 
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). 
Originally designed to address agricultural credit disputes, 
the program was expanded by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform 
and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 
(Public Law 103-354) to include other agricultural issues such 
as wetland determinations, conservation compliance, rural water 
loan programs, grazing on National Forest System lands, and 
pesticides. The authorization for this program was extended 
through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109-17. Grants are made 
to States whose mediation programs have been certified by the 
FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of 
the State's agricultural mediation program.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for 
State Mediation Grants.

               GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $3,687,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       3,687,000

    This program is intended to assist in the protection of 
groundwater through State rural water associations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,687,000 for 
Grassroots Source Water Protection.

                        DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $100,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         100,000
Committee recommendation................................         400,000

    Under the program, the Department makes indemnification 
payments to dairy farmers and manufacturers of dairy products 
who, through no fault of their own, suffer losses because they 
are directed to remove their milk from commercial markets due 
to contamination of their products by registered pesticides. 
The program also authorizes indemnity payments to dairy farmers 
for losses resulting from the removal of cows or dairy products 
from the market due to nuclear radiation or fallout.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,000 for 
the Dairy Indemnity Program.

           AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 
used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm 
operating, and emergency loans to individuals, as well as the 
following types of loans to associations: irrigation and 
drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll 
weevil eradication.
    FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to 
borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having 
a contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary 
of Agriculture.
    The following programs are financed through this fund:
    Boll Weevil Eradication Loans.--Made to assist foundations 
in financing the operations of the boll weevil eradication 
programs provided to farmers.
    Credit Sales of Acquired Property.--Property is sold out of 
inventory and is made available to an eligible buyer by 
providing FSA loans.
    Emergency Loans.--Made to producers to aid recovery from 
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding, other 
natural disasters, or quarantine. The loans may be used to: 
restore or replace essential property; pay all or part of 
production costs associated with the disaster year; pay 
essential family living expenses; reorganize the farming 
operation; and refinance certain debts.
    Farm Operating Loans.--Provide short-to-intermediate term 
production or chattel credit to farmers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere, to improve their farm and home operations, 
and to develop or maintain a reasonable standard of living. The 
term of the loan varies from 1 to 7 years.
    Farm Ownership Loans.--Made to borrowers who cannot obtain 
credit elsewhere to restructure their debts, improve or 
purchase farms, refinance nonfarm enterprises which supplement 
but do not supplant farm income, or make additions to farms. 
Loans are made for 40 years or less.
    Indian Tribe Land Acquisition Loans.--Made to any Indian 
tribe recognized by the Secretary of the Interior or tribal 
corporation established pursuant to the Indian Reorganization 
Act (Public Law 93-638) which does not have adequate 
uncommitted funds to acquire lands or interest in lands within 
the tribe's reservation or Alaskan Indian community, as 
determined by the Secretary of the Interior, for use of the 
tribe or the corporation or the members thereof.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a total loan level of 
$3,427,584,000 for programs within the Agricultural Credit 
Insurance Fund Program Account.
    The following table reflects the program levels for farm 
credit programs administered by the Farm Service Agency 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2008 and the budget request levels:

                                    AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS--LOAN LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted     2009 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm ownership:
    Direct...................................................          222,298          252,902          222,298
    Guaranteed...............................................        1,238,768        1,223,636        1,238,768
Farm Operating:
    Direct...................................................          575,095          628,372          575,095
    Guaranteed unsubsidized..................................        1,017,497        1,012,369        1,017,497
    Guaranteed subsidized....................................          269,986          260,943          269,986
Indian Tribe Land Acquisition................................            3,940            3,975            3,940
Boll Weevil Eradication......................................          100,000           59,400          100,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm Loans......................................        3,427,584        3,441,597        3,427,584
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LOAN SUBSIDIES AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Subsidies                  Administrative expenses
                                --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Guaranteed                               Transfer to   Total ACIF
                                 Direct loan      loan        Total     Appropriations      FSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008...........       82,996       65,594      148,590        309,051       301,186      457,641
Budget estimate, 2009..........       88,801       65,230      154,031        333,013       325,093      487,044
Committee recommendation.......       80,767       66,655      147,422        331,559       323,694      478,981
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account are used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated and loan guarantees committed, as well as for 
administrative expenses.
    The following table reflects the cost of loan programs 
under credit reform:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted     2009 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Farm ownership:
        Direct...............................................            9,982           14,466           12,715
        Guaranteed...........................................            4,955            4,038            4,088
    Farm operating:
        Direct...............................................           72,980           74,085           67,804
        Guaranteed unsubsidized..............................           24,623           25,208           25,336
        Guaranteed subsidized................................           36,016           35,984           37,231
    Indian Tribe Land Acquisition............................              124              250              248
    Boll Weevil Eradication..................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Total, loan subsidies................................          148,590          154,031          147,422
ACIF expenses................................................          309,051          333,013          331,559
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Risk Management Agency

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $76,048,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      77,177,000
Committee recommendation................................      77,177,000

    The Risk Management Agency performs administrative 
functions relative to the Federal crop insurance program that 
is authorized by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 
1508), as amended by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 
2000 [ARPA], Public Law 106-224, and the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
    ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance 
program. This act provides higher government subsidies for 
producer premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands 
research and development for new insurance products and under-
served areas through contracts with the private sector; and 
tightens compliance. Functional areas of risk management are: 
research and development; insurance services; and compliance, 
whose functions include policy formulation and procedures and 
regulations development.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $77,177,000 
for the Risk Management Agency.
    Data Mining.--The Committee includes bill language to allow 
up to $11,166,000 of the unobligated funds of the Federal Crop 
Insurance Corporation Fund to be used for program compliance 
and integrity purposes, including the data mining projects, and 
for the Common Information Management System.
    Pest Information Platform for Education and Extension 
[PIPE].--The Pest Information Platform for Education and 
Extension [PIPE] is a monitoring and early-warning system 
developed to alert farmers to the presence and spread of 
soybean rust and other pests. The Committee encourages RMA to 
continue the PIPE program in fiscal year 2009.

                              CORPORATIONS

                Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund

Appropriations, 2008\1\.................................  $4,818,099,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................   6,582,945,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................   6,582,945,000

\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary, to remain available 
until expended, are provided.

    The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal 
Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994, authorizes the payment of 
expenses which may include indemnity payments, loss adjustment, 
delivery expenses, program-related research and development, 
startup costs for implementing this legislation such as 
studies, pilot projects, data processing improvements, public 
outreach, and related tasks and functions.
    All program costs, except for Federal salaries and 
expenses, are mandatory expenditures subject to appropriation.
    Producers of insurable crops are eligible to receive a 
basic level of protection against catastrophic losses, which 
cover 50 percent of the normal yield at 55 percent of the 
expected price. The only cost to the producer is an 
administrative fee of $100 per crop per policy.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary, estimated to be $6,582,945,000 for the 
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund.

                   Commodity Credit Corporation Fund

    The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 
Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, 
and protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced 
and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including 
products, foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly 
distribution of these commodities. CCC was originally 
incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated 
June 30, 1948, as a Federal corporation within the Department 
of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, 
approved June 29, 1948 (15 U.S.C. 714).
    The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, 
selling, lending, and other activities with respect to 
agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and 
fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and 
protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and 
adequate supplies of selected commodities; and facilitating the 
orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the 
Corporation makes available materials and facilities required 
in connection with the storage and distribution of such 
commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing 
of costs with producers for the establishment of approved 
conservation practices on environmentally sensitive land and 
subsequent rental payments for such land for the duration of 
Conservation Reserve Program contracts.
    Corporation activities are primarily governed by the 
following statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act (Public Law 80-806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 
1949 (Public Law 81-439), as amended (1949 Act); the 
Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (Public Law 75-430), as 
amended (the 1938 Act); the Food Security Act of 1985 (Public 
Law 99-198), as amended (1985 Act); and the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246).
    Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of 
directors, subject to the general supervision and direction of 
the Secretary of Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and 
chairman of the board. The board consists of seven members, in 
addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President 
of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. 
Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their 
positions in the Department of Agriculture.
    The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by 
the personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service 
Agency [FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county 
committees. The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales 
Manager, other agencies and offices of the Department, and 
commercial agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of 
the Corporation's activities.
    Under Public Law 87-155 (15 U.S.C. 713a-11, 713a-12), 
annual appropriations are authorized for each fiscal year, 
commencing with fiscal year 1961. These appropriations are to 
reimburse the Corporation for net realized losses.

                 REIMBURSEMENT FOR NET REALIZED LOSSES

Appropriations, 2008\1\................................. $12,983,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................  11,106,324,000
Committee recommendation\1\.............................  11,106,324,000

\1\Current estimate. Such sums as may be necessary are provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 
may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2009 to be 
$11,106,324,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 
Credit Corporation for net realized losses.

                       HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2008........................................      $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       5,000,000
Committee recommendation................................       5,000,000

    The Commodity Credit Corporation's [CCC] hazardous waste 
management program is intended to ensure compliance with the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.) and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The CCC 
funds operations and maintenance costs as well as site 
investigation and cleanup expenses. Investigative and cleanup 
costs associated with the management of CCC hazardous waste are 
also paid from USDA's hazardous waste management appropriation.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $5,000,000 for 
Commodity Credit Corporation hazardous waste management.

              FARM STORAGE FACILITY LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2008....................................................
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      $4,724,000
Committee recommendation................................       4,724,000

    The Farm Storage Facility Loan Program [FSFL], originally 
established in 1949, was discontinued in the early 1980's 
pending adequate capacity, and re-established in fiscal year 
2000 to address current storage space shortages. Federal 
Government subsidy costs supporting this program are estimated 
pursuant to the Federal Credit Reform Act [FCRA] of 1990 
(Public Law 101-508, sec. 13201, et seq.) (2 U.S.C. 661, et 
seq.). The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 
directed the CCC to establish a Sugar Storage Facility Loan 
Program to provide financing for domestic processors to 
construct and improve sugar storage and handling facilities. 
Administrative expenses for this program have been included in 
the Salaries and Expenses account of the Farm Service Agency 
[FSA], which administers the program. Following OMB guidance 
(Circular A-11), FSA recently moved these expenses to the FSFL 
account to comply with FCRA section 504(g) direction that all 
funding for an agency's administration of a direct loan or loan 
guarantee program shall be displayed as distinct and separately 
identified subaccounts within the same budget account as the 
program's cost (2 U.S.C. 661c).

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,724,000 for 
administration of the Farm Storage Facility Loan Program.

                                TITLE II

                         CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

  Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $737,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         822,000
Committee recommendation................................         758,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment provides direction and coordination in carrying out 
the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to natural 
resources and the environment. The Office has oversight and 
management responsibilities for the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service and the Forest Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $758,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and 
Environment.
    Atlantic Salmon Recovery.--The Committee supports the goals 
of the Penobscot River Restoration Project in the State of 
Maine. This project will restore nearly 1,000 miles of habitat 
in the Penobscot watershed for endangered Atlantic salmon and 
six other species of sea-run fish and 100 percent of the 
historic habitat in Maine's largest river system for four 
additional species. The Committee encourages NRCS to improve 
migratory fish habitat in this watershed, including the 
purchase of dams and the removal of impediments to passage, by 
utilizing all appropriate funding sources.
    Houlka Master Watershed Project.--The Committee directs the 
Department to provide monthly updates on its execution of 
section 731 of this act.
    Wetlands Reserve Program.--The Committee strongly 
encourages the NRCS to establish a demonstration pilot program 
utilizing rapid growth reforestation technology.
    Wetlands Reserve Program Assessments.--In February 2006, 
the Secretary announced a change in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program that would take into account the value of recreational 
and similar uses in determining the appraised value of 
easements offered under this program. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to minimize the effect this change will have in 
regard to geographical participation in the Wetlands Reserve 
Program and report to the Committee within 120 days of 
enactment of this act on the impact this policy change may have 
on utilization of this program in all regions of the country 
and the steps taken to minimize such change.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] was 
established pursuant to Public Law 103-354, the Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 6962). The 
NRCS works with conservation districts, watershed groups, and 
Federal and State agencies to bring about physical adjustments 
in land use that will conserve soil and water resources, 
provide for agricultural production on a sustained basis, and 
reduce flood damage and sedimentation.

                        conservation operations

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $834,013,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     794,773,000
Committee recommendation................................     866,899,000

    Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74-46 
(16 U.S.C. 590a-590f). Activities include:
    Conservation Technical Assistance.--Provides assistance to 
district cooperators and other land users in the planning and 
application of conservation treatments to control erosion and 
improve the quantity and quality of soil resources, improve and 
conserve water, enhance fish and wildlife habitat, conserve 
energy, improve woodland, pasture and range conditions, and 
reduce upstream flooding; all to protect and enhance the 
natural resource base.
    Inventory and monitoring provides soil, water, and related 
resource data for land conservation, use, and development; 
guidance of community development; identification of prime 
agricultural producing areas that should be protected; 
environmental quality protection; and for the issuance of 
periodic inventory reports of resource conditions.
    Resource appraisal and program development ensures that 
programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the 
conservation of soil, water, and related resources shall 
respond to the Nation's long-term needs.
    Plant Materials Centers.--Assembles, tests, and encourages 
increased use of plant species which show promise for use in 
the treatment of conservation problem areas.
    Snow Survey and Water Forecasting.--Provides estimates of 
annual water availability from high mountain snow packs and 
relates to summer stream flow in the western States and Alaska. 
Information is used by agriculture, industry, and cities in 
estimating future water supplies.
    Soil Surveys.--Inventories the Nation's basic soil 
resources and determines land capabilities and conservation 
treatment needs. Soil survey publications include 
interpretations useful to cooperators, other Federal agencies, 
State, and local organizations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $866,899,000 
for Conservation Operations.
    For fiscal year 2009, the Committee recommends funding, as 
specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. 
Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation 
measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made 
available to States.
    Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $400,000 to continue a 
community-based agricultural development and resource 
conservation program with the four RC&D Councils in Hawaii.
    Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center [AWCC].--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for the AWCC. The 
AWCC is part of NRCS and supports the development of wildlife 
habitat technology through a competitive grants program 
available to many cooperative conservation partners, including 
fish and wildlife conservation groups, universities, and State 
agencies. The AWCC will ensure new technology is available to 
farmers and ranchers nationwide through NRCS field offices.
    Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $920,000 for conservation 
efforts in the State of Alaska. This project assists 
conservation district cooperators and other land users in the 
planning and application of conservation treatments.
    Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $115,000 for the Big Sandy 
Tri-State Watershed. This project will initiate watershed 
inventory and analysis activities, which include identifying 
abandoned mine lands, assessing associated water quality 
impacts, and coordinating with partners to complete the master 
plan
    Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $287,000 for the Carson City erosion 
control project in the State of Nevada. The purpose of this 
project is to develop a plan for preventing wildfires, manage 
erosion control, and reforestation.
    Certified Environmental Management Systems for 
Agriculture.--The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 
for Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture. 
This project guides the producer through planning, 
implementing, evaluating and reviewing business decisions that 
affect the environment.
    Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $250,000 for the Chenier Plain 
Sustainability Initiative in the State of Louisiana. This 
project will restore wetlands and marshes in the Chenier Plain 
as well as the replanting of native grasses.
    Conservation Internships.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $120,000 for conservation internships. Together with 
State and local resources, these funds provide internships for 
college students preparing for careers in natural resource 
management. This real world training helps these emerging 
natural resource professionals navigate the day-to-day 
challenges faced by farmers and Federal, State, and local 
natural resource planners.
    Conservation Outreach and Education.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $215,000 for a conservation outreach 
and education program in the City of Foley, Alabama. The goal 
of this project is to increase awareness of the importance of 
conservation practices through the development of an 
educational conservation program and teaching facilities.
    Conservation Planning.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $450,000 for cranberry conservation work in the States 
of Wisconsin and Massachusetts. The purpose of this project is 
to help farmers increase cranberry production while reducing 
the effects on the environment. Cranberry growers can develop 
conservation plans to ensure that cranberry cultivation is done 
in a manner that protects water quality, prevents soil erosion 
and manages nutrient and pesticide use.
    Conservation Technical Assistance.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $251,000 for conservation technical 
assistance in the State of New Jersey. These funds will address 
water quality issues and small farm operations. In addition, 
funding will provide technical assistance towards agricultural 
operations in the New Jersey Highlands.
    Conservation Technology Transfer.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $550,000 for conservation technology 
transfer in the State of Wisconsin. This program brings 
together NRCS, the University of Wisconsin Extension, and the 
University of Wisconsin Platteville in a collaborative effort 
to demonstrate effective conservation practices. Working on 
real farms under a variety of cropping and land use systems, 
they help farmers adopt effective conservation practices that 
have been tested under their local conditions.
    Delta Conservation Demonstration.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $400,000 for a demonstration project in 
Washington County, Mississippi. This project will develop an 
education and training program for the short and long term 
natural resources conservation training needs of the NRCS, the 
Mississippi Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the 
Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
    Delta Water Study.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$250,000 for the Delta Water Study. The purpose of this study 
is to support and expedite the survey, design, and installation 
of weirs in Williams Bayou in Washington County, Bee Lake in 
Holmes County, both in the State of Mississippi, and other 
activities as part of the Delta Study objectives.
    Driftless Area Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $310,000 for conservation in the Driftless area in the 
States of Wisconsin and Minnesota. This project will help to 
reduce the significant soil erosion, sedimentation, and run-off 
affecting water quality in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. 
Excess sediment and nutrients severely damage local rivers and 
wetlands, and are being washed down the Mississippi River to 
the Gulf of Mexico.
    Environmental Compliance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $220,000 for environmental compliance in the State of 
Wisconsin. This project helps agriculture producers comply with 
Federal, State and local land use and environmental protection 
initiatives. Together they will develop a model ``one stop'' 
program which will help producers efficiently navigate these 
changing and multi-faceted requirements.
    Farm Viability Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $251,000 for a farm viability program in the State of 
Vermont. This program helps producers assess the long-term 
viability of their farming operation by implementing plans to 
improve their long-term business prospects.
    Georgia Soil and Water Commission.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $800,000 for a cooperative agreement in 
the State of Georgia. This project provides agricultural water 
storage facilities for irrigation of cropland and improves the 
efficiencies of existing irrigation systems.
    Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education 
Watershed Project.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$300,000 for watershed projects in the State of Texas. This 
project will address pressing issues related to the nearly 300 
watershed in Texas that have been identified as impaired, 
threatened or at-risk. The impact includes unsafe water 
supplies, degraded fisheries, river and reservoir siltation, 
and impaired habitat.
    Grazing Land Conservation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $780,000 for grazing land conservation activities in 
the State of Wisconsin. This project supports applied research, 
on-farm demonstrations, education activities, and technical 
services through the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade 
and Consumer Protection to support producers wishing to switch 
to a grazing system or wanting to enhance their existing 
systems.
    Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $9,930,000 for the grazing lands 
conservation initiative.
    Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $430,000 for Great Lakes Basin soil and 
erosion control. Sediment from agriculture is a major 
contaminant in drinking water. The goal of this program is to 
prevent soil, nitrogen, and phosphorus from entering the Great 
Lakes and regional waters by reducing soil erosion and 
controlling sedimentation. The Committee expects that funding 
for this project include appropriate accountability provisions, 
including a full reporting of conservation measures implemented 
and demonstrable accomplishments.
    Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity 
Project.--The Committee recommendation includes $89,000 for a 
cooperative agreement in the State of Kentucky. The goal of 
this project is to monitor the water quality and biological 
diversity of the Green River and surrounding watershed to 
evaluate the effectiveness of State conservation efforts to 
limit erosion in the watershed and mitigate pesticide and 
nutrient loading from nearby agricultural operations.
    Hungry Canyons Alliance.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $300,000 to address soil erosion in the Loess Hills 
area in the State of Iowa. Streambed degradation in the loess 
soils of western Iowa has caused damage to infrastructure and 
loss of land. The goal of this project is to provide financial 
and technical assistance for streambed stabilization projects; 
to conduct research in effective methods of streambed 
stabilization; and to provide demonstration of streambed 
stabilization projects.
    Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for the Illinois 
River Agricultural Water Conservation Project in the State of 
Illinois. The goal of this project is to conduct wetland 
demonstration projects to protect against flood damage, reduce 
soil erosion and improve water quality associated with the 
Illinois and Mississippi Rivers; and to facilitate landowner 
adoption of multi-purpose soil, water and wetland conservation 
practices in cooperation with local soil and water conservation 
districts.
    Kentucky Soil Erosion Control.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $771,000 for soil erosion control in 
the State of Kentucky. The goal of this project is to plan, 
design, construct, and implement best management practices to 
protect the resource base and provide environmental benefits.
    Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure 
Delivery System.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$143,000 for a gravity delivery system in the State of Idaho. 
This project will convert an open canal gravity delivery system 
to a closed gravity pressurized system which will result in 
energy and water savings.
    Mississippi Conservation Initiative.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,218,000 for the Mississippi 
Conservation Initiative. This project assists several cities 
and towns in Mississippi with drainage improvements. The 
improvements consist of water retention ponds, de-snagging, 
repair and technical assistance of existing dams, and 
assistance with project development on several sites.
    Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource 
Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes $71,000 
for agriculture development and resource conservation on the 
Island of Molokai, Hawaii.
    Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient 
Irrigation.--The Committee recommendation includes $143,000 for 
a water conservation and efficient irrigation project in the 
State of California. The goal of this project is to conserve 
30,000 acre-feet of water in Orange County, California.
    National Geospatial Development Center.--The Committee 
encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National 
Geospatial Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia.
    Nitrate Pollution Reduction.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $165,000 for nitrate pollution reduction in the State 
of Rhode Island. This project would permit NRCS to work with 
the University of Rhode Island, agricultural producers, and 
rural residents to develop nitrate control strategies that 
reduce nitrate contamination in aquifers and watersheds.
    On-farm Management Systems Evaluation Network.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for an On-Farm 
Management Systems Evaluation Network. The purpose of this 
project is to coordinate a network of growers using GPS, yield 
monitors, and remote sensing technologies to improve nitrogen 
management in corn.
    Operation Oak Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $100,000 for the Operation Oak Program. This program 
supplies oak and other mast producing hardwood species 
seedlings to landowners to meet the needs of timber production 
and wildlife management and to reverse the decline of hardwood 
regeneration in the South.
    Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $179,000 to reduce phosphorous loadings 
to Lake Champlain in the State of Vermont. The phosphorous 
levels in parts of Lake Champlain are so high that they cause 
excessive algal growth causing accelerated aging of the lake. 
The goal of this project is to find new agricultural and 
wastewater management technologies to reduce phosphorous in the 
lake.
    Plant Material Centers.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $10,928,000 for NRCS plant material centers. In 
addition, $113,000 is included for the Hawaii Plant Material 
Center.
    Potomac River Tributary Strategy.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $179,000 for Potomac River tributary 
strategy in the State of West Virginia. This project will 
assist agriculture producers in the Potomac Highlands to 
develop Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans to address 
water quality issues in the Potomac River and the Chesapeake 
Bay Watershed.
    Riparian Restoration.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $179,000 for riparian restoration along the Rio 
Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers in the State of New Mexico. 
This project emphasizes restoration of areas affected by 
invasive species.
    Risk Management Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $717,000 for a risk management initiative in the State 
of West Virginia. This project provides on-farm technical 
assistance to educate producers about planning better pasture 
and livestock management to enhance economic development and 
protect the environment.
    Sand County Foundation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $950,000 for the Sand County Foundation. This project 
is operating a multi-year, multi-State experiment to 
demonstrate, test, and evaluate the cost effectiveness of 
techniques to reduce runoff of nitrogen from agricultural 
practices.
    Soil Phosphorus Studies.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $215,000 for soil phosphorus studies in the State of 
West Virginia. This project supports farm operators, 
particularly poultry and beef, to meet environmental 
regulations regarding the management of phosphorus on their 
lands by conducting soil analysis and building technical 
information specific to the State.
    Snow Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$10,806,000 for snow surveys.
    Soil Survey.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$92,229,000 for nationwide soil surveys. In addition, $143,000 
is included for soil surveys in the State of Rhode Island and 
$200,000 for soil surveys in the State of Wyoming.
    Technical Assistance Grants.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $580,000 for technical assistance grants to Kentucky 
Soil Conservation Districts. These funds will assist landowners 
with the planning, design, and implementation of best 
management practices to protect natural resources and ensure 
that producers participating in farm bill conservation programs 
receive adequate technical assistance.
    Utah Conservation Initiative.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $2,617,000 for the Utah Conservation Initiative. This 
project funds conservation projects throughout Utah, including 
work focusing on water quality and quantity; invasive species; 
and range, riparian, and wildlife habitat restoration.
    Water Conservation.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$400,000 for a water conservation project in the State of 
Colorado. Because of declining water availability in the South 
Platte River Basin, combined with increasing demand for water 
by competing interests, the implementation of new conservation 
technologies is necessary. The goal of this project is to allow 
the resumption of use of irrigation wells for agriculture and 
continued water management for competing users.
    Watershed Demonstration Project.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $143,000 for a watershed demonstration 
project in the State of Iowa. The goal of this project is to 
document and demonstrate progress in meeting national water 
quality objectives for agriculture at a watershed level. The 
means to accomplish this involves a partnership effort with 
local producers, industry, researchers, and government 
agencies.
    Water Quality.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$251,000 to improve water quality through the Utah confined 
animal feed operation/animal feeding operation pilot project.
    Wildlife Habitat Improvement.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $200,000 for wildlife habitat improvement in the State 
of Illinois. Wildlife professionals are concerned about the 
rapid decline of prairie-dependent wildlife and plants. This 
project would allow for hundreds of thousands of additional 
acres of wildlife habitat to be improved creating miles of 
corridors of natural prairie.

               watershed and flood prevention operations

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $29,790,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      29,790,000

    The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public 
Law 566, 83d Cong.) (16 U.S.C. 1001-1005, 1007-1009) provides 
for cooperation between the Federal Government and the States 
and their political subdivisions in a program to prevent 
erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds or 
rivers and streams and to further the conservation, 
development, utilization, and disposal of water.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility for administration of activities, which include 
cooperation with local sponsors, State, and other public 
agencies in the installation of planned works of improvement to 
reduce erosion, floodwater, and sediment damage; conserve, 
develop, utilize, and dispose of water; plan and install works 
of improvement for flood prevention, including the development 
of recreational facilities and the improvement of fish and 
wildlife habitat; and loans to local organizations to help 
finance the local share of the cost of carrying out planned 
watershed and flood prevention works of improvement.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,790,000 
for Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations.
    Of this amount the following are provided: $1,000,000 for 
Churchill Woods Dam Removal, Illinois; $1,500,000 for Dunlop 
Creek Watershed Project, West Virginia; $1,650,000 for East 
Locust Creek, Missouri; $350,000 for Little Otter Creek, 
Missouri; $8,500,000 for Lost River, West Virginia; $206,000 
for Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, Hawaii; $350,000 for 
Pocasset River Watershed, Rhode Island; $206,000 for Upcountry 
Maui Watershed, Hawaii; and $500,000 for Upper Locust Creek, 
Missouri.

                    WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $19,860,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       5,920,000
Committee recommendation................................      20,000,000

    The watershed rehabilitation program account provides for 
technical and financial assistance to carry out rehabilitation 
of structural measures, in accordance with section 14 of the 
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, approved August 
4, 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1012, U.S.C. 1001, et seq.), as amended by 
section 313 of Public Law 106-472, November 9, 2000, and by 
section 2803 of Public Law 110-246.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,000,000 
for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. In addition to this 
appropriation $30,000,000 of mandatory funding is provided 
under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008.
    The Committee directs that funding under this program be 
provided for rehabilitation of structures determined to be of 
high priority need in order to protect property and ensure 
public safety.

                 resource conservation and development

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $50,730,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      50,730,000

    The Natural Resources Conservation Service has general 
responsibility under provisions of section 102, title I of the 
Food and Agriculture Act of 1962 (7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.), for 
developing overall work plans for resource conservation and 
development projects in cooperation with local sponsors; to 
help develop local programs of land conservation and 
utilization; to assist local groups and individuals in carrying 
out such plans and programs; to conduct surveys and 
investigations relating to the conditions and factors affecting 
such work on private lands; and to make loans to project 
sponsors for conservation and development purposes and to 
individual operators for establishing soil and water 
conservation practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,730,000 
for Resource Conservation and Development.

                    HEALTHY FORESTS RESERVE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $1,986,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       1,986,000

    The Healthy Forests Reserve Program [HFRP] was authorized 
by title V of Public Law 108-148 (16 U.S.C. 6571-6578). The 
purpose of the HFRP is to restore and enhance forest ecosystems 
to promote the recovery of threatened and endangered species; 
to improve biodiversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration. 
The program operates on a voluntary basis with private 
landowners utilizing cost-share agreements or easements of 
varying duration. The Federal Government assists participating 
landowners with the cost of the approved conservation 
practices.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,986,000 for 
the Healthy Forests Reserve Program.

                               TITLE III

                       RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

    The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 
Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354) 
abolished the Farmers Home Administration, Rural Development 
Administration, and Rural Electrification Administration and 
replaced those agencies with the Rural Housing and Community 
Development Service, (currently, the Rural Housing Service), 
Rural Business and Cooperative Development Service (currently, 
the Rural Business--Cooperative Service), and Rural Utilities 
Service and placed them under the oversight of the Under 
Secretary for Rural Economic and Community Development, 
(currently, Rural Development). These agencies deliver a 
variety of programs through a network of State, district, and 
county offices.

          Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $628,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         695,000
Committee recommendation................................         646,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development 
provides direction and coordination in carrying out the laws 
enacted by the Congress with respect to the Department's rural 
economic and community development activities. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Rural Housing 
Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and the Rural 
Utilities Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $646,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development.
    Renewable Energy.--The Committee is concerned about the 
effects high corn prices, due in large part to the use of corn 
in ethanol production, are having on other areas of 
agriculture, namely increased livestock feed prices, reductions 
in the effectiveness of food aid resources, and increased costs 
associated with domestic nutrition programs such as the Special 
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children 
[WIC]. The Committee encourages the Department to focus on a 
broad range of renewable fuel feedstocks as part of their 
various renewable fuel programs to the extent practicable.
    Rural Housing.--The Committee is aware of the severe 
flooding that took place in the town of Fort Kent, Maine, which 
resulted in major evacuations, displacement, and damaged 
housing for many residents. The Committee urges the department 
to assist with community efforts to rebuild multi-family and 
single-family housing.
    Technical Assistance.--The Committee recognizes that the 
community of Tchula, Mississippi, has requested technical and 
programmatic assistance for housing, business, 
telecommunication, and other essential community needs. The 
Committee expects the Secretary to provide additional 
resources, and encourages the use of available national reserve 
funds.

                                     RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                     2008         2009 budget     recommendation
                                                                appropriation       request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation................................................          168,722          258,185          210,748
Transfer from:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account........          449,609          399,422          449,757
    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program                38,339           37,819           38,353
     Account.................................................
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account..............            4,739            4,574            4,741
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total RD salaries and expenses.........................          661,409          700,000          703,599
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These funds are used to administer the loan and grant 
programs of the Rural Utilities Service, the Rural Housing 
Service, and the Rural Business--Cooperative Service, including 
reviewing applications, making and collecting loans and 
providing technical assistance and guidance to borrowers; and 
to assist in extending other Federal programs to people in 
rural areas.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $703,599,000 for salaries and 
expenses of Rural Development, including a direct appropriation 
of $210,748,000.

                         Rural Housing Service

    The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994.
    The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of 
life in rural America by assisting rural residents and 
communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and 
access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives 
of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization 
of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic 
benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural 
communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all 
program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to 
target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically 
declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while 
retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs 
that work in partnership with State and local governments and 
the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits 
through the use of low-cost credit programs, especially 
guaranteed loans.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends a loan and grant level of 
$6,705,503,000 for the Rural Housing Service housing programs.
    Section 502 Single Family Housing Programs.--The Committee 
recommends $1,121,488,000 for Direct Single Family Housing 
loans and $4,190,521,000 for Unsubsidized Guaranteed Single 
Family Housing loans.
    Section 515/Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.--
The Committee recommends $27,714,000 to continue the 
Department's efforts to address the preservation of the section 
515 portfolio through financial options to project owners, 
including vouchers. The Committee recommends $4,965,000 for 
rural housing vouchers, $2,889,000 for the multi-family 
revolving loan program, and $19,860,000 to restructure existing 
section 515 loans.
    The Committee recommends $69,510,000 for the section 515 
program. In recent years a substantial amount of the section 
515 appropriation has been used for needed repairs and 
rehabilitation in the portfolio. The Committee believes project 
rehabilitation can be more effectively performed through the 
revitalization initiative. To that end, funding that would have 
been used for section 515 repair and rehabilitation is provided 
directly to the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program 
Account.
    The following table presents loan and grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee, as compared to the fiscal year 
2008 levels and the 2009 budget request:

                                              LOAN AND GRANT LEVELS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Fiscal year--
                                                                 --------------------------------    Committee
                                                                       2008        2009 request   recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account loan levels:
    Single family housing (sec. 502):
        Direct..................................................       1,121,486  ..............       1,121,488
        Guaranteed..............................................       4,190,521       4,848,899       4,190,521
Housing Repair (Sec. 504).......................................          34,409          17,678          34,409
Multi-family Housing guarantees (Sec. 538)......................         129,090         300,000         129,090
Rental housing (Sec. 515).......................................          69,510  ..............          69,510
Site loans (Sec. 524)...........................................           5,045           5,045           5,045
Credit Sales of acquired property...............................          11,476          11,476          11,476
Self-help land development fund.................................           4,965           4,303           4,965
Farm labor housing:
    Loans.......................................................          27,545  ..............          17,798
    Grants......................................................           9,930  ..............           7,500
Multi-family housing revitalization:
    Rural housing vouchers......................................           4,965  ..............           4,965
    Multi-family housing preservation...........................          19,860  ..............          19,860
    Revolving loans.............................................           6,422  ..............           6,422
Mutual and Self Help Housing....................................          38,727  ..............          38,727
Rental assistance...............................................         478,715         997,000       1,005,000
    Rural housing assistance grants.............................          38,727          43,500          38,727
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total, rural housing loans and grants.....................       6,737,270       6,720,301       6,705,503
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    This fund was established in 1965 (Public Law 89-117) 
pursuant to section 517 of title V of the Housing Act of 1949 
(42 U.S.C. 517(d)), as amended. This fund may be used to insure 
or guarantee rural housing loans for single-family homes, 
rental and cooperative housing, and rural housing sites. Rural 
housing loans are made to construct, improve, alter, repair, or 
replace dwellings and essential farm service buildings that are 
modest in size, design, and cost. Rental housing insured loans 
are made to individuals, corporations, associations, trusts, or 
partnerships to provide moderate-cost rental housing and 
related facilities for elderly persons in rural areas. These 
loans are repayable in terms up to 30 years. Loan programs are 
limited to rural areas, which include towns, villages, and 
other places of not more than 10,000 population, which are not 
part of an urban area. Loans may also be made in areas with a 
population in excess of 10,000, but less than 20,000, if the 
area is not included in a standard metropolitan statistical 
area and has a serious lack of mortgage credit for low- and 
moderate-income borrowers.

            LOAN SUBSIDY AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) 
established the RHIF program account. Appropriations to this 
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees 
committed in 2009, as well as for administrative expenses. The 
following table presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to 
the 2008 levels and the 2009 budget request:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan subsidies:
    Single family (sec. 502):
        Direct...............................................          105,083  ...............           75,364
        Guaranteed...........................................           50,047           13,526           53,042
Housing Repair (Sec. 504)....................................            9,727            4,750            9,246
Multi-family Housing guarantees (Sec. 538)...................           12,134            1,710           20,241
Rental housing (Sec. 515)....................................           29,618  ...............           28,610
Site loans (Sec. 524)........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
Credit Sales of acquired property............................              548              523              533
Multi-family housing revitalization..........................           27,804  ...............           27,714
Self-help land development fund..............................              141               71               82
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, loan subsidies..................................          235,102           20,580          214,832
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses......................................          449,609          399,422          449,757
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Loan level      Subsidy level        Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........................................      $27,545,000       $11,916,000       $9,930,000
Budget estimate, 2009.......................................  ................  ...............  ...............
Committee recommendation....................................       17,798,000         7,500,000        7,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized 
under section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor 
housing grant program is authorized under section 516 of the 
Housing Act of 1949, as amended. The loans, grants, and 
contracts are made to public and private nonprofit 
organizations for low-rent housing and related facilities for 
domestic farm labor. Grant assistance may not exceed 90 percent 
of the cost of a project. Loans and grants may be used for 
construction of new structures, site acquisition and 
development, rehabilitation of existing structures, and 
purchase of furnishings and equipment for dwellings, dining 
halls, community rooms, and infirmaries.
    Under credit reform, administrative costs associated with 
loan programs are appropriated to the program accounts. 
Appropriations to the salaries and expenses account will be for 
costs associated with grant programs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.

               MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $27,804,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................................
Committee recommendation................................      27,714,000

\1\The President's budget proposes to rescind $20,000,000 from prior 
year appropriations.

    The Rural Housing Voucher Program was authorized under the 
Housing Act of 1949 (42 U.S.C. 1940r) to assist very low income 
families and individuals who reside in rental housing in rural 
areas. Housing vouchers may be provided to residents of rental 
housing projects financed by section 515 loans that have been 
prepaid after September 30, 2005. Voucher amounts reflect the 
difference between comparable market rents and tenant-paid rent 
prior to loan prepayment. Vouchers allow tenants to remain in 
existing projects or move to other rental housing.
    The Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program includes 
funding for housing vouchers, a multifamily revolving loan 
program, and a program for the preservation and revitalization 
of affordable multifamily housing projects. Rural Development's 
multifamily housing portfolio faces dual pressures for loan 
prepayments and repair/rehabilitation stemming from inadequate 
reserves resulting in deferred property maintenance.
    Provision of affordable rental housing can be accomplished 
more economically by revitalizing existing housing stock rather 
than funding new construction. The Multifamily Housing 
Revitalization Program includes revitalization tools for 
maintenance of existing units and vouchers to protect tenants 
in those projects that prepay. Flexibility is provided to allow 
Rural Development to utilize funding among vouchers and the two 
programs to meet the most urgent local needs for tenant 
protection and project revitalization.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,714,000 
for the Multifamily Housing Revitalization Program.
    By making adjustments to the Multi-Family Housing 
Revitalization Program, it is the intent of the Committee to 
recognize the success of the preservation and revitalization 
program, to encourage its continuation, and remains committed 
to providing the Secretary the resources and options necessary 
to further the program's success.

                       RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $478,715,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     997,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,005,000,000

    The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 
U.S.C. 1490a) established a rural rental assistance program to 
be administered through the rural housing loans program. The 
objective of the program is to reduce rents paid by low-income 
families living in Rural Housing Service financed rental 
projects and farm labor housing projects. Under this program, 
low-income tenants will contribute the higher of: (1) 30 
percent of monthly adjusted income; (2) 10 percent of monthly 
income; or (3) designated housing payments from a welfare 
agency.
    Payments from the fund are made to the project owner for 
the difference between the tenant's payment and the approved 
rental rate established for the unit.
    The program is administered in tandem with Rural Housing 
Service section 515 rural rental and cooperative housing 
programs and the farm labor loan and grant programs. Priority 
is given to existing projects for units occupied by rent over-
burdened low-income families and projects experiencing 
financial difficulties beyond the control of the owner; any 
remaining authority will be used for projects receiving new 
construction commitments under sections 514, 515, or 516 for 
very low-income families with certain limitations.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,005,000,000 
for the Rental Assistance Program.
    Rental Assistance.--The Committee provides funding to meet 
the needs of expiring and new rental assistance contracts for 
section 515 and 514/516 multi-family housing projects. The 
Committee includes statutory language requiring rental 
assistance to be held in 514/516 projects for a minimum period 
of time.
    Rental assistance contracts are, again, funded for 1 year 
durations. One year contract durations will enable the 
Department to provide more accurate estimates of contract cost 
increases and the number of contracts expiring and requiring 
renewal. The large funding increase recommended over fiscal 
year 2008 is due to the considerable increase in contracts 
requiring renewal.

                  MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $38,727,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      38,727,000

    The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is 
authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are 
made to local organizations to promote the development of 
mutual or self-help programs under which groups of usually 6 to 
10 families build their own homes by mutually exchanging labor. 
Funds may be used to pay the cost of construction supervisors 
who will work with families in the construction of their homes 
and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing 
the self-help assistance.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000 
for Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants.

                    rural housing assistance grants

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $38,727,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      43,500,000
Committee recommendation................................      38,727,000

    The Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program consolidates 
funding for rural housing grant programs. This consolidation of 
housing grant funding provides greater flexibility to tailor 
financial assistance to applicant needs.
    Very Low-income Housing Repair Grants.--The Very Low-Income 
Housing Repair Grants Program is authorized under section 504 
of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. The rural housing repair 
grant program is carried out by making grants to very low-
income families to make necessary repairs to their homes in 
order to make such dwellings safe and sanitary, and remove 
hazards to the health of the occupants, their families, or the 
community.
    These grants may be made to cover the cost of improvements 
or additions, such as repairing roofs, providing toilet 
facilities, providing a convenient and sanitary water supply, 
supplying screens, repairing or providing structural supports 
or making similar repairs, additions, or improvements, 
including all preliminary and installation costs in obtaining 
central water and sewer service. A grant can be made in 
combination with a section 504 very low-income housing repair 
loan.
    No assistance can be extended to any one individual in the 
form of a loan, grant, or combined loans and grants in excess 
of $27,500, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to 
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20 
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at 
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in 
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education 
Program was implemented under this authority. This program 
provides low-income individuals and families education and 
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of 
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become 
successful homeowners.
    Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the 
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair 
directed at low- and very low-income people.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000 
for the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program.
    The following table compares the grant program levels 
recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2008 levels and 
the budget request:

                                         RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very low-income housing repair grants........................           29,790           30,000           29,790
Supervisory and technical assistance grants..................  ...............            1,000  ...............
Compensation for construction defects........................  ...............              500  ...............
Housing preservation grants..................................            8,937           12,000            8,937
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................           38,727           43,500           38,727
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration to Applications.--Rural housing loans, grants 
and technical assistance support site development, 
construction, purchase, repair and rehabilitation of single 
family owner-occupied, multi-family, farm labor, and congregate 
housing. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages 
the Department to give consideration to applications relating 
to the provision of safe and sanitary housing for the 
following: Century Community Development Partnership Affordable 
Housing Project (Florida), and County of Riverside, Thermal 
Affordable Housing (California).
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.
    In determining income eligibility requirements for the 
program established in Sec. 791 of Public Law 109-97, the Rural 
Housing Service shall give consideration for participation in 
the program to applicants whose household income is at or below 
the area's adjusted median household income level.

               RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2008.....................................     $68,469,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      23,767,000
Committee recommendation................................      67,732,000

    Community facility loans were created by the Rural 
Development Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a 
variety of rural community facilities. Loans are made to 
organizations, including certain Indian tribes and corporations 
not operated for profit and public and quasipublic agencies, to 
construct, enlarge, extend, or otherwise improve community 
facilities providing essential services to rural residents. 
Such facilities include those providing or supporting overall 
community development, such as fire and rescue services, 
healthcare, transportation, traffic control, and community, 
social, cultural, and recreational benefits. Loans are made for 
facilities which primarily serve rural residents of open 
country and rural towns and villages of not more than 20,000 
people. Healthcare and fire and rescue facilities are the 
priorities of the program and receive the majority of available 
funds.
    The Community Facility Grant Program authorized in the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127), is used in conjunction with the existing direct 
and guaranteed loan programs for the development of community 
facilities, such as hospitals, fire stations, and community 
centers. Grants are targeted to the lowest income communities. 
Communities that have lower population and income levels 
receive a higher cost-share contribution through these grants, 
to a maximum contribution of 75 percent of the cost of 
developing the facility.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $67,732,000 
for the Rural Community Program Account.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget 
request levels:

                                         RURAL COMMUNITY PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                                      2008         2009 budget      Committee
                                                                  appropriation      request     recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Community facility direct loans................................          16,370          17,299           16,871
Community facility guaranteed loans............................           7,596           6,468            6,358
Community facility grants......................................          20,373  ..............           20,373
Economic impact initiative grants..............................          13,902  ..............           13,902
Rural community development initiative.........................           6,256  ..............            6,256
Tribal college grants..........................................           3,972  ..............            3,972
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................          68,469          23,767           67,732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consideration to Applications.--Community Facilities loans 
and grants provide financial assistance to construct, enlarge, 
or otherwise improve essential community facilities for health 
care, public safety and other essential public services. The 
Committee has been made aware of and encourages the Department 
to give consideration to applications relating to essential 
community facilities for the following: Alpena Wildlife 
Sanctuary Interpretive Center (Michigan), Cassia County 
Historical Society Museum (Idaho), City of Munising Fire/Police 
Building (Michigan), Deer Creek Center for Field Research and 
Education (Oregon), Environmental Education Center Capital 
Improvement Project (Michigan), Garfield County/GSENM/Park 
Service/Forest Service All American Bikeway (Utah), Garfield 
County/GSENM/Park Service Archeological & Paleontological 
Research Center & Educational Facility (Utah), Germfask 
Township Community/Senior Center Renovation (Michigan), Howells 
Opera House Restoration (Idaho), Kansas Hometown Prosperity 
Alliance (Kansas), Lamar-Dixon Expo Center (Louisiana), 
Santaquin Agricultural and Equestrian Heritage Center (Utah), 
Senior Connection Expansion and Remodel Project (Idaho), 
Slidell Memorial Hospital Flood Mitigation (Louisiana), 
Vernonia School Reconstruction (Oregon), and Village of Calumet 
Heritage Site Renovation (Michigan).
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                  Rural Business--Cooperative Service

    The Rural Business--Cooperative Service [RBS] was 
established by Public Law 103-354, Federal Crop Insurance 
Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 
1994, dated October 13, 1994. Its programs were previously 
administered by the Rural Development Administration, the Rural 
Electrification Administration, and the Agricultural 
Cooperative Service.
    The mission of the Rural Business--Cooperative Service is 
to enhance the quality of life for all rural residents by 
assisting new and existing cooperatives and other businesses 
through partnership with rural communities. The goals and 
objectives are to: (1) promote a stable business environment in 
rural America through financial assistance, sound business 
planning, technical assistance, appropriate research, 
education, and information; (2) support environmentally 
sensitive economic growth that meets the needs of the entire 
community; and (3) assure that the Service benefits are 
available to all segments of the rural community, with emphasis 
on those most in need.

                     RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2008.....................................     $87,087,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      30,450,000
Committee recommendation................................      87,385,000

    The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 
the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of 
rural industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural 
industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural 
Development Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business 
and industrial loans are made to public, private, or 
cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain 
Indian tribes, or to individuals for the purpose of improving, 
developing or financing business, industry, and employment or 
improving the economic and environmental climate in rural 
areas. Such purposes include financing business and industrial 
acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or 
modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, 
easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, 
and supplying working capital.
    Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the 
Rural Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies 
and nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small 
and emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the 
acquisition and development of land; the construction of 
buildings, plants, equipment, access streets and roads, parking 
areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical 
assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital.
    Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under 
section 306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural 
Development Act, as amended. Grants may be made to public 
bodies and private nonprofit community development corporations 
or entities. Grants are made to identify and analyze business 
opportunities that will use local rural economic and human 
resources: to identify, train, and provide technical assistance 
to rural entrepreneurs and managers; to establish business 
support centers; to conduct economic development planning and 
coordination, and leadership development; and to establish 
centers for training, technology, and trade that will provide 
training to rural businesses in the utilization of interactive 
communications technologies.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $87,385,000 
for the Rural Business Program Account.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget 
request levels:

                                         RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal year
                                                                      2008         2009 budget      Committee
                                                                  appropriation      request     recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Business and industry guaranteed loans.........................          42,898          30,450           43,196
Business enterprise grants.....................................          38,727  ..............           38,727
Business opportunity grants....................................           2,483  ..............            2,483
Delta Regional Authority grants................................           2,979  ..............            2,979
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      Total....................................................          87,087          30,450           87,385
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Business Program Account.--The Committee recommends 
$495,000 for transportation technical assistance.
    The Committee directs that of the $3,996,000 recommended 
for grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American 
Tribes, $248,000 be used to implement an American Indian and 
Alaska Native passenger transportation development and 
assistance initiative.

              RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level.........................................      $33,536,000      $33,772,000      $33,536,000
Direct loan subsidy..........................................       14,384,000       14,134,000       14,035,000
Administrative expenses......................................        4,739,000        4,574,000        4,741,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 
was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-452). The making of rural development loans 
by the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 
99-425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986.
    Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 
groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, 
community development corporations, private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of 
improving business, industry, community facilities, and 
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in 
rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2009, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,035,000 
for Rural Development (intermediary relending) loans.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated loan level.........................................      $33,077,000      $33,077,000      $33,077,000
Direct loan subsidy..........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rural Economic Development Loans program was 
established by the Reconciliation Act of December 1987 (Public 
Law 100-203), which amended the Rural Electrification Act of 
1936 (Act of May 20, 1936), by establishing a new section 313. 
This section of the Rural Electrification Act (7 U.S.C. 901) 
established a cushion of credits payment program and created 
the rural economic development subaccount. The Administrator of 
RUS is authorized under the act to utilize funds in this 
program to provide zero interest loans to electric and 
telecommunications borrowers for the purpose of promoting rural 
economic development and job creation projects, including 
funding for feasibility studies, startup costs, and other 
reasonable expenses for the purpose of fostering rural economic 
development.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee accepts the administration's proposal to fund 
rural economic development loans from interest earnings on 
cushion of credit payments.

                  RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $27,828,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................       4,455,000
Committee recommendation................................      25,114,000

    Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under 
section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act, as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and 
operation of centers for rural cooperative development with 
their primary purpose being the improvement of economic 
conditions in rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit 
institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be 
used to pay up to 75 percent of the cost of the project and 
associated administrative costs. The applicant must contribute 
at least 25 percent from non-Federal sources, except 1994 
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are 
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection 
criteria.
    Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical 
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,114,000 
for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
    Of the funds recommended, $2,774,000 is for the Appropriate 
Technology Transfer for Rural Areas program through a 
cooperative agreement with the National Center for Appropriate 
Technology.
    The Committee has included language in the bill that not 
more than $1,463,000 shall be made available to cooperatives or 
associations of cooperatives whose primary focus is to provide 
assistance to small, minority producers.
    Value Added.--The Committee recommends $16,153,000 for 
value-added agricultural product market development grants.

       RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $8,130,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................       8,130,000

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,130,000 for 
Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities Grants, with 
the funds to be made available in the same manner and with the 
same priorities as in fiscal year 2007.
    Outmigration.--The Committee is concerned that rural 
empowerment zones, particularly zones selected because of 
outmigration, are having a difficult time successfully 
competing for USDA Rural Development programs due primarily to 
the fact that many programs are tied to household income 
levels. Often, household income levels have very little to do 
with the reasons for outmigration. Economic development efforts 
in these zones cannot advance without additional funding from 
competitive grant programs to supplement the funding that the 
Committee has earmarked for the zones for the last several 
years. USDA is directed to provide a report to the Committee 
with suggestions on how to revise competitive grant-making 
criteria to take into consideration outmigration when making 
awards to rural empowerment zones.

                        Renewable Energy Program

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $35,748,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................................
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under 
section 9007 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
(Public Law 110-246). This program may fund energy audits, 
direct loans, loan guarantees, and grants to farmers, ranchers, 
and small rural businesses for the purchase of renewable energy 
systems and for energy efficiency improvements.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,000,000 
for the Renewable Energy Program.
    Untimely Application Processing.--The Committee is aware of 
eligible poultry producers who were disadvantaged in 
competition for renewable energy grant funding (and ultimately 
denied) due to laggard processing of valid and eligible 
applications. Processing times can vary substantially from 
State office to State office, unfairly penalizing applicants in 
slow States. Such arbitrary variations in customer service 
should not be tolerated. The Secretary is directed to work with 
these unsuccessful grant applicants to pursue any available 
administrative remedy. The Secretary is also directed to 
provide, by December 1, 2008, a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations detailing plans to equalize 
application processing times and eliminate interstate 
disparities that unfairly and capriciously harm applicants. The 
Department should also properly inform applicants of the 
inability to reapply for grant assistance after energy 
efficiency retrofitting has occurred.
    Consideration to Applications: Rural Business and Renewable 
Energy Programs.--The Committee has been made aware of and 
encourages the Department to give consideration to applications 
for rural business and renewable energy programs for the 
following: Advanced Algea Conversion System (Louisiana), 
Biomass to Liquid Fuel Commercialization Project (Louisiana), 
Bioproducts and Renewable Industry Development (Minnesota), 
Cellulosic Biofuel Supply Chain Development (Wisconsin), Center 
for Biobased Economy (Vermont), Huron County Anaerobic Digester 
Pilot Plant (Michigan), Montana Food Innovation Center Network 
(Montana), Wild Rice Wood Processing and Storage (Minnesota), 
and Women in Technology (Hawaii). In addition, the Committee 
encourages the Department to consider applications for grants 
to rural public television broadcasting systems.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                        Rural Utilities Service

    The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the 
Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-354), October 13, 
1994. RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of 
the former Rural Electrification Administration and the water 
and waste programs of the former Rural Development 
Administration.
    The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in 
improving the quality of life in rural America by administering 
its electric, telecommunications, and water and waste programs 
in a service oriented, forward looking, and financially 
responsible manner. All three programs have the common goal of 
modernizing and revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides 
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas. 
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local 
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local 
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the 
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by 
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, 
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

           RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT\1\

Appropriation, 2008.....................................    $558,628,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     269,007,000
Committee recommendation................................     558,628,000

\1\Includes High Energy Cost grants.

    The water and waste disposal program is authorized by 
sections 306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, and 310B of the 
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et 
seq., as amended). This program makes loans for water and waste 
development costs. Development loans are made to associations, 
including corporations operating on a nonprofit basis, 
municipalities and similar organizations, generally designated 
as public or quasipublic agencies, that propose projects for 
the development, storage, treatment, purification, and 
distribution of domestic water or the collection, treatment, or 
disposal of waste in rural areas. Such grants may not exceed 75 
percent of the development cost of the projects and can 
supplement other funds borrowed or furnished by applicants to 
pay development costs.
    The solid waste grant program is authorized under section 
310B(b) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 
Grants are made to public bodies and private nonprofit 
organizations to provide technical assistance to local and 
regional governments for the purpose of reducing or eliminating 
pollution of water resources and for improving the planning and 
management of solid waste disposal facilities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $558,628,000 
for the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account.
    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 
110-246) mandates the procedure the Department will use to 
establish poverty and intermediate borrower interest rates for 
direct Water and Waste Disposal Facility loans. This procedure 
mimics earlier administration proposals requiring communities 
to rely more heavily on debt and less on grants. The 
administration asserted the program level could be maintained, 
budget resources would be more efficiently used, and 
communities would face lower debt burdens coupled with 
acceptable user utility rates.
    The Committee remains concerned that under these provisions 
needed program resources will not be delivered to the poorest, 
most remote communities currently served. The Committee 
recommendation provides the same level of budget authority as 
in 2008, and directs the Secretary to deliver at least the same 
total program level to communities with similar socio-economic 
and geographic characteristics as would have been served in 
2008 absent this procedural change. By November 15, 2008, the 
Secretary shall provide a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations detailing how the Secretary plans 
to implement these directives. This report shall include 
quantitative measures proposed to determine the socio-economic 
and geographic characteristics of communities served. The 
report shall also identify benchmarks to evaluate if in fact 
communities of similar characteristics are being served. By 
November 1, 2009, the Secretary shall provide a comprehensive 
analysis and report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, utilizing these measures and benchmarks, to 
determine the results of this experiment. If the distribution 
of budget authority between grants and direct loans needs to be 
adjusted from the Committee Report display table, the Secretary 
shall make those adjustments as necessary.
    The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for water and waste 
disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native 
Alaskans and the Colonias, allocated in a manner consistent 
with the fiscal year 2007 allocations. The Committee recognizes 
the special needs and problems for delivery of basic services 
to these populations. The Secretary is directed to provide a 
report to the Committee that identifies the specific areas in 
which water and waste disposal program resources have been 
provided, where additional resources are most needed, and the 
relative costs of program delivery to the various areas and 
regions covered by the authorities identified for use of these 
specific funds. The Committee expects from the Secretary a 
spending plan of how the funds will be used, quarterly 
notification on grant obligations, and a year end summary 
report. In addition, the Committee makes up to $13,750,000 
available for the circuit rider program.
    The following table provides the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget 
request levels:

                                 RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2008     2009 budget         Committee
                                                          appropriation\1\       request       recommendation\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water and waste disposal direct loans..................             69,609            49,169  ..................
Water and waste disposal grants........................            464,228           216,373  ..................
Solid waste management grants..........................              3,441             3,465  ..................
Water well system grants...............................                993  ................  ..................
Water and waste water revolving funds..................                497  ................  ..................
High energy cost grants................................             19,860  ................             19,860
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................            558,628           269,007            558,628
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $538,768,000 is provided for Water and Waste Disposal programs, excluding High Energy Cost grants, which is
  the same level provided in fiscal year 2008. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-
  246) mandated a change in the procedure for establishing borrower interest rates for the direct loan program.
  OMB has not provided a loan subsidy rate under this new procedure. This program change was instituted to allow
  a more effective use of budget authority, by requiring communities to take on more debt at lower interest
  rates, coupled with smaller grant levels. The Secretary is directed to distribute this budget authority as
  needed to ensure at least the same aggregate program level will be attained in fiscal year 2009 as in fiscal
  year 2008, serving communities with similar socio-economic and geographic characteristics as would be served
  in fiscal year 2008 absent this procedural change.

    Consideration to Applications.--Water and Waste Disposal 
loans and grants provide financial support and technical 
assistance for development and operation of safe and affordable 
water supply systems and waste disposal facilities. Funds may 
be used to construct, repair, expand or otherwise improve water 
supply and distribution, and waste collection and treatment 
systems. The Committee has been made aware of and encourages 
the Department to consider applications for water and waste 
disposal loans and grants for the following projects: City of 
Coburg Wastewater System (Oregon), City of Fanning Springs 
Wastewater Project (Florida), City of Healdsburg Wastewater 
Treatment Project (California), City of Imperial Water and 
Wastewater Treatment Plants (California), City of Ville Platte-
Water Distribution System (Louisiana), Cumberland Waterline 
Extension Project (Ohio), City of Ney Wastewater System (Ohio), 
Gooseberry Lake Water Supply Project (Iowa), Perry Township 
Waterline Extension Project (Ohio), Regional Utility Service 
Systems (Iowa), Rural Fire Protection Task Force Dry Hydrant 
Program (Vermont), Shasta County Elk Trail Water System 
Improvements (California), Tanglewild-Thompson Place Water 
System (Washington), Tulare County Rural Community Water 
Systems (California), and Zions View/Strawberry Point/Johnson 
Canyon Phase VII Project (Utah).
    Water and Waste Technical Assistance and Training Grants.--
The Committee expects the Secretary to continue to provide 
support for the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse through 
the water and waste technical assistance and training grant 
program.
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

   RURAL ELECTRIFICATION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

    The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 901 et 
seq.) provides the statutory authority for the electric and 
telecommunications programs.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) 
established the program account. An appropriation to this 
account will be used to cover the lifetime subsidy costs 
associated with the direct loans obligated and loan guarantees 
committed in fiscal year 2009, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The following table reflects the Committee's recommendation 
for the rural electrification and telecommunications loans 
program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, 
as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget request levels:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan authorizations:
    Electric:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................           99,300          100,000           99,300
        Direct, muni.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct FFB...........................................        6,500,000        4,000,000        6,500,000
        Direct, Treasury rate................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed underwriting..............................          500,000  ...............          500,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................        7,099,300        4,100,000        7,099,300
                                                              ==================================================
Telecommunications:
    Direct, 5 percent........................................          143,985          145,000          143,985
    Direct, Treasury rate....................................          248,250          250,000          248,250
    Direct, FFB..............................................          292,935          295,000          292,935
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal...............................................          685,170          690,000          685,170
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, loan authorizations.............................        7,784,470        4,790,000        7,784,470
                                                              ==================================================
Loan subsidies:
    Electric:
        Direct 5 percent.....................................              119  ...............  ...............
        Direct, muni.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct FFB...........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed...........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Guaranteed underwriting..............................  ...............  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................              119  ...............  ...............
                                                              ==================================================
    Telecommunications:
        Direct, 5 percent....................................              115  ...............  ...............
        Direct, Treasury rate................................            1,663              525              521
        Direct, FFB..........................................            1,816  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal...........................................            3,594              525              521
                                                              ==================================================
          Total, loan subsidies..............................            3,713              525              521
Administrative expenses......................................           38,339           37,819           38,353
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications               42,052           38,344           38,874
       Loans Programs Account................................
          (Loan authorization)...............................        7,784,470        4,790,000        7,784,470
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Electric Loans.--The Committee limits the fiscal year 2009 
electric program appropriation to FFB direct loans as opposed 
to reflecting the new authorization in the Food, Conservation, 
and Energy Act of 2008 [FCEA] for RUS direct electric loans. 
However, the Committee encourages the Secretary, through the 
RUS, to develop the documentation and regulatory adjustments 
necessary to offer RUS direct electric loans, consistent with 
the FCEA, so that consideration may be given in future years to 
fund such loans.

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                         LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan and Grant Levels:
    Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
        Direct loans.........................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
        Grants...............................................           34,755           20,000           34,755
Broadband program:
    Treasury rate loans......................................          297,900          297,923          297,900
    Grants...................................................           13,406  ...............           13,406
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total DLT grants and loan authorization................          346,061          317,923          346,061
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

         DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

                            LOANS AND GRANTS

                                   [Budget authority In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2008 level      2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program:
    Direct loan subsidies....................................  ...............  ...............  ...............
    Grants...................................................           34,755           20,000           34,755
Broadband program:
    Treasury rate loan subsidies.............................            6,405           11,619           11,618
    Grants...................................................           13,406  ...............           13,406
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total grants and loan subsidies........................           54,566           31,619           59,779
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program 
is authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade 
Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.), as amended by the 
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public 
Law 104-127). This program provides incentives to improve the 
quality of phone services, to provide access to advanced 
telecommunications services and computer networks, and to 
improve rural opportunities.
    This program provides the facilities and equipment to link 
rural education and medical facilities with more urban centers 
and other facilities providing rural residents access to better 
health care through technology and increasing educational 
opportunities for rural students. These funds are available for 
loans and grants.
    The Committee is concerned with the longstanding, unmet 
health care needs in the Mississippi Delta and encourages the 
Department to use these funds to promote increased health 
access and education to address critical health care needs in 
the region.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,779,000 
for the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. 
The Committee recommendation includes $4,965,000 for public 
broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational 
television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert 
from analog to digital operations.
    Broadband Grants.--In addition, of the funds recommended, 
$13,406,000 in grants shall be made available to support 
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet services for 
rural areas.
    Consideration to Applications--Broadband and Distance 
Learning, Telemedicine Loans, and Grants.--The Committee has 
been made aware of and encourages the Department to give 
consideration to applications for broadband and distance 
learning, telemedicine loans and grants for the following: 
Broadband Deployment on the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula 
(Virginia), Delta Health Alliance (Mississippi), Eastern Shore 
Broadband Buildout (Virginia), Electronic Medical Records 
System, Glens Falls Hospital (New York), Gilmer/Braxton 
Research Technology Institute Broadband Internet Project (West 
Virginia), Municipal Cable Project, Town of Massena (New York), 
and Otsego County Telecommunications Plan (New York).
    The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 
applications judged meritorious when subjected to the 
established review process.

                                TITLE IV

                         DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services

Appropriations, 2008....................................        $593,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................         655,000
Committee recommendation................................         610,000

    The Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services provides direction and coordination in 
carrying out the laws enacted by the Congress with respect to 
the Department's food and consumer activities. The Office has 
oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and 
Nutrition Service.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $610,000 for 
the Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and 
Consumer Services.

                       Food and Nutrition Service

    The Food and Nutrition Service represents an organizational 
effort to eliminate hunger and malnutrition in this country. 
Nutrition assistance programs provide access to a nutritionally 
adequate diet for families and persons with low incomes and 
encourage better eating patterns among the Nation's children. 
These programs include:
    Child Nutrition Programs.--The National School Lunch and 
School Breakfast, Summer Food Service, and Child and Adult Care 
Food programs provide funding to the States, Puerto Rico, the 
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Guam for use in serving 
nutritious lunches and breakfasts to children attending schools 
of high school grades and under, to children of preschool age 
in child care centers, and to children in other institutions in 
order to improve the health and well-being of the Nation's 
children, and broaden the markets for agricultural food 
commodities. Through the Special Milk Program, assistance is 
provided to the States for making reimbursement payments to 
eligible schools and child care institutions which institute or 
expand milk service in order to increase the consumption of 
fluid milk by children. Funds for this program are provided by 
direct appropriation and transfer from section 32.
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].--This program safeguards the health of 
pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding women, infants, and 
children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk because of 
inadequate nutrition and income by providing supplemental 
foods. The delivery of supplemental foods may be done through 
health clinics, vouchers redeemable at retail food stores, or 
other approved methods which a cooperating State health agency 
may select. Funds for this program are provided by direct 
appropriation.
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.--This program 
seeks to improve nutritional standards of needy persons and 
families. Assistance is provided to eligible households to 
enable them to obtain a better diet by increasing their food 
purchasing capability, usually by furnishing benefits in the 
form of electronic access to funds. The program also includes 
Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico.
    The program also includes the Food Distribution Program on 
Indian Reservations, which provides nutritious agricultural 
commodities to low-income persons living on or near Indian 
reservations who choose not to participate in the Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program.
    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 
110-246, provides that $250,000,000 from funds appropriated in 
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program account be used 
to purchase commodities for The Emergency Food Assistance 
Program [TEFAP].
    Commodity Assistance Program [CAP].--This program provides 
funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP], the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, Disaster Assistance, Pacific 
Island Assistance, and administrative expenses for TEFAP.
    CSFP provides supplemental foods to infants and children up 
to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-feeding 
women with low incomes, and who reside in approved project 
areas. In addition, this program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons.
    TEFAP provides commodities and grant funds to State 
agencies to assist in the cost of storage and distribution of 
donated commodities.
    Nutritious agricultural commodities are provided to 
residents of the Federated States of Micronesia and the 
Marshall Islands. Cash assistance is provided to distributing 
agencies to assist them in meeting administrative expenses 
incurred. It also provides funding for use in non-
Presidentially declared disasters, and for FNS' administrative 
costs in connection with relief for all disasters. Funds for 
this program are provided by direct appropriation.
    Nutrition Programs Administration.--Most salaries and 
Federal operating expenses of the Food and Nutrition Service 
are funded from this account. Also included is the Center for 
Nutrition Policy and Promotion [CNPP] which oversees 
improvements in and revisions to the food guidance systems, and 
serves as the focal point for advancing and coordinating 
nutrition promotion and education policy to improve the health 
of all Americans.

                        child nutrition programs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Section 32
                                                           Appropriation        transfers            Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008...................................     $7,647,965,000     $6,253,548,000    $13,901,513,000
Budget estimate, 2009..................................      7,925,700,000      6,529,983,000     14,455,683,000
Committee recommendation...............................      7,733,849,000      6,721,834,000     14,455,683,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Child Nutrition Programs, authorized by the Richard B. 
Russell National School Lunch Act (Public Law 79-396) and the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-642), provide 
Federal assistance to State agencies in the form of cash and 
commodities for use in preparing and serving nutritious meals 
to children while they are attending school, residing in 
service institutions, or participating in other organized 
activities away from home. The purpose of these programs is to 
help maintain the health and proper physical development of 
America's children. Milk is provided to children either free or 
at a low cost, depending on their family income level. FNS 
provides cash subsidies to States for administering the 
programs and directly administers the program in the States 
which choose not to do so. Grants are also made for nutritional 
training and surveys and for State administrative expenses. 
Under current law, most of these payments are made on the basis 
of reimbursement rates established by law and applied to 
lunches and breakfasts actually served by the States. The 
reimbursement rates are adjusted annually to reflect changes in 
the Consumer Price Index for food away from home.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$7,733,849,000, plus transfers from section 32 of 
$6,721,834,000, for a total of $14,455,683,000 for the Child 
Nutrition Programs.
    The Committee's recommendation provides for the following 
annual rates for the child nutrition programs.

                                          TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                   Child nutrition programs                     2008 estimate     2009 budget     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Lunch Program.........................................        8,180,933        8,346,166        8,346,166
School Breakfast Program.....................................        2,389,988        2,522,286        2,522,286
Child and Adult Care Food Program............................        2,288,838        2,386,780        2,386,780
Summer Food Service Program..................................          310,634          328,934          328,934
Special Milk Program.........................................           14,618           13,867           13,867
State administrative expenses................................          175,636          184,057          184,057
Commodity procurement and computer support...................          518,061          647,627          647,627
Team Nutrition...............................................           13,300           13,300           13,300
Food safety education........................................            2,000            2,000            2,000
Coordinated review...........................................            5,505            5,636            5,636
CACFP training and technical assistance......................            2,000            2,030            2,030
SNDA data collection and analysis............................  ...............            2,000            2,000
CACFP error estimates........................................  ...............            1,000            1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends $13,300,000 for TEAM nutrition. 
Included in this amount is $5,000,000 for food service training 
grants to States; $2,500,000 for technical assistance 
materials; $800,000 for National Food Service Management 
Institute cooperative agreements; $800,000 for print and 
electronic food service resource systems; $1,000,000 to assist 
USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion in development 
and maintenance of MyPyramid and Dietary Guidelines materials 
in support of nutrition education for program participants and 
their families; and $3,200,000 for other activities.
    The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food 
Service Management Institute to carry out the food safety 
education program.
    Farm to Cafeteria.--The Committee is aware of interest in 
the Farm to Cafeteria program, which links farms and schools to 
bring locally-grown food into the school lunch program. This 
program was authorized in the Child Nutrition Reauthorization 
Act of 2004. However, no funding was provided then, and funding 
has not yet been requested in the administration's budget. The 
Committee supports the intent of this program, and strongly 
encourages USDA to work to identify funding sources through 
which Farm to Cafeteria grants can begin to be made.
    Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.--Section 4304 of the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act provided $65,000,000 for a 
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July 
1, 2009. Of this amount, the Committee has included a general 
provision to delay availability of $49,000,000 of these funds 
until October 1, 2009. The Committee notes that this general 
provision does not lower the funding amount provided in the 
Food, Conservation and Energy Act for the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program, but simply delays a portion of the funding 
until the beginning of fiscal year 2009. The full funding 
amount of $65,000,000 will be available for the Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1, 2009, 
as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.

SPECIAL SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION PROGRAM FOR WOMEN, INFANTS, AND CHILDREN 
                                 [WIC]

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $6,020,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   6,100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................   6,750,000,000

    The special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
infants, and children [WIC] is authorized by section 17 of the 
Child Nutrition Act of 1966. Its purpose is to safeguard the 
health of pregnant, breast-feeding and post partum women and 
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk 
because of inadequate nutrition and inadequate income. The 
budget estimate assumes an average monthly participation of 8.6 
million participants at an average food cost of $43.55 per 
person per month in fiscal year 2009.
    The WIC program food packages are designed to provide foods 
which studies have demonstrated are lacking in the diets of the 
WIC program target population. The authorized supplemental 
foods are iron-fortified breakfast cereal, fruit or vegetable 
juice which contains vitamin C, dry beans, peas, and peanut 
butter.
    There are three general types of delivery systems for WIC 
foods: (1) retail purchase in which participants obtain 
supplemental foods through retail stores; (2) home delivery 
systems in which food is delivered to the participant's home; 
and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick 
up food from a distribution outlet. The food is free of charge 
to all participants.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,750,000,000 
for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 
and Children [WIC].
    The Committee recommends no less than $14,850,000 for 
breastfeeding support initiatives.
    Estimates.--The Committee recommendation of $6,750,000,000 
takes into account several changes from the budget request.
    First, both food cost and participation estimates have 
increased significantly since the budget request was submitted 
in February. USDA's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for 
Women, Infants and Children July 2008 Report to Congress 
assumes WIC participation will be nearly 9 million per month, 
as opposed to 8.6 million assumed in the President's budget 
request. It further assumes that monthly food costs will be 
$45.37, as opposed to $43.55 included in the President's budget 
request. These new assumptions result in a budget shortfall of 
$450,000,000, according to the July report.
    Second, the Committee recommendation again does not include 
a limitation on State nutrition services and administration 
[NSA] grants as proposed in the budget and assumed in the July 
report. The budget request included a reduction of $150,000,000 
associated with this limitation. The Committee still does not 
agree that reducing support for critical WIC services including 
nutrition education, obesity prevention, breastfeeding 
promotion and support, healthcare referrals, and immunization 
screening is a wise or acceptable method of achieving budget 
savings.
    Third, although the budget request states that the funding 
request for WIC will include $150,000,000 to restore the 
contingency fund, this is a disingenuous statement. The budget 
request assumes the use of the entire contingency fund to 
maintain WIC participation. No funding is requested in the 
President's budget that would be available for unforeseen 
events, which is the purpose of a contingency fund. Therefore, 
the Committee recommendation is currently estimated to be 
sufficient to meet program needs, and includes an additional 
$50,000,000 to restore the contingency fund.
    The Committee is aware that food cost and participation 
estimates continue to change, and is pleased that USDA is also 
continuing to monitor estimates and plans to reassess the 
fiscal year 2009 budget request in September, according to the 
July report. We will continue to monitor this situation and 
take additional action as necessary to ensure that funding 
provided in fiscal year 2009 is sufficient to serve all 
eligible applicants.
    Health Care Services Referral.--While the Committee 
continues to support and encourage State and local agency 
efforts to utilize WIC as an important means of participation 
referral to other health care services, it also continues to 
recognize the constraints that WIC programs are experiencing as 
a result of expanding health care priorities and continuing 
demand for core WIC program activities. The Committee wishes to 
clarify that while WIC plays an important role in screening and 
referral to other health care services, it was never the 
Committee's intention that WIC should perform aggressive 
screening, referral and assessment functions in such a manner 
that supplants the responsibilities of other programs, nor was 
it the Committee's intention that WIC State and local agencies 
should assume the burden of entering into and negotiating 
appropriate cost sharing agreements. The Committee again 
includes language in the bill to preserve WIC funding for WIC 
services authorized by law to ensure that WIC funds are not 
used to pay the expenses or to coordinate operations or 
activities other than those allowable pursuant to section 17 of 
the Child Nutrition Act of 1996, unless fully reimbursed by the 
appropriate Federal agency.

               SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Puerto Rico      TEFAP
                                Expenses      Amount in   and American    commodity       CSFP          Total
                                               reserve        Samoa       purchases     expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008........    35,021,473     3,000,000     1,621,250       140,000  ............    39,782,723
Budget estimate, 2009.......    38,502,380     3,000,000     1,684,424       140,000        22,000    43,348,804
Committee recommendation....    38,502,880     3,000,000     1,684,424       250,000  ............    43,437,304
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Food Stamp Program was reauthorized through fiscal year 
2012 and renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
[SNAP] in the The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program attempts to 
alleviate hunger and malnutrition among low-income persons by 
increasing their food purchasing power. Eligible households 
receive SNAP benefits with which they can purchase food through 
regular retail stores.
    Other programs funded through the Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program include Nutrition Assistance to Puerto Rico 
and American Samoa, the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, and the 
Community Food Projects program.
    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is currently 
in operation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, the 
Virgin Islands, and Guam. Participating households receive food 
benefits, the value of which is determined by household size 
and income. The cost of the benefits is paid by the Federal 
Government. As required by law, the Food and Nutrition Service 
annually revises household stamp allotments to reflect changes 
in the cost of the thrifty food plan.
    Administrative Costs.--All direct and indirect 
administrative costs incurred for certification of households, 
issuance of benefits, quality control, outreach, and fair 
hearing efforts are shared by the Federal Government and the 
States on a 50-50 basis.
    State Antifraud Activities.--Under the provisions of the 
Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, States are eligible to be 
reimbursed for 50 percent of the costs of their food stamp 
fraud investigations and prosecutions.
    States are required to implement an employment and training 
program for the purpose of assisting members of households 
participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
in gaining skills, training, or experience that will increase 
their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of 
Agriculture has implemented a grant program to States to assist 
them in providing employment and training services.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of 
$43,437,304,000 for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program. Of the amount recommended, $3,000,000,000 is made 
available as a contingency reserve. The Committee 
recommendation includes language that permits the Food and 
Nutrition Service to conduct studies and evaluations consistent 
with the budget request.
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee 
recommendation does not include a provision, requested in the 
budget, that would provide transitional benefits to Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program [CSFP] participants. The Committee 
recommends an appropriation for CSFP in the Commodity 
Assistance Program which makes the provision in the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program unnecessary.
    Food Access.--The Committee is aware that there are areas 
of low-income, rural, and tribal communities in the United 
States with limited access to affordable, healthy, and fresh 
foods, also known as ``food deserts.'' Although initial data 
indicates that these communities are spread throughout the 
Nation, no comprehensive study has been conducted to provide a 
benchmark analysis of their incidence and their characteristics 
nationally. The Committee directs the Department to lead an 
inter-agency review on food deserts, as authorized in section 
7527 of Public Law 110-246, and to provide a report to the 
Committee on this review within 1 year of enactment of this 
act.
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.--The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue the purchase of 
bison from producer-owned and Native American owned 
cooperatives for the Food Distribution Program on Indian 
Reservations. Although funding is not provided specifically for 
bison purchase, historically these purchases have been 
important for the Native American population both economically 
and nutritionally.

                      commodity assistance program

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $210,288,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      70,370,000
Committee recommendation................................     225,370,000

    The Commodity Assistance Program includes funding for the 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program and funding to pay expenses 
associated with the storage and distribution of commodities 
through The Emergency Food Assistance Program.
    The Commodity Supplemental Food Program [CSFP].--Authorized 
by section 4(a) of the Agricultural and Consumer Protection Act 
of 1973 (7 U.S.C. 612c note), as amended in 1981 by Public Law 
97-98, this program provides supplemental food to infants and 
children up to age 6, and to pregnant, post partum, and breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved 
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 
years of age or older.
    The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of 
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The 
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, 
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 
through the distribution of commodities to low-income 
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided 
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities 
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food 
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their 
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 increases 
funding available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities from 
$140,000,000 to $250,000,000. In addition to the commodities 
purchased specifically for TEFAP, commodities obtained under 
agriculture support and surplus removal programs are donated to 
States for distribution through TEFAP.
    Pacific Island Assistance.--This program provides funding 
for assistance to the nuclear-affected islands in the form of 
commodities and administrative funds. It also provides funding 
for use in non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, 
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers' 
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by 
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $225,370,000 
for the Commodity Assistance Program. The Committee continues 
to encourage the Department to distribute Commodity Assistance 
Program funds equitably among the States, based on an 
assessment of the needs and priorities of each State and the 
State's preference to receive commodity allocations through 
each of the programs funded under this account.
    Commodity Supplemental Food Program.--The Committee 
recommends $155,000,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food 
Program.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Committee is aware 
that the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program provides fresh 
fruits and vegetables to low-income mothers and children, 
benefiting not only WIC participants, but local farmers as 
well. Therefore, the Committee recommends $19,800,000 for the 
Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to 
obligate these funds within 45 days.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program.--The Food, 
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $250,000,000 for 
TEFAP commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition 
Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes 
$49,500,000 for TEFAP administrative funding. In addition, the 
Committee recommendation grants the Secretary authority to 
transfer up to an additional 10 percent from TEFAP commodities 
for this purpose.

                   nutrition programs administration

Appropriations, 2008....................................    $141,581,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     150,251,000
Committee recommendation................................     142,595,000

    The Nutrition Programs Administration appropriation 
provides for most of the Federal operating expenses of the Food 
and Nutrition Service, which includes the Child Nutrition 
Programs; Special Milk Program; Special Supplemental Nutrition 
Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC]; Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program; Nutrition Assistance for Puerto 
Rico; the Commodity Assistance Program, including the Commodity 
Supplemental Food Program and the Emergency Food Assistance 
Program; and Farmers' Market Nutrition Program and Pacific 
Island Assistance.
    The major objective of Nutrition Programs Administration is 
to efficiently and effectively carry out the nutrition 
assistance programs mandated by law. This is to be accomplished 
by the following: (1) giving clear and consistent guidance and 
supervision to State agencies and other cooperators; (2) 
assisting the States and other cooperators by providing 
program, managerial, financial, and other advice and expertise; 
(3) measuring, reviewing, and analyzing the progress being made 
toward achieving program objectives; and (4) carrying out 
regular staff support functions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $142,595,000 
for Nutrition Programs Administration.
    Child and Adult Care Food Program [CACFP].--The Committee 
is concerned that the Food and Nutrition Service has not yet 
determined the CACFP reimbursement needed to serve meals and 
snacks consistent with the dietary guidelines, although they 
were directed by this Committee to do so. CACFP provides a 
significant benefit to low-income children and their families. 
Meals provided through CACFP ensure that developing children 
receive key nutrients in adequate amounts each day they are in 
child care, as well assist families in stretching limited food 
resources. Therefore, the Committee again directs FNS to 
determine the reimbursement needed to serve meals and snacks 
consistent with dietary guidelines, including contracting with 
an outside source such as the Institute of Medicine if 
necessary, and to report its findings back to this Committee.
    Nutrition Initiatives.--The Committee is aware of the 
important work being undertaken by numerous State, local, and 
private organizations in order to reduce hunger and increase 
nutrition education throughout the United States. The Committee 
applauds these efforts, and encourages USDA to work with 
interested organizations throughout the country, including the 
Mid-Ohio FoodBank in Columbus, Ohio; Ozarks Food Harvest in 
Springfield, Missouri; Oakland Livingston Human Service Agency 
in Oakland and Livingston Counties, Michigan; the St. John's 
Bread & Life Program in Brooklyn, New York; and the Vermont 
Community School Gardens Program in Burlington, Vermont to 
provide technical and financial assistance where appropriate, 
to help these organizations further their goals.
    Policy Documents.--The Committee directs the Food and 
Nutrition Service to make all policy documents related to the 
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and 
Children [WIC] (including, but not limited to, instructions, 
memoranda, guidance, and questions and answers) available to 
the public on the internet within 1 week of their release to 
state WIC administrators.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from
                                                                Appropriations   loan accounts        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.........................................     $158,280,000       $4,950,000     $163,304,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................      168,042,000        4,985,000      173,027,000
Committee recommendation.....................................      169,042,000        4,985,000      174,027,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Foreign Agricultural Service [FAS] was established 
March 10, 1953, by Secretary's Memorandum No. 1320, supplement 
1. Public Law 83-690, approved August 28, 1954, transferred the 
agricultural attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 77 offices around the world where they 
provide expertise in agricultural economics and marketing, as 
well as provide attache services.
    FAS carries out several export assistance programs to 
counter the adverse effects of unfair trade practices by 
competitors on U.S. agricultural trade. The Export Enhancement 
Program uses CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
supplier credit guarantees and facilities financing guarantees, 
(2) Intermediate Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-103), (3) Public 
Law 480, (4) section 416 Overseas Donations Program, (5) Export 
Enhancement Program, (6) Market Access Program, and (7) 
programs authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter 
Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned 
commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to 
encourage and enhance the export of U.S. agricultural 
commodities.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends $174,027,000 for the Foreign 
Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of 
$169,042,000.
    Biotechnology.--To promote the export of domestic farm 
products and improve world agriculture trade conditions, the 
Foreign Agricultural Service must increase its efforts to 
improve the understanding among trading partners of the safety 
of biotechnology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory 
oversight of biotechnology. As trading partners construct 
regulatory systems for biotechnology and commodity trade, FAS 
is frequently requested to provide experts for the purpose of 
educating foreign government officials on the U.S. regulatory 
system. If the United States fails to participate in such 
discussions, those attempting to limit the access to foreign 
markets by U.S. producers will be presented an opportunity to 
undermine confidence in the benefits and safety of the 
technology while reducing trade opportunities for American 
producers. The Committee directs FAS to allocate adequate 
funding to meet the needs of our trading partners so that 
officials from the Department of Agriculture may, when 
requested, educate foreign regulators on the safety of the 
technology and the thoroughness of the U.S. regulatory process.
    Borlaug Fellows Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $1,000,000 for the Borlaug International Agricultural 
Science and Technology Fellows Program. This program provides 
training for international scientists and policymakers from 
selected developing countries. The fellows work closely with 
U.S. specialists in their fields of expertise and apply that 
knowledge in their home countries. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of this program in helping developing countries 
strengthen their agricultural practices and food security.
    Capital Security Cost Sharing.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $2,500,000 for Capital Security Cost 
Sharing [CSCS], as proposed in the budget. The Committee funds 
the fiscal year 2009 CSCS assessment at the level requested by 
FAS with the understanding that space assignments made by the 
Department of State in newly constructed embassies will meet 
current and projected FAS space requirements.
    Cochran Fellowship Program.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $5,000,000 for the Cochran Fellowship Program. The 
Committee encourages the Secretary to continue to provide 
additional support for the program through the Commodity Credit 
Corporation Emerging Markets Program.
    Currency Exchange Rates.--The Committee continues to 
include language in a general provision in the bill, as 
requested in the budget, to allow up to $2,000,000 of the 
amount appropriated to the FAS to remain available until 
expended solely for the purpose of offsetting fluctuations in 
international currency exchange rates, subject to 
documentation.
    Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program.--The 
Committee expects the FAS to fund the Foreign Market 
Development Cooperator Program at no less than the fiscal year 
2008 level.
    Specialty Crops.--The Committee is aware of FAS activities 
to provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty 
crop exports and includes $200,000 to support these activities.

                 PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Administrative
                                                                 Credit level     Loan subsidy       expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.........................................  ...............  ...............       $2,661,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................  ...............  ...............        2,761,000
Committee recommendation.....................................  ...............  ...............        2,761,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,761,000 for 
administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Public 
Law 480 title I agreements.
    The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for any 
new Public Law 480 title I agreements, consistent with the 
Administration's request, and believes that food aid resources 
can be used more effectively in the title II grant program. The 
Committee has continued to focus food aid resources on title II 
grants, but does provide funding to support previously entered 
into title I agreements.

                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................  $1,210,864,000
Supplemental appropriation, 2008\1\.....................   1,245,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................   1,225,900,000
Committee recommendation................................   1,225,900,000

\1\Of this amount, $395,000,000 is available on October 1, 2008.

    The Committee recognizes the important mission of the 
Public Law 480 Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; 
promote broad-based equitable and sustainable development; 
expand international trade; develop and expand export markets 
for U.S. agricultural commodities; and to foster and encourage 
the development of private enterprise and democratic 
participation in developing countries. The Committee strongly 
supports the continued efficient operation of this important 
program.
    Commodities Supplied in Connection With Dispositions Abroad 
(Title II) (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726).--Commodities are supplied 
without cost through foreign governments to combat malnutrition 
and to meet famine and other emergency requirements. 
Commodities are also supplied for nonemergencies through public 
and private agencies, including intergovernmental 
organizations. The Commodity Credit Corporation pays ocean 
freight on shipments under this title, and may also pay 
overland transportation costs to a landlocked country, as well 
as internal distribution costs in emergency situations. The 
funds appropriated for title II are made available to private 
voluntary organizations and cooperatives to assist these 
organizations in meeting administrative and related costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,225,900,000 
for Public Law 480 title II grants. The Committee does not 
support the President's proposal to reduce the amount available 
for direct food assistance to cover administrative costs 
instead of providing for those costs through the Commodity 
Credit Corporation as is the current practice. Instead, the 
Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher 
level of direct humanitarian assistance to help meet the 
world's growing hunger crisis.
    Monetization.--The Committee directs the administration not 
to place arbitrary limits on monetization under the Public Law 
480 title II program. In food-deficit, import-reliant 
countries, monetization stimulates the economy and allows 
needed commodities to be provided in the marketplace. Food aid 
proposals should be approved based on the merits of the program 
plan to promote food security and improve people's lives, not 
on the level of monetization.
    Safe Box.--The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 
contained a provision mandating a minimum level of Public Law 
480 title II resources be used for non-emergency assistance 
($375,000,000 in fiscal year 2009), thereby creating a ``safe 
box'' for non-emergency funds. While the Committee fully agrees 
with the importance of non-emergency food aid, this language 
has the potential to complicate the delivery of food assistance 
in an emergency situation. The Committee should be notified 
immediately once a determination is made that the need for 
emergency assistance will exceed the amount available and the 
non-emergency ``safe box'' will be breached. In addition, the 
Secretary, in consultation of the Administrator of USAID, 
should submit quarterly reports to the Committee on the status 
of the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust, as well as notify the 
Committee when any draw down of the Trust occurs.

  MCGOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD NUTRITION 
                             PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2008....................................     $99,300,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................     100,000,000
Committee recommendation................................     100,000,000

    The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program helps support education, child 
development, and food security for some of the world's poorest 
children. The program provides for donations of U.S. 
agricultural products, as well as financial and technical 
assistance, for school feeding and maternal and child nutrition 
projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are 
committed to universal education. Commodities made available 
for donation through agreements with private voluntary 
organizations, cooperatives, intergovernmental organizations, 
and foreign governments may be donated for direct feeding or 
for local sale to generate proceeds to support school feeding 
and nutrition projects.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $100,000,000 
for the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Program.
    The Committee strongly supports the McGovern-Dole Food for 
Education Program as an important tool in improving food 
security for school-age children in developing countries and 
provides a modest increase over the fiscal year 2008 level. 
This program often provides children the only nourishing meal 
they may receive in any given day and has been successful in 
promoting educational programs that are a vital link to 
improving life and living conditions throughout the world.
    These funds are in addition to $84,000,000 that is included 
in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, but the 
Committee notes that those resources were provided as a one-
time infusion of funds which could be depleted in a single 
year. Unlike other mandatory funding in that statute, no 
allowance was made to ensure a funding stream through the term 
of the legislation. While the Committee hopes to be able to 
include increases above the established discretionary baseline 
for this program beyond fiscal year 2009, no such commitment 
can be made since, unlike the Food, Conservation, and Energy 
Act of 2008, discretionary allocations are provided on an 
annual basis and it is impossible to predict what resources may 
be available for future year appropriations. Therefore, the 
Committee directs that in obligating funds available in fiscal 
year 2009, no commitments for out-year requirements should be 
made in excess of levels equal to the current year 
discretionary baseline plus funds made available through the 
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act.

       COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                  (EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM-102)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Guaranteed loan  Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                  levels\1\        subsidy\1\        expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.........................................   $2,274,000,000      $52,914,000       $5,328,000
Budget estimate, 2009........................................    2,675,000,000       25,715,000        5,353,000
Committee recommendation.....................................    2,675,000,000       25,715,000        5,353,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\No appropriation required since export credit authorizations are permanent authority.

    In 1980, the Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] instituted 
the Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102) under its charter 
authority. With this program, CCC guarantees, for a fee, 
payments due U.S. exporters under deferred payment sales 
contracts (up to 36 months) for defaults due to commercial as 
well as noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the 
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period 
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that 
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. 
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will 
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will 
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand 
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide 
financing to those areas where the institutions would be 
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC 
guarantees. Other credit activities may also be financed under 
the Export Credit Guarantee programs including supplier credit 
guarantee, under which CCC guarantees payments due to importers 
under short term financing (up to 180 days) that exporters 
extend directly to importers for the purchase of U.S. 
agricultural products. CCC also provides facilities financing 
guarantees.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the 
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee 
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance 
appropriations of budget authority according to section 
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for 
administrative expenses.

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a blending 
of science and law. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments 
Act of 2007 [FDAAA] (Public Law 110-85) reaffirmed the 
responsibilities of the FDA: to ensure safe and effective 
products reach the market to a timely way, and to monitor 
products for continued safety after they are in use. In 
addition, FDA is entrusted with two critical functions in the 
Nation's war on terrorism: preventing willful contamination of 
all regulated products, including food, and improving the 
availability of medications to prevent or treat injuries caused 
by biological, chemical or nuclear agents.
    The FDA Foods program has the primary responsibility for 
assuring that the food supply, quality of foods, food 
ingredients and dietary supplements are safe, sanitary, 
nutritious, wholesome, and honestly labeled, and that cosmetic 
products are safe and properly labeled. The variety and 
complexity of the food supply has grown dramatically while new 
and more complex safety issues, such as emerging microbial 
pathogens, natural toxins, and technological innovations in 
production and processing, have developed. This program plays a 
major role in keeping the United States food supply among the 
safest in the world.
    The FDA Drugs programs are comprised of three separate 
areas, Human Drugs, Animal Drugs and Biologics. FDA is 
responsible for the life cycle of the product, including 
premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human, animal 
and biological products to ensure their safety and efficacy. 
For Human Drugs this includes assuring that all drug products 
used for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of disease are 
safe and effective. Additional procedures include the review of 
investigational new drug applications; evaluation of market 
applications for new and generic drugs, labeling and 
composition of prescription and over-the-counter drugs; 
monitoring the quality and safety of products manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States; and, regulating the 
advertising and promotion of prescription drugs. The Animal 
Drugs and Feeds Program ensures only safe and beneficial 
veterinary drugs, intended for the treatment and/or prevention 
of diseases in animals and the improved production of food-
producing animals, are approved for marketing.
    The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood 
products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, 
potent, safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program 
inspects blood banks and blood processors, licenses and 
inspects firms collecting human source plasma, evaluates and 
licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot 
releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events 
associated with vaccine immunization.
    The FDA Devices and Radiological program ensures the safety 
and effectiveness of medical devices and eliminates unnecessary 
human exposure to manmade radiation from medical, occupational, 
and consumer products. In addition, the program enforces 
quality standards under the Mammography Quality Standards Act 
(Public Law 108-365). Medical devices include thousands of 
products from thermometers and contact lenses to heart 
pacemakers, hearing aids, MRIs, microwave ovens, and video 
display terminals.
    FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research in 
Jefferson, Arkansas, serves as a specialized resource, 
conducting peer-review scientific research that provides the 
basis for FDA to make sound science-based regulatory decisions 
through its premarket review and postmarket surveillance. The 
research is designed to define and understand the biological 
mechanisms of action underlying the toxicity of products and 
developing methods to improve assessment of human exposure, 
susceptibility and risk of those products regulated by FDA.

                         salaries and expenses

                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                  Mammography
                                                                              Prescription   Medical     Animal     clinics      Export and
                                                               Appropriation    drug user     device   drug user   inspection  certification     Total
                                                                                  fees      user fees     fees        fees          fees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2008.........................................     1,714,337       459,412      48,431     13,696      18,398         9,500     2,263,774
Supplemental appropriation, 2008\1\..........................       150,000   ............  .........  .........  ...........  .............     150,000
Budget estimate, 2009\2\.....................................     2,033,770       497,108      52,547     13,698      19,318        10,300     2,626,741
Committee recommendation.....................................     2,038,964       497,108      52,547     15,260      19,318        10,300     2,633,497
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Supplemental funding is available until September 30, 2009.
\2\Includes a budget amendment of $265,000,000.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,038,964,000 
for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 
$497,108,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee 
collections; $52,547,000 in Medical Device User Fee and 
Modernization Act user fee collections; $15,260,000 in Animal 
Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $19,318,000 in 
Mammography Quality Standards Act fee collections; and 
$10,300,000 in export and certification fees, as assumed in the 
President's budget. The Committee recommendation includes bill 
language which prohibits FDA from developing, establishing, or 
operating any program of user fees authorized by 31 U.S.C. 
9701.
    The Committee notes that ADUFA user fees need to be 
reauthorized for fiscal year 2009. ADUFA legislation is 
currently being negotiated by the appropriate authorizing 
committees. The Committee has included amounts that represent 
the current administration proposal for ADUFA user fees. The 
Committee will follow the reauthorization of this fee and 
adjust the fee collection amount if necessary.
    The following table reflects the Committee's 
recommendations, as compared to the fiscal year 2008 and budget 
request levels:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2008 enacted     2009 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centers and related field activities:
    Foods....................................................          509,867          660,534          660,534
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN].          172,035          210,587          210,587
        Field Activities.....................................          337,832          449,947          449,947
                                                              ==================================================
    Human Drugs..............................................          353,269          407,491          409,781
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER].......          266,131          293,234          294,999
        Field Activities.....................................           87,138          114,257          114,782
                                                              ==================================================
    Biologics................................................          155,229          180,675          181,795
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER]..          125,834          145,344          146,292
        Field Activities.....................................           29,395           35,331           35,503
                                                              ==================================================
    Animal Drugs.............................................           97,037          114,234          114,355
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM].................           59,738           71,714           71,824
        Field Activities.....................................           37,299           42,520           42,531
                                                              ==================================================
    Medical and radiological devices.........................          237,992          277,381          278,421
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
        Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH]....          177,839          206,675          207,356
        Field Activities.....................................           60,153           70,706           71,065
                                                              ==================================================
    National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR]........           44,006           51,816           52,127
                                                              ==================================================
Other Activities.............................................           97,496          122,198          122,510
                                                              ==================================================
Rent and related activities..................................           88,829           88,829           88,829
                                                              ==================================================
Rental payments to GSA.......................................          130,612          130,612          130,612
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority.        1,714,337        2,033,770        2,038,964
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommendation includes the following 
increases in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses 
activities: $25,000,000 for cost-of-living adjustments; 
$155,194,000 for food safety activities; $104,433,000 for drug, 
biologics and device safety, including the Critical Path 
Initiative; and $40,000,000 for activities to modernize FDA's 
science and workforce. This Committee recommendation fully 
funds the President's budget request for the FDA, including 
additional funding requested in the budget amendment submitted 
on June 9, 2008. The Committee recommendation does not include 
base program reductions assumed in the budget request.
    Of the amount recommended, $155,194,000 shall be used for 
activities related to food protection. The funding shall be 
used to open additional FDA offices overseas and improve FDA's 
capacity to identify risk factors and more rapidly mitigate any 
food safety problems. This includes more rapid detection of 
contamination and more rapid trace back abilities to determine 
the source of any outbreak of food borne illness. Further, this 
funding will be used to hire additional foreign and domestic 
inspectors to increase the number of import food exams, the 
number of foreign food facility inspections and the number of 
domestic food safety inspections; and to create a new 
communication system to more rapidly inform the public of any 
outbreak of food borne illness.
    Of the amount recommended, $104,433,000 shall be used for 
activities related to drug, device, and biologics safety. The 
funding shall be used to increase foreign and domestic facility 
inspections, improve laboratory infrastructure and rapid 
analysis tools, implement the safety requirements outlined in 
the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act, and upgrade 
the agency's information technology to enable data sharing and 
enhanced analysis of adverse events.
    Of the amount recommended, $40,000,000 will be used to 
enhance science programs across the agency, with specific focus 
on areas of emerging science where the FDA currently lacks the 
expertise necessary to regulate complex products under 
development. This will include funding for research, science 
training and professional development for current FDA staff, 
and efforts to recruit additional scientific staff to the 
agency.
    Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $1,757,000 for the FDA's 
contract with New Mexico State University's Physical Sciences 
Laboratory to operate the Food Technology Evaluation 
Laboratory, which conducts evaluation and development of rapid 
screening methodologies, technologies, and instrumentation; and 
provides technology deployment, modeling, and data analysis for 
food safety and product safety, including advanced risk-based 
systems for screening and inspection, to facilitate FDA's 
regulations and responsibilities in food safety, product 
safety, homeland security, bioterrorism, and other initiatives.
    Antibiotics in Shrimp.--The Committee is concerned about 
the contamination of farm-raised shrimp imports with banned 
antibiotics. The Food and Drug Administration currently 
inspects less than 2 percent of imported shrimp. The Committee 
strongly encourages FDA to develop, in cooperation with State 
testing programs, a program for increasing the inspection of 
imported shrimp for banned antibiotics.
    Budget Justification.--The Committee directs the agency to 
submit the fiscal year 2010 budget request in a format that 
follows the same account structure as the fiscal year 2009 
budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee.
    Codex Alimentarius.--Within the total funding available, at 
least $2,495,000 is for FDA activities in support of Codex 
Alimentarius.
    Collaborative Drug Safety Research.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $559,000 to continue the collaborative 
research agreement on cardiac biomarkers between FDA, the 
Critical Path Institute, and the University of Utah. The 
Committee notes that this research project has been extremely 
successful and has developed a genetic test that will help 
guide warfarin, a commonly prescribed blood thinner, dosing. It 
is estimated that integrating genetic testing into warfarin 
therapy could allow Americans to avoid 85,000 serious bleeding 
events and 17,000 strokes annually, reducing health care 
spending by approximately $1,000,000,000 annually.
    Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $16,000,000 for critical path 
initiatives, including not less than $4,000,000 for competitive 
contracts or grants to universities and non-profit 
organizations to support critical path projects. The Committee 
expects that this funding will be used to further FDA's work on 
critical path opportunities, including the 76 opportunities 
published in 2006 and other opportunities identified since 
2006, and to promote collaborations with other Government 
agencies, academia, patient groups, and other interested 
parties including, but not limited to, the Predictive Safety 
Testing Consortium, which is currently reviewing the validity 
of new tests to detect drug induced kidney damage; the National 
Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education, a multi-
university consortium working to further research and education 
programs in the science and engineering of product development 
and manufacturing; the Coalition Against Major Diseases, which 
is working to generate quantitative disease progression models 
that can be made available for all to use in designing clinical 
trials; and the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, 
which aims to improve the efficiency and safety of clinical 
trials.
    Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device 
Availability.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 
for Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device 
Availability, as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act 
of 2007. The Committee is aware that medical device products 
are developed for adults, limiting children's access to safe 
and effective medical devices. This program will provide grants 
to nonprofit pediatric medical device consortia, which will 
assist scientists and innovators with technical and financial 
resources to improve the number of medical devices available to 
children.
    Dietary Supplements.--FDA has indicated that the ability to 
identify and analyze specific components in ingredients, 
including botanical ingredients, is an essential component of 
research and regulatory programs directed at ensuring the 
safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements. The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,713,000 for review of botanicals in 
dietary supplements. This work is being carried out by FDA in 
collaboration with the National Center for Natural Products 
Research, Oxford, Mississippi.
    Generic Drugs.--The Committee recommendation includes no 
less than $81,526,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of 
which $41,358,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs.
    In Vitro High Throughput Immune Response Assessment 
Technologies.--The Committee is aware of rapid in vitro high 
throughput immune response assessment technologies for 
evaluating the human immune response to vaccines. These 
technologies may facilitate the rapid screening of novel 
vaccine candidates, thus reducing the time and cost associated 
with development. Specifically, these approaches may be highly 
useful for conducting potency testing and predicting the 
performance of new vaccines. The Committee directs FDA to 
continue to evaluate these technologies to determine how they 
might be used to rapidly facilitate vaccine development and FDA 
review.
    Mammography.--The Committee recommends no less than the 
fiscal year 2008 level in appropriated funds for activities 
related to the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA]. 
Appropriations for this program fund research grants and 
various activities to develop and enforce quality standards for 
mammography services, including a Federal advisory committee, 
accreditation bodies, inspections of government entities and 
facilities that provided 50 percent or more mammography 
screenings with grants provided through the Center for Disease 
Control's National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection 
Program, issuance and renewal of certificates, appeal 
procedures, certification of personnel, and imposing sanctions 
for noncompliance.
    On June 26, 2008, the Committee received a report, as 
requested by Senate Report 110-134, on actions being taken to 
implement recommendations made in the Institute of Medicine 
report entitled ``Breast Imaging Quality Standards''. The 
report stated that FDA held an open public meeting on September 
28 and 29, 2006, and has been considering potential amendments 
to MQSA, which would address the IOM report, since this 
meeting. To date, FDA has not acted on any of these 
recommendations. The Committee believes this is an unacceptable 
delay, and directs the FDA to report back within 120 days of 
enactment of this Act on which amendments that FDA will propose 
to MQSA, if any, in response to the IOM report recommendations 
and provide a timeline for these amendments.
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology.--With the 
growing threat of foodborne illness to the public health, the 
Committee believes that collaborative research in food safety 
should continue among Government, academia, and private 
industry. The national model for that collaboration has been 
the National Center for Food Safety and Technology [NCFST] in 
Summit-Argo, Illinois. The Committee recommendation includes 
$2,212,000 for NCFST to continue the important work done there. 
This funding should be exclusive of any initiative funds which 
the FDA may provide in addition to NCFST.
    Office of Women's Health.--The Committee believes that it 
is imperative for FDA to pay sufficient attention to gender-
based research, ensuring that products approved by the FDA are 
safe and effective for women as well as men. The Committee 
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the Office of Women's 
Health. The Committee encourages FDA to ensure that the Office 
of Women's Health is sufficiently funded to carry out its 
activities, and to enhance its funding if necessary.
    Orphan Products Grants.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $14,035,000 for the Orphan Products Grants Program 
within the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
    Pediatric Cancer.--The Committee notes the poor survival 
rates and lack of new therapies associated with many pediatric 
cancers, including high-risk neuroblastoma. The Committee 
encourages the FDA to prioritize review of new treatments and 
clinical trials for pediatric oncology patients and requests a 
report on these activities within 120 days of the enactment of 
this act.
    Seafood Economic Integrity.--The Committee recognizes the 
importance of seafood to a healthy diet, but is concerned that 
FDA does not focus sufficient attention on economic integrity 
issues, particularly with respect to mislabeling of species, 
weights, country of origin, and treatment. The Committee 
encourages FDA to work with States to more aggressively combat 
fraud in parts of the seafood industry.
    Seafood Safety.--The Committee supports the ongoing work of 
the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference [ISSC] and its 
joint efforts with the FDA and the shellfish industry to 
formulate shellfish safety regulations through the National 
Shellfish Sanitation Program. The Committee recommendation 
includes $148,000 for the Office of Seafood Inspection to 
continue these activities and $185,000 be directed to the ISSC 
for the Vibrio Vulnificus Education Program.
    Standardized Food Safety Certification.--The Committee is 
aware that the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has proposed a 
State-wide standardized food safety certification system. The 
Committee encourages the FDA to work with the State of Hawaii 
on this system and to provide funding if appropriate.
    Standards of Identity.--The Committee is aware of the 
ongoing debate surrounding increased importation and use of 
milk protein concentrate. The Committee remains concerned with 
FDA's current lack of enforcement of standards of identity as 
it relates to the potential use of milk protein concentrate in 
standardized cheese and the labeling thereof.
    Waste Management Education and Research Consortium.--The 
Committee recommendation includes $73,000 for the FDA to 
continue its support for the Waste Management Education and 
Research Consortium and its work in food safety technology 
verification and education.
    Western Region FDA Center of Excellence.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $1,490,000 for the Western Region FDA 
Center of Excellence at the University of California at Davis 
[UCD]. California and the western States provide the majority 
of the Nation's fruits, vegetables, and specialty crops, and 
lead the Nation in import and export of food products. This 
Center is a cooperative research center with FDA and UCD and 
addresses food safety and security areas of focus identified by 
FDA to be of greatest need in the Western United States.

                        buildings and facilities

Appropriations, 2008....................................      $2,433,000
Budget estimate, 2009\1\................................      12,433,000
Committee recommendation................................      12,433,000

\1\Includes a budget amendment of $10,000,000

    FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field 
laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the 
National Center for Toxicological Research complex. Repairs, 
modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA 
headquarters and field facilities must be made to preserve the 
properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing program 
requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory 
methods up to date.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000 
for FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to 
upgrade FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently 
below public safety standards and incapable of performing 
agency requirements.

                           INDEPENDENT AGENCY

                       Farm Credit Administration

                 limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, 2008........................................     $46,000,000
Budget estimate, 2009...................................      50,000,000
Committee recommendation................................      50,000,000

    The Farm Credit Administration [FCA] is the independent 
agency in the executive branch of the Government responsible 
for the examination and regulation of the banks, associations, 
and other institutions of the Farm Credit System.
    Activities of the Farm Credit Administration include the 
planning and execution of examinations of Farm Credit System 
institutions and the preparation of examination reports. FCA 
also establishes standards, enforces rules and regulations, and 
approves certain actions of the institutions.
    The administration and the institutions under its 
jurisdiction now operate under authorities contained in the 
Farm Credit Act of 1971, Public Law 92-181, effective December 
10, 1971. Public Law 99-205, effective December 23, 1985, 
restructured FCA and gave the agency regulatory authorities and 
enforcement powers.
    The act provides for the farmer-owned cooperative system to 
make sound, adequate, and constructive credit available to 
farmers and ranchers and their cooperatives, rural residences, 
and associations and other entities upon which farming 
operations are dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit 
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the 
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural 
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under 
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is 
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and 
assuring its safe and sound operation.
    Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by 
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions 
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $50,000,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA]. The Committee recommendation that the limitation does 
not apply to expenses associated with receiverships.

                               TITLE VII

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    The Committee recommends the following provisions:
    Section 701. This section makes funds available for the 
purchase, replacement, and hire of passenger motor vehicles.
    Section 702. This section makes funds for certain accounts 
within the Department of Agriculture available until expended.
    Section 703. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture authority to transfer unobligated balances to the 
Working Capital Fund.
    Section 704. This section limits the funding provided in 
the bill to 1 year, unless otherwise specified.
    Section 705. This section limits negotiated indirect costs 
on cooperative agreements between the Department of Agriculture 
and nonprofit organizations to 10 percent.
    Section 706. This section makes appropriations to the 
Department of Agriculture for the cost of direct guaranteed 
loans available until expended to disburse obligations for 
certain Rural Development programs.
    Section 707. This section makes funds available for the 
expenses and activities of certain advisory committees, panels, 
commissions, and task forces at the Department of Agriculture.
    Section 708. This section prohibits the use of funds to 
establish an inspection panel at the Department of Agriculture.
    Section 709. This section requires Department of 
Agriculture agencies to provide reimbursement to other 
Department of Agriculture agencies for employees detailed for 
longer than 30 days.
    Section 710. This section prohibits the Department of 
Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services 
from transmitting questions or responses as a result of the 
appropriations hearing process to non-Department employees.
    Section 711. This section prohibits the purchase of new 
information technology equipment and equipment in excess of 
$25,000 without the prior approval of the Chief Information 
Officer.
    Section 712. This section prohibits the reprogramming of 
funds for programs, projects, or activities in excess of 
$500,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less without the prior 
notification of the Committee on Appropriations.
    Section 713. This section prohibits the use of funds for 
user fee proposals that fail to provide sufficient budget 
impact information.
    Section 714. This section prohibits the closing of the Food 
and Drug Administration's St. Louis, Missouri laboratory.
    Section 715. This section limits the amount of funding 
available to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the 
release of commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian 
Trust.
    Section 716. This section prohibits the promulgation of a 
final rule related to animal and plant health programs.
    Section 717 This section provides $434,000 for the Denali 
Commission to address deficiencies in solid waste management in 
the State of Alaska. The Committee directs the Commission to 
work with the State of Alaska to develop a legal framework for 
a solid waste management authority that can become self-
sustaining and is authorized to establish a revolving loan fund 
to support solid waste projects.
    Section 718. This section makes funds for certain 
conservation programs available until expended to disburse 
certain obligations made in the current fiscal year.
    Section 719. This section makes certain former Rural 
Utilities Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic 
Development loan and grant program.
    Section 720. This section gives the Secretary of 
Agriculture the authority to make funding and other assistance 
available for damage to non-Federal lands damaged by fires 
initiated by the Federal Government, and waives cost-sharing 
requirements.
    Section 721. This section prohibits funds to carry out 
certain sections of Public Law 110-246.
    Section 722. This section provides funding for the National 
Center for Natural Products Research to construct and/or 
renovate facilities to enhance the research conducted on 
botanicals and dietary supplements at the National Center in 
conjunction with FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied 
Nutrition. This research aids FDA's regulatory mission in 
ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary supplements by 
identifying, isolating, and analyzing specific components of 
botanicals and dietary supplements.
    Section 723. This section provides funding to complete the 
environmental assessment for and continue the design of a 
facility that will allow the creation of sterile fruit flies of 
all varieties of established fruit fly pests.
    Section 724. This section establishes a forestry pilot 
program for lands affected by Hurricane Katrina.
    Section 725. This section makes certain locations eligible 
for certain Rural Development programs.
    Section 726. This section provides funding for the Bill 
Emerson and Mickey Leland Hunger Fellowships.
    Section 727. This section provides funding for section 6402 
of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, to 
support development and expansion of the specialty cheese 
industry.
    Section 728. This section authorizes certain watershed 
projects.
    Section 729. This section includes language amending the 
Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
    Section 730. This section prohibits funding certain 
activities.
    Section 731. This section directs the NRCS to settle claims 
associated with the Houlka Master Watershed Project.
    Section 732. This section modifies matching requirements 
for certain research grants.
    Section. 733. This section refers to congressional 
spending.
    Section 734. This section makes commercial fishermen 
eligible for certain operating loans.
    Section 735. This section exempts from agricultural 
quarantine and inspection user fees certain commercial trucks 
originating in the United States and transiting through Canada.
    Section 736. This section prohibits certain products from 
Argentina.
    Section 737. This section relates to sales of agricultural 
and medical goods to Cuba.

                     PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

    During fiscal year 2009, for purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177) or the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control 
Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119), the following 
information provides the definition of the term ``program, 
project, and activity'' for departments and agencies under the 
jurisdiction of the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related 
Agencies Subcommittee. The term ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget 
items identified in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2008, the House and Senate Committee reports, and the 
conference report and accompanying joint explanatory statement 
of the managers of the committee of conference.
    If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the 
Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any 
percentage reduction required for fiscal year 2009 pursuant to 
the provisions of Public Law 99-177 or Public Law 100-119 to 
all items specified in the explanatory notes submitted to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate in support 
of the fiscal year 2009 budget estimates, as amended, for such 
departments and agencies, as modified by congressional action, 
and in addition:
    For the Agricultural Research Service the definition shall 
include specific research locations as identified in the 
explanatory notes and lines of research specifically identified 
in the reports of the House and Senate Appropriations 
Committees.
    For the Natural Resources Conservation Service the 
definition shall include individual flood prevention projects 
as identified in the explanatory notes and individual 
operational watershed projects as summarized in the notes.
    For the Farm Service Agency the definition shall include 
individual, regional, State, district, and county offices.

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

    Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports 
accompanying general appropriations bills identify each 
recommended amendment 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.
    The Committee recommends funding for the following programs 
which currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2009:
  --The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 provides 
        authorizations for a number of programs funded under 
        this act. This act is currently under consideration for 
        reauthorization;
  --Healthy Forests Reserve Program
  --Animal Drug User Fee Act

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

    Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 17, 2008, 
the Committee ordered reported an original bill (S. 3289) 
making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food 
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2009, and for other purposes, 
and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of 
the subcommittee to offer the text of the Senate bill as a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House 
companion measure, with the bill subject to amendment and 
subject to the budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29-0, 
a quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
        Yeas                          Nays
Chairman Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
Mr. Johnson
Ms. Landrieu
Mr. Reed
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Nelson
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Stevens
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allard
Mr. Alexander

 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 the bill are shown as 
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets; new matter is printed in italics; and existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.

                          TITLE 7--AGRICULTURE

                    CHAPTER 50--AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

                SUBCHAPTER IV--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 1991. Definitions

    (a) As used in this chapter:
            (1) The term ``farmer'' includes a person who is 
        engaged in, or who, with assistance afforded under this 
        chapter, intends to engage in, fish farming and, in the 
        case of subtitle B, commercial fishing.
            (2) The term ``farming'' shall be deemed to include 
        fish farming and, in the case of subtitle B, commercial 
        fishing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Preservation loan service program.--The term 
        ``preservation loan service program'' means homestead 
        retention as authorized under section 2000 of this 
        title.
    (c) Definition of Farm.--In subtitle B, the term ``farm'' 
includes a commercial fishing enterprise owned or operated by a 
geographically disadvantaged farmer or rancher (as defined in 
section 10906(a) of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act 
of 2002 (7 U.S.C. 2204 note; Public Law 107-171), except that 
for purposes of this subsection the term ``farmer or rancher'' 
as used in that section shall include a commercial fisherman).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                SUBCHAPTER VI--DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

[Sec. 2009aa-10. Records

[(a) Records of the Authority

    [(1) In general

            [The Authority shall maintain accurate and complete 
        records of all transactions and activities of the 
        Authority.

    [(2) Availability

            [All records of the Authority shall be available 
        for audit and examination by the Comptroller General of 
        the United States and the Inspector General of the 
        Department of Agriculture (including authorized 
        representatives of the Comptroller General and the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture).

[(b) Records of recipients of Federal assistance

    [(1) In general

            [A recipient of Federal funds under this subchapter 
        shall, as required by the Authority, maintain accurate 
        and complete records of transactions and activities 
        financed with Federal funds and report on the 
        transactions and activities to the Authority.

    [(2) Availability

            [All records required under paragraph (1) shall be 
        available for audit by the Comptroller General of the 
        United States, the Inspector General of the Department 
        of Agriculture, and the Authority (including authorized 
        representatives of the Comptroller General, the 
        Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture, and 
        the Authority).

[(c) Annual audit

    [The Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture 
shall audit the activities, transactions, and records of the 
Authority on an annual basis.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

              TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

       CHAPTER 79--TRADE SANCTIONS REFORM AND EXPORT ENHANCEMENT

Sec. 7209. Requirements relating to certain travel-related transactions 
                    with Cuba

[(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of 
                    agricultural commodities

    [The Secretary of the Treasury shall promulgate regulations 
under which the travel-related transactions listed in 
subsection (c) of section 515.560 of title 31, Code of Federal 
Regulations, may be authorized on a case-by-case basis by a 
specific license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the 
commercial export sale of agricultural commodities pursuant to 
the provisions of this chapter.]
    (a) Authorization of Travel Relating to Commercial Sales of 
Agricultural and Medical Goods.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
shall promulgate regulations under which the travel-related 
transactions listed in paragraph (c) of section 515.560 of 
title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, are authorized by 
general license for travel to, from, or within Cuba for the 
marketing and sale of agricultural and medical goods pursuant 
to the provisions of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                TITLE 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

                   CHAPTER 13--SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

Sec. 1766. Child and adult care food program

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(r) Program for at-risk school children

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5) Limitation

            The Secretary shall limit reimbursement under this 
        subsection for meals served under a program to 
        institutions located in [eight] nine States, of which 
        [six] seven States shall be Vermont, Illinois, 
        Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, and Michigan and two 
        States shall be approved by the Secretary through a 
        competitive application process.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                        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
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
 for 2008: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
 Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies:
    Mandatory...............................................       76,307       76,307       63,526    \1\63,526
    Discretionary...........................................       20,435       20,435       21,395    \1\21,344
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
    2009....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........    \2\71,646
    2010....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        3,613
    2011....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........        1,036
    2012....................................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          244
    2013 and future years...................................  ...........  ...........  ...........          186
Financial assistance to State and local governments for                NA       28,283           NA       24,633
 2008.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\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 ``congressional 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS..............................  Specialty Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection...........          $360,000  Senator Kohl
APHIS............................  Beaver management and control, APHIS Mississippi.................................................           472,000  Senator Cochran
APHIS............................  Beaver management and control, APHIS North Carolina..............................................           221,000  Senator Dole
APHIS............................  Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry                 1,117,000  Senators Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker
                                    Experiment Sta-  tion.
APHIS............................  Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont......................................           240,000  Senator Leahy
APHIS............................  Blackbird management, APHIS Kansas...............................................................           127,000  Senator Roberts
APHIS............................  Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana............................................................           100,000  Senator Landrieu
APHIS............................  Blackbird management, APHIS North and South Dakota...............................................           282,000  Senators Conrad, Dorgan, and Johnson
APHIS............................  Brown tree snake, APHIS Hawaii...................................................................           700,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................  California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and                    619,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
                                    Agriculture.
APHIS............................  California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and               738,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
                                    Agriculture.
APHIS............................  Chronic Wasting Disease, Colorado Department of Agriculture......................................            38,000  Senators Allard and Salazar
APHIS............................  Chronic Wasting Disease, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food.................................           182,000  Senator Bennett
APHIS............................  Chronic Wasting Disease, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection......         1,350,000  Senator Kohl
APHIS............................  Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture........................................           221,000  Senator Cochran
APHIS............................  Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of                 223,000  Senators Casey and Specter
                                    Agriculture.
APHIS............................  Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan................................................................           148,000  Senators Levin and Stabenow
APHIS............................  Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi.............................................................           237,000  Senator Cochran
APHIS............................  Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department........................           110,000  Senator Leahy
APHIS............................  Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries...............................            74,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
APHIS............................  Disease surveillance in North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Dickinson State                   1,400,000  Senators Conrad and Dorgan
                                    University.
APHIS............................  Genetically modified products, Iowa State University.............................................           276,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
APHIS............................  Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana             692,000  Senators Barrasso, Baucus, Craig, and
                                    Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.                                                                    Crapo
APHIS............................  Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii...................................................................         1,750,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................  Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia..................................           298,000  Senator Byrd
APHIS............................  Johne's disease, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Services................         1,000,000  Senator Kohl
APHIS............................  Lamprey control, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, Vermont................           100,000  Senator Leahy
APHIS............................  Mormon crickets, APHIS Utah......................................................................         1,117,000  Senator Bennett
APHIS............................  National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University.................................           276,000  Senators Brownback and Roberts
APHIS............................  National farm animal identification and records, Holstein Association............................           343,000  Senator Leahy
APHIS............................  National Wildlife Research Center, Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station and              255,000  Senator Cochran
                                    Mississippi State University.
APHIS............................  National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M....................................................           309,000  Senator Hutchison
APHIS............................  Nevada weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture.........................................           250,000  Senator Reid
APHIS............................  New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State University........................           404,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
APHIS............................  Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe....................................................           187,000  Senators Craig and Crapo
APHIS............................  Predator Research Station, APHIS Utah, Utah State University, Colorado State University..........         1,033,000  Senator Bennett
APHIS............................  Rodent control, APHIS Hawaii.....................................................................           172,000  Senator Inouye
APHIS............................  Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming....................................           986,000  Senators Barrasso, Baucus, Craig, Crapo,
                                                                                                                                                         Enzi, and Tester
APHIS............................  Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii............................................................           500,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................  Wildlife Services Hawaii, APHIS Hawaii...........................................................           400,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
APHIS............................  Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks.................           553,000  Senators Johnson and Thune
APHIS............................  Wisconsin Livestock Identification Consortium, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and            1,550,000  Senator Kohl
                                    Consumer Protection.
ARS/BF...........................  Agriculture Research Center, Pullman, WA.........................................................         1,870,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
ARS/BF...........................  Alcorn State University Biotechnology Laboratory, Alcorn State, MS...............................         1,780,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF...........................  Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT..........................................................         1,600,000  Senators Baucus and Tester
ARS/BF...........................  Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory, Bowling Green, KY...................................         1,390,000  Senator McConnell
ARS/BF...........................  Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV..................................................         1,000,000  Senator Byrd
ARS/BF...........................  ARS Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT......................................................         5,561,000  Senator Bennett
ARS/BF...........................  Dairy Forage Agricultural Center, Prairie du Sac, WI.............................................         2,558,000  Senator Kohl
ARS/BF...........................  Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington, KY........................................         2,085,000  Senator McConnell
ARS/BF...........................  Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station, Hagerman, ID...........................................           695,000  Senators Craig and Crapo
ARS/BF...........................  Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, MS.......................................         2,000,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF...........................  National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, MO........................................         2,086,000  Senator Bond
ARS/BF...........................  Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI.............................................         2,000,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
ARS/BF...........................  Poultry Science Research Facility, Starkville, MS................................................         1,780,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
ARS/BF...........................  Sugarcane Research Laboratory, Houma, LA.........................................................         3,200,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
ARS/BF...........................  Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE...................................................         1,390,000  Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/Extension.....................  Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, Urbandale, IA....................................            74,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/Extension.....................  Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension..............................           400,000  Senator Kohl
CS/Extension.....................  Dairy education, Iowa State University...........................................................           169,000  Senators Harkin and Grassley
CS/Extension.....................  E-commerce, Mississippi State University.........................................................           246,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/Extension.....................  Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX..           475,000  Senators Bingaman, Cornyn, Domenici,
                                                                                                                                                         Hutchison
CS/Extension.....................  Extension specialist, Mississippi State University...............................................            98,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/Extension.....................  Health education leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation..........................           628,000  Senator McConnell
CS/Extension.....................  Iowa vitality center, Iowa State University......................................................           223,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/Extension.....................  National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College................................           168,000  Senator Harkin
CS/Extension.....................  Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public                 800,000  Senator Kohl
                                    Institutions.
CS/Extension.....................  Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH.....................................           496,000  Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/Extension.....................  Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, University of Wisconsin Extension.............................           350,000  Senator Kohl
CS/Extension.....................  Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University...............           223,000  Senators Cochran, Inhofe and Wicker
CS/Extension.....................  Potato Integrated Pest Management--Late Blight, University of Maine..............................           298,000  Senators Collins and Snowe
CS/Extension.....................  Range improvement, New Mexico State University...................................................           223,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/Extension.....................  Rural technologies, Maui Economic Development Board, HI..........................................           150,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/Extension.....................  Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL............................           111,000  Senator Durbin
CS/Extension.....................  Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing Power..........................           400,000  Senator Kohl
CS/RE/FA.........................  Agriculture development in the American Pacific, University of Hawaii............................           372,000  Senator Inouye
CS/RE/FA.........................  Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State University....................................           485,000  Senator Byrd
CS/RE/FA.........................  Agriculture-based industrial lubricants, University of Northern Iowa.............................           405,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/RE/FA.........................  Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University........................           250,000  Senator Feinstein
CS/RE/FA.........................  Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA..............................................................           164,000  Senator Specter
CS/RE/FA.........................  Aquaculture Research, Rhode Island Coastal Resource Management Council...........................           298,000  Senator Reed
CS/RE/FA.........................  Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS..............................................           511,000  Senator Cochran
CS/RE/FA.........................  Botanical research, Utah State University........................................................           670,000  Senator Bennett
CS/RE/FA.........................  Center for North American studies, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College            200,000  Senators Domenici and Hutchison
                                    Station, TX.
CS/RE/FA.........................  Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture....................           340,000  Senator Specter
CS/RE/FA.........................  Cotton research, Texas Tech University...........................................................           300,000  Senators Cornyn and Hutchison
CS/RE/FA.........................  Council for Agriculture and Technology, Ames, IA.................................................           112,000  Senator Harkin
CS/RE/FA.........................  Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD..................................................           500,000  Senators Cardin and Mikulski
CS/RE/FA.........................  Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University.................................................           112,000  Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/RE/FA.........................  Feed efficiency, West Virginia University........................................................           112,000  Senator Byrd
CS/RE/FA.........................  Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central Florida....................           250,000  Senators Martinez and Bill Nelson
CS/RE/FA.........................  Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen F. Austin State University, TX............................           298,000  Senator Hutchison
CS/RE/FA.........................  Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa State University..................           187,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/RE/FA.........................  Mississippi Valley State University..............................................................         1,067,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA.........................  NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the                150,000  Senators Collins, Dodd, Lieberman, Snowe
                                    University of Maine.
CS/RE/FA.........................  PM-10 air quality study, Washington State University.............................................           150,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/RE/FA.........................  Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS.................................................         1,367,000  Senator Brownback
CS/RE/FA.........................  Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS......................................................           229,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA.........................  Shellfish, University of Rhode Island............................................................           261,000  Senators Reed and Whitehouse
CS/RE/FA.........................  Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi...........................................           300,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/RE/FA.........................  Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH...........................................           223,000  Senators Brown and Voinovich
CS/RE/FA.........................  Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV........................................................           410,000  Senator Byrd
CS/SRG...........................  Advanced genetic technologies, University of Kentucky Research Foundation........................           481,000  Senator McConnell
CS/SRG...........................  Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX..............................................           149,000  Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG...........................  Aegilops cylindrica / Biomass (jointed goatgrass), Washington State University...................           200,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG...........................  Agricultural diversity, University of Minnesota, Crookston.......................................           200,000  Senators Conrad and Dorgan
CS/SRG...........................  Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, Pennsylvania State University.........................           248,000  Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG...........................  Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX...............           300,000  Senators Cornyn, Hutchison, Roberts
CS/SRG...........................  Alliance for food protection, University of Nebraska.............................................           130,000  Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG...........................  Animal disease research, University of Wyoming...................................................           258,000  Senators Barrasso and Enzi
CS/SRG...........................  Animal Health, Forages for Advancing Livestock Production Project, KY............................           291,000  Senator McConnell
CS/SRG...........................  Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State         1,000,000  Senators Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln,
                                    University, Kansas State University.                                                                                 Pryor, Roberts,
CS/SRG...........................  Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, University            200,000  Senators Levin, Schumer, Stabenow
                                    of Michigan.
CS/SRG...........................  Aquaculture product & marketing development, West Virginia University............................           521,000  Senator Byrd
CS/SRG...........................  Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center......................................           200,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG...........................  Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station............................           385,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG...........................  Aquaculture, North Carolina State University.....................................................           242,000  Senators Burr and Dole
CS/SRG...........................  Armillaria root rot, Michigan State University...................................................           111,000  Senators Levin and Stabenow
CS/SRG...........................  Asparagus technology and production, Washington State University.................................           184,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG...........................  Avian bioscience, University of Delaware.........................................................           100,000  Senator Biden and Carper
CS/SRG...........................  Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of Idaho......................           547,000  Senators Baucus, Craig, Crapo, Tester
CS/SRG...........................  Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University...............................................           223,000  Senators Warner and Webb
CS/SRG...........................  Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University...........           894,000  Senators Cochran, Inhofe, Wicker
CS/SRG...........................  Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University.....           187,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Center for One Medicine..........................................................................           250,000  Senator Durbin
CS/SRG...........................  Center for Public Land and Rural Economies, Utah State University................................           223,000  Senator Bennett
CS/SRG...........................  Center for rural studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.........           261,000  Senator Leahy
CS/SRG...........................  Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences..           180,000  Senator Leahy
CS/SRG...........................  Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida....................................................           200,000  Senators Martinez and Bill Nelson
CS/SRG...........................  Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington State University and the University of                 350,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
                                    Washington.
CS/SRG...........................  Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State           250,000  Senators Cantwell, Conrad, Craig, Crapo,
                                    Univer-  sity.                                                                                                       Dorgan, Murray
CS/SRG...........................  Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia................................           368,000  Senators Chambliss and Isakson
CS/SRG...........................  Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey..............           480,000  Senators Lautenberg and Menendez
CS/SRG...........................  Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts.................................................           118,000  Senators Kennedy and Kerry
CS/SRG...........................  Crop integration and production, South Dakota State University...................................           275,000  Senators Johnson and Thune
CS/SRG...........................  Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M University........................................           100,000  Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG...........................  Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State University..........................................           372,000  Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG...........................  Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State University.......................................           187,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG...........................  Designing foods for health, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.........................           500,000  Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG...........................  Detection and Food Safety, Auburn University, AL.................................................         1,862,000  Senators Shelby and Sessions
CS/SRG...........................  Drought management, Utah State University........................................................           670,000  Senator Bennett
CS/SRG...........................  Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas               575,000  Senators Bingaman, Cornyn, Domenici,
                                    AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.                                                                              Hutchison
CS/SRG...........................  Environmentally safe products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences....           200,000  Senator Leahy
CS/SRG...........................  Floriculture, University of Hawaii...............................................................           259,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/SRG...........................  Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University....................................................           298,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  Food safety, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX........................................            74,000  Senator Hutchison
CS/SRG...........................  Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California..............................................           750,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
CS/SRG...........................  Functional Genomics, Utah State University.......................................................         1,192,000  Senator Bennett
CS/SRG...........................  Future foods, University of Illinois.............................................................           450,000  Senator Durbin
CS/SRG...........................  Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi State University......................           849,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG...........................  Global change UV/B radiation, Colorado State University..........................................         1,500,000  The President, Senators Allard and
                                                                                                                                                         Salazar
CS/SRG...........................  Grain sorghum, Kansas State University, Texas Tech University....................................           548,000  Senators Brownback, Hutchison, Roberts
CS/SRG...........................  Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, Oregon State University, University of             150,000  Senators Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Murray,
                                    Idaho, Washington State University.                                                                                  Smith, Wyden
CS/SRG...........................  Great Basin Environmental Program, University of Nevada--Reno....................................           225,000  Senator Reid
CS/SRG...........................  High Performance Computing, Utah State University................................................           559,000  Senator Bennett
CS/SRG...........................  Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA..........................           526,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG...........................  Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural commodities, University of Idaho...........................           642,000  Senators Craig and Crapo
CS/SRG...........................  Infectious disease research, Colorado State University...........................................           609,000  Senators Allard and Salazar
CS/SRG...........................  Institute of Agriculture-Phytosensors for Crop Security, University of Tennessee.................           745,000  Senator Alexander
CS/SRG...........................  Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems,            200,000  Senator Lugar
                                    Purdue University.
CS/SRG...........................  Joint US China Biotechnology Research and Extension, Utah State University.......................           447,000  Senator Bennett
CS/SRG...........................  Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State University............................................           112,000  Senator Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX...           200,000  Senators Hutchison and Schumer
CS/SRG...........................  Livestock waste, Iowa State University...........................................................           196,000  Senator Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  Lowbush Wild Blueberry research, University of Maine.............................................           184,000  Senators Collins and Snowe
CS/SRG...........................  Managed Drainage System for Crop Production, University of Missouri-Columbia.....................           250,000  Senator Bond
CS/SRG...........................  Maple research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences...................           165,000  Senator Leahy
CS/SRG...........................  Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance , University of Nebraska............................           365,000  Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG...........................  Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University..........................................           200,000  Senator Lugar
CS/SRG...........................  Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University................................................           250,000  Senators Coleman, Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University.......................................................           821,000  Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG...........................  Montana Sheep Institute, Montana State University................................................           270,000  Senators Baucus and Tester
CS/SRG...........................  National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, Colorado State University, Cornell                      655,000  Senators Allard, Chambliss, Salazar,
                                    University, University of Georgia.                                                                                   Schumer
CS/SRG...........................  National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia..........................           735,000  Senator Bond
CS/SRG...........................  Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico State University.............................           223,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of Nevada--Reno....................................           400,000  Senators Ensign and Reid
CS/SRG...........................  New Century Farm, Iowa State University..........................................................           300,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY............................................................           559,000  Senator McConnell
CS/SRG...........................  New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University........           697,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
CS/SRG...........................  Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State University....................................           187,000  Senator Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Organic cropping, Oregon State University........................................................           149,000  Senators Smith and Wyden
CS/SRG...........................  Organic cropping, Washington State University....................................................           264,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG...........................  Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State University...........................................            74,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Peach tree short life research, Clemson University, SC...........................................           208,000  Senator Graham
CS/SRG...........................  Pierce's disease, University of California.......................................................         1,500,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
CS/SRG...........................  Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program,               149,000  Senator Hutchison
                                    Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
CS/SRG...........................  Potato Cyst Nematode, University of Idaho........................................................           372,000  Senators Craig and Crapo
CS/SRG...........................  Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University,                 750,000  Senators Cantwell, Collins, Craig,
                                    University of  Maine.                                                                                                Crapo, Murray, Smith, Snowe, Wyden
CS/SRG...........................  Precision agriculture, Auburn University, AL.....................................................           446,000  Senator Shelby
CS/SRG...........................  Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky Research Foundation................................           502,000  Senator McConnell
CS/SRG...........................  Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University..................................................           151,000  Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG...........................  Protein utilization, Iowa State University.......................................................           600,000  Senator Harkin
CS/SRG...........................  Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University.....................................         1,000,000  Senators Conrad and Dorgan
CS/SRG...........................  Ruminant nutrition consortium, University of Nebraska--Lincoln, South Dakota State University....           600,000  Senators Hagel, Johnson, and Ben Nelson,
                                                                                                                                                         Thune
CS/SRG...........................  Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University...................................................           228,000  Senators Allard and Salazar
CS/SRG...........................  Seed technology, South Dakota State University...................................................           300,000  Senators Johnson and Thune
CS/SRG...........................  Small fruit research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University..           300,000  Senators Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Murray,
                                                                                                                                                         Smith, Wyden
CS/SRG...........................  Soil and Environmental Quality, University of Delaware...........................................            75,000  Senators Biden and Carper
CS/SRG...........................  Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico State University..............           187,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University..............................           250,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
CS/SRG...........................  Soybean research, National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois.............           500,000  Senator Durbin
CS/SRG...........................  Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture..................................           175,000  Senators Lincoln and Pryor
CS/SRG...........................  Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, Pennsylvania State University.......................           142,000  Senators Casey and Specter
CS/SRG...........................  Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University................................................           200,000  Senator Tester
CS/SRG...........................  Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia Tech.........................           250,000  Senators Warner and Webb
CS/SRG...........................  Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production, University of Nebraska--Lincoln.............................           149,000  Senators Hagel and Ben Nelson
CS/SRG...........................  Swine and other animal waste management, North Carolina State University.........................           372,000  Senators Burr and Dole
CS/SRG...........................  Tillage, silviculture, waste management, Louisiana State University..............................           200,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG...........................  Tri-state joint peanut research, Auburn University, AL...........................................           440,000  Senators Sessions and Shelby
CS/SRG...........................  Tropical and subtropical research/T-STAR, University of Hawaii...................................           800,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
CS/SRG...........................  Uniform farm management program, University of Minnesota.........................................           250,000  Senators Klobuchar and Coleman
CS/SRG...........................  Virtual plant database enhancement project, Missouri Botanical Garden............................           626,000  Senator Bond
CS/SRG...........................  Viticulture consortium, Cornell University, University of California.............................         1,200,000  Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer
CS/SRG...........................  Water conservation, Kansas State University......................................................            74,000  Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG...........................  Water use efficiency and water quality enhancements, University of Georgia.......................           368,000  Senators Chambliss and Isakson
CS/SRG...........................  Wetland plants, Louisiana State University.......................................................           200,000  Senators Landrieu and Vitter
CS/SRG...........................  Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University..................................................           256,000  Senators Brownback and Roberts
CS/SRG...........................  Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University.........................................           237,000  Senators Cantwell and Murray
CS/SRG...........................  Wood utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, TN, WV)....................................         4,841,000  Senators Alexander, Burr, Byrd, Cochran,
                                                                                                                                                         Coleman, Collins, Craig, Crapo, Dole,
                                                                                                                                                         Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Smith,
                                                                                                                                                         Snowe, Stabenow, Stevens, Vitter,
                                                                                                                                                         Wicker, Wyden
FDA..............................  Agricultural Products Food Safety Laboratory, New Mexico State University........................         1,757,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
FDA..............................  Collaborative drug safety research, Critical Path Institute and University of Utah...............           559,000  Senator Bennett
FDA..............................  Dietary supplements research, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi.         1,713,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
FDA..............................  Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference Vibrio Vulnificus Education, Nationwide...............           185,000  Senators Cochran and Shelby
FDA..............................  Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, Nationwide...........................................           148,000  Senators Cochran and Shelby
FDA..............................  National Center for Food Safety and Technology, Summit-Argo, Illinois............................         2,212,000  Senator Durbin
FDA..............................  Waste Management Education and Research Consortium, New Mexico State University..................            73,000  Senators Bingaman and Domenici
FDA..............................  Western Region FDA Center of Excellence, University of California Davis..........................         1,490,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
GP...............................  Fruit fly facility, APHIS Hawaii.................................................................           500,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
GP...............................  Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets............................           500,000  Senator Leahy
GP...............................  Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection..........         1,500,000  Senator Kohl
GP...............................  Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi........         3,724,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
NRCS/CO..........................  Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D Councils.........................           400,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO..........................  Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS....................................................         1,000,000  Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO..........................  Alaska Association of Conservation Districts.....................................................           920,000  Senator Stevens
NRCS/CO..........................  Big Sandy Tri-State Watershed Inventory and Analysis, West Virginia Conservation Agency..........           115,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO..........................  Carson City Waterfall Fire Restoration, Carson City, NV..........................................           287,000  Senator Reid
NRCS/CO..........................  Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa Soybean Association.............           300,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO..........................  Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative, McNeese State University................................           250,000  Senator Landrieu
NRCS/CO..........................  Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association......................           120,000  Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Conservation Outreach and Education, City of Foley, AL...........................................           215,000  Senator Shelby
NRCS/CO..........................  Conservation Planning, NRCS Wisconsin and Massachusetts..........................................           450,000  Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS New Jersey...............................................           251,000  Senators Lautenberg and Menendez
NRCS/CO..........................  Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin........................................           550,000  Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS..........................................           400,000  Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO..........................  Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi..............................................................           250,000  Senator Cochran
NRCS/CO..........................  Driftless Area Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin........................................................           310,000  Senators Klobuchar and Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Environmental Compliance, Wisconsin Dairy Business Association...................................           220,000  Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board...................................           251,000  Senator Leahy
NRCS/CO..........................  Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission...................................................           800,000  Senators Chambliss
NRCS/CO..........................  Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education Watershed Project, Texas State University...           300,000  Senator Hutchison
NRCS/CO..........................  Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin.............................................           780,000  Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control, Great Lakes Commission...............................           430,000  Senators Coleman, Klobuchar, Levin, and
                                                                                                                                                         Stabenow
NRCS/CO..........................  Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project, Western Kentucky Research Foundation.            89,000  Senator McConnell
NRCS/CO..........................  Hawaii Plant Materials Center, NRCS Hawaii.......................................................           113,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO..........................  Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA......................................................................           300,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO..........................  Illinois River Agricultural Water Conservation, Illinois Department of Natural Resources.........           200,000  Senator Durbin
NRCS/CO..........................  Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS Kentucky.....................................................           771,000  Senator McConnell
NRCS/CO..........................  Little Wood River Irrigation District Gravity Pressure System, ID................................           143,000  Senators Craig and Crapo
NRCS/CO..........................  Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS Mississippi............................................         1,218,000  Senators Cochran and Wicker
NRCS/CO..........................  Molokai Agriculture Development and Resource Conservation, Molokai RC&D..........................            71,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/CO..........................  Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient Irrigation, CA...........................           143,000  Senators Boxer and Feinstein
NRCS/CO..........................  Nitrate Pollution Reduction, NRCS Rhode Island...................................................           165,000  Senator Reed
NRCS/CO..........................  On-Farm Management System Evaluation Network, Iowa Soybean Association...........................           150,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO..........................  Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation...........................................           100,000  Senators Chambliss and Cochran
NRCS/CO..........................  Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation District............................           179,000  Senator Leahy
NRCS/CO..........................  Potomac River Tributary Strategy, NRCS West Virginia.............................................           179,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO..........................  Riparian Restoration along the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers, New Mexico Association of            179,000  Senator Bingaman
                                    Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
NRCS/CO..........................  Risk Management Initiative, NRCS West Virginia...................................................           717,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO..........................  Sand County Foundation, WI.......................................................................           950,000  Senator Kohl
NRCS/CO..........................  Soil Phosphorus Studies, NRCS West Virginia......................................................           215,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/CO..........................  Soil Surveys, NRCS Rhode Island..................................................................           143,000  Senator Reed
NRCS/CO..........................  Soil Surveys, NRCS Wyoming.......................................................................           200,000  Senators Barrasso and Enzi
NRCS/CO..........................  Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts, Kentucky Division of                   580,000  Senator McConnell
                                    Conservation.
NRCS/CO..........................  Utah Conservation Initiative, NRCS Utah..........................................................         2,617,000  Senator Bennett
NRCS/CO..........................  Water Conservation, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District..................................           400,000  Senators Allard and Salazar
NRCS/CO..........................  Water Demonstration Project, NRCS Iowa...........................................................           143,000  Senators Grassley and Harkin
NRCS/CO..........................  Water Quality, Utah Farm Bureau..................................................................           251,000  Senator Bennett
NRCS/CO..........................  Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Illinois Department of Natural Resources...........................           200,000  Senator Durbin
NRCS/WFPO........................  Churchill Woods Dam Removal, DuPage River Salt Creek Workgroup, IL...............................         1,000,000  Senator Durbin
NRCS/WFPO........................  Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS West Virginia..............................................         1,500,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................  East Locust Creek, NRCS Missouri.................................................................         1,650,000  Senator Bond
NRCS/WFPO........................  Little Otter Creek, NRCS Missouri................................................................           350,000  Senator Bond
NRCS/WFPO........................  Lost River, NRCS West Virginia...................................................................         8,500,000  Senator Byrd
NRCS/WFPO........................  Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS Hawaii.......................................................           206,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................  Pocasset River Watershed, NRCS Rhode Island......................................................           350,000  Senator Reed
NRCS/WFPO........................  Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS Hawaii............................................................           206,000  Senators Akaka and Inouye
NRCS/WFPO........................  Upper Locust Creek, NRCS Missouri................................................................           500,000  Senator Bond
RCDG.............................  Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for Appropriate Technology,              2,774,000  Senators Baucus, Boxer, Harkin, Johnson,
                                    Butte, MT.                                                                                                           Kohl, Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Pryor,
                                                                                                                                                         Specter, Tester
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
                                                                        YEAR 2009
                                                                [In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2008         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         2008
                                                                                                                        appropriation    Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                TITLE I--AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS

             Production, Processing, and Marketing

Office of the Secretary.......................................            5,061            19,749             5,174              +113           -14,575

Executive Operations:
    Chief Economist...........................................           10,414            12,584            10,651              +237            -1,933
    National Appeals Division.................................           14,365            15,402            14,711              +346              -691
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis.....................            8,212             9,054             8,449              +237              -605
    Homeland Security staff...................................              924             2,617               974               +50            -1,643
    Office of the Chief Information Officer...................           16,246            18,305            16,527              +281            -1,778
    Common computing environment..............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        (Provided in other accounts) (NA).....................          (90,875)  ................  ................         (-90,875)  ................
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer.....................            5,809             6,221             5,954              +145              -267
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Executive Operations.............................           55,970            64,183            57,266            +1,296            -6,917

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights............              848               897               871               +23               -26
Office of Civil Rights........................................           20,353            21,551            20,798              +445              -753
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration..........              668               739               687               +19               -52
Agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments......         (194,878)         (231,105)         (226,432)         (+31,554)          (-4,673)
    Payments to GSA...........................................          156,590           168,901           168,901           +12,311   ................
    Department of Homeland Security...........................  ................           13,500            13,500           +13,500   ................
    Building operations and maintenance.......................           38,288            48,704            44,031            +5,743            -4,673
Hazardous materials management................................            4,852            12,281             4,933               +81            -7,348
Departmental administration...................................           22,982            28,637            27,011            +4,029            -1,626
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.            3,768             4,099             3,877              +109              -222
Office of Communications......................................            9,273             9,961             9,514              +241              -447
Office of the Inspector General...............................           79,492            85,766            81,517            +2,025            -4,249
Office of the General Counsel.................................           38,952            42,852            40,083            +1,131            -2,769
Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and                  592               654               609               +17               -45
 Economics....................................................
Economic Research Service.....................................           77,397            82,106            78,209              +812            -3,897
National Agricultural Statistics Service......................          162,212           153,475           149,115           -13,097            -4,360
    Census of Agriculture.....................................          (51,985)          (39,478)          (37,265)         (-14,720)          (-2,213)

Agricultural Research Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................        1,121,041         1,037,016         1,134,084           +13,043           +97,068
    Buildings and facilities..................................           46,752            13,220            30,995           -15,757           +17,775
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Research Service....................        1,167,793         1,050,236         1,165,079            -2,714          +114,843

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service:
    Research and education activities.........................          668,286           535,277           629,871           -38,415           +94,594
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund...............          (11,880)          (11,880)          (11,880)  ................  ................
    Extension activities......................................          453,265           431,753           464,272           +11,007           +32,519
    Integrated activities.....................................           55,850            20,120            55,850   ................          +35,730
    Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers...............            6,395             6,930   ................           -6,395            -6,930
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and               1,183,796           994,080         1,149,993           -33,803          +155,913
       Extension Service......................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory                  716               792               737               +21               -55
 Programs.....................................................

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................          867,638           919,137           860,989            -6,649           -58,148
    Buildings and facilities..................................  ................            7,431             2,000            +2,000            -5,431
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.......          867,638           926,568           862,989            -4,649           -63,579

Agricultural Marketing Service:
    Marketing Services........................................           76,324            76,015            71,655            -4,669            -4,360
    (Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees                   (61,233)          (62,888)          (62,888)          (+1,655)  ................
     collected)...............................................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply                  16,798            17,270            17,270              +472   ................
     (transfer from section 32)...............................
        Discretionary appropriations..........................            9,930            32,081   ................           -9,930           -32,081
    Payments to States and possessions........................           11,627             1,334             1,685            -9,942              +351
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Agricultural Marketing Service...................          114,679           126,700            90,610           -24,069           -36,090

Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................           38,514            44,005            39,182              +668            -4,823
    Limitation on inspection and weighing services............          (42,463)          (42,463)          (42,463)  ................  ................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety.................              596               659               613               +17               -46
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................          930,120           951,946           973,566           +43,446           +21,620
    Lab accreditation fees....................................           (1,000)           (1,000)           (1,000)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing............        4,981,150         4,853,041         4,988,865            +7,715          +135,824
                                                               =========================================================================================
                   Farm Assistance Programs

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign                          628               695               646               +18               -49
 Agricultural Services........................................

Farm Service Agency:
    Salaries and expenses.....................................        1,126,107         1,188,580         1,164,123           +38,016           -24,457
        (Common computing environment) (NA)...................          (64,175)  ................  ................         (-64,175)  ................
    (Transfer from export loans)..............................             (341)             (368)             (368)             (+27)  ................
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)............................           (2,661)           (2,761)           (2,761)            (+100)  ................
    (Transfer from ACIF)......................................         (301,186)         (325,093)         (323,694)         (+22,508)          (-1,399)
    (Transfer from farm storage loan program account).........  ................           (4,724)           (4,724)          (+4,724)  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal, transfers from program accounts.............         (304,188)         (332,946)         (331,547)         (+27,359)          (-1,399)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total, Salaries and expenses..........................       (1,430,295)       (1,521,526)       (1,495,670)         (+65,375)         (-25,856)

    State mediation grants....................................            4,369             4,000             4,369   ................             +369
    Grassroot source water protection program.................            3,687   ................            3,687   ................           +3,687
    Dairy indemnity program...................................              100               100               400              +300              +300
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, Farm Service Agency...........................        1,134,263         1,192,680         1,172,579           +38,316           -20,101

    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Farm ownership loans:
                Direct........................................         (222,298)         (252,902)         (222,298)  ................         (-30,604)
                Guaranteed....................................       (1,238,768)       (1,223,636)       (1,238,768)  ................         (+15,132)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....................................       (1,461,066)       (1,476,538)       (1,461,066)  ................         (-15,472)

            Farm operating loans:
                Direct........................................         (575,095)         (628,372)         (575,095)  ................         (-53,277)
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.......................       (1,017,497)       (1,012,369)       (1,017,497)  ................          (+5,128)
                Subsidized guaranteed.........................         (269,986)         (260,943)         (269,986)  ................          (+9,043)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....................................       (1,862,578)       (1,901,684)       (1,862,578)  ................         (-39,106)

            Indian tribe land acquisition loans...............           (3,940)           (3,975)           (3,940)  ................             (-35)
            Boll weevil eradication loans.....................         (100,000)          (59,400)         (100,000)  ................         (+40,600)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations......................       (3,427,584)       (3,441,597)       (3,427,584)  ................         (-14,013)

        Loan subsidies:
            Farm ownership loans:
                Direct........................................            9,892            14,466            12,715            +2,823            -1,751
                Guaranteed....................................            4,955             4,038             4,088              -867               +50
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....................................           14,847            18,504            16,803            +1,956            -1,701

            Farm operating loans:
                Direct........................................           72,980            74,085            67,804            -5,176            -6,281
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.......................           24,623            25,208            25,336              +713              +128
                Subsidized guaranteed.........................           36,016            35,984            37,231            +1,215            +1,247
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal....................................          133,619           135,277           130,371            -3,248            -4,906

            Indian tribe land acquisition.....................              124               250               248              +124                -2
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies...........................          148,590           154,031           147,422            -1,168            -6,609

        ACIF expenses:
            Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA)............          301,186           325,093           323,694           +22,508            -1,399
            Administrative expenses...........................            7,865             7,920             7,865   ................              -55
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, ACIF expenses............................          309,051           333,013           331,559           +22,508            -1,454
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund.......          457,641           487,044           478,981           +21,340            -8,063
                  (Loan authorization)........................       (3,427,584)       (3,441,597)       (3,427,584)  ................         (-14,013)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Farm Service Agency......................        1,591,904         1,679,724         1,651,560           +59,656           -28,164

Risk Management Agency, Administrative, and operating expenses           76,121            77,177            77,177            +1,056   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, Farm Assistance Programs.........................        1,668,653         1,757,596         1,729,383           +60,730           -28,213
                                                               =========================================================================================
                         Corporations

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation:
    Federal Crop Insurance Corporation fund...................        4,818,099         6,582,945         6,582,945        +1,764,846   ................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund:
    Reimbursement for net realized losses.....................       12,983,000        11,106,324        11,106,324        -1,876,676   ................
    Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses).......           (5,000)           (5,000)           (5,000)  ................  ................
Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account:
    Salaries and expenses:
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).................  ................            4,724             4,724            +4,724   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Corporations.................................       17,801,099        17,693,993        17,693,993          -107,106   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, title I, Agricultural Programs...............       24,450,902        24,304,630        24,412,241           -38,661          +107,611
              (By transfer)...................................         (304,188)         (332,946)         (331,547)         (+27,359)          (-1,399)
              (Loan authorization)............................       (3,427,584)       (3,441,597)       (3,427,584)  ................         (-14,013)
              (Limitation on administrative expenses).........         (108,696)         (110,351)         (110,351)          (+1,655)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
                TITLE II--CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and                     737               822               758               +21               -64
 Environment..................................................

Natural Resources Conservation Service:
    Conservation operations...................................          834,444           794,773           866,899           +32,455           +72,126
        (Common computing environment) (NA)...................          (20,000)  ................  ................         (-20,000)  ................
    Watershed and flood prevention operations.................           29,790   ................           29,790   ................          +29,790
    Watershed rehabilitation program..........................           19,860             5,920            20,000              +140           +14,080
    Resource conservation and development.....................           50,730   ................           50,730   ................          +50,730
    Healthy forests reserve program...........................            1,986   ................            1,986   ................           +1,986
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service...........          936,810           800,693           969,405           +32,595          +168,712
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title II, Conservation Programs..................          937,547           801,515           970,163           +32,616          +168,648
                                                               =========================================================================================
             TITLE III--RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development...........              628               695               646               +18               -49

Rural Development:
    RD expenses:
        Salaries and expenses.................................          168,808           258,185           210,748           +41,940           -47,437
            (Common computing environment)....................           (6,700)  ................  ................          (-6,700)  ................
        (Transfer from RHIF)..................................         (449,757)         (399,422)         (449,757)  ................         (+50,335)
        (Transfer from RDLFP).................................           (4,741)           (4,574)           (4,741)  ................            (+167)
        (Transfer from RETLP).................................          (38,353)          (37,819)          (38,353)  ................            (+534)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts...........         (492,851)         (441,815)         (492,851)  ................         (+51,036)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, RD expenses..................................         (661,659)         (700,000)         (703,599)         (+41,940)          (+3,599)

Rural Housing Service:
    Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Single family direct (sec. 502)...................       (1,121,486)  ................       (1,121,488)              (+2)      (+1,121,488)
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.......................       (4,190,521)       (4,848,899)       (4,190,521)  ................        (-658,378)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Single family.....................       (5,312,007)       (4,848,899)       (5,312,009)              (+2)        (+463,110)
            Housing repair (sec. 504).........................          (34,409)          (17,678)          (34,409)  ................         (+16,731)
            Rental housing (sec. 515).........................          (69,510)  ................          (69,510)  ................         (+69,510)
            Site loans (sec. 524).............................           (5,045)           (5,045)           (5,045)  ................  ................
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........         (129,090)         (300,000)         (129,090)  ................        (-170,910)
            Multi-family housing credit sales.................           (1,476)           (1,447)           (1,476)  ................             (+29)
            Single family housing credit sales................          (10,000)          (10,000)          (10,000)  ................  ................
            Self-help housing land development (sec. 523).....           (4,965)           (4,303)           (4,965)  ................            (+662)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations......................       (5,566,502)       (5,187,372)       (5,566,504)              (+2)        (+379,132)
        Loan subsidies:
            Single family direct (sec. 502)...................          105,083   ................           75,364           -29,719           +75,364
                Unsubsidized guaranteed.......................           50,047            13,526            53,042            +2,995           +39,516
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Single family.....................          155,130            13,526           128,406           -26,724          +114,880
            Housing repair (sec. 504).........................            9,727             4,750             9,246              -481            +4,496
            Rental housing (sec. 515).........................           29,618   ................           28,610            -1,008           +28,610
            Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538)........           12,134             1,710            20,241            +8,107           +18,531
            Multi-family housing credit sales.................              548               523               533               -15               +10
            Single family housing credit sales................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
            Self-help housing land development (sec. 523).....              141                71                82               -59               +11
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan subsidies...........................          207,298            20,580           187,118           -20,180          +166,538
        RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD).........          449,757           399,422           449,757   ................          +50,335
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program.........          657,055           420,002           636,875           -20,180          +216,873
              (Loan authorization)............................       (5,566,502)       (5,187,372)       (5,566,504)              (+2)        (+379,132)
                                                               =========================================================================================
    Rental assistance program:
        (Sec. 521)............................................          472,757           897,000         1,005,000          +532,243          +108,000
        Rental assistance voucher program.....................  ................          100,000   ................  ................         -100,000
        (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D))...................................            5,958   ................  ................           -5,958   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rental assistance program....................          478,715           997,000         1,005,000          +526,285            +8,000

    Rural housing voucher program.............................            4,965   ................            4,965   ................           +4,965
    Multifamily housing revitalization program account........           19,860   ................           19,860   ................          +19,860
    Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans..........            2,979   ................            2,889               -90            +2,889
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Multifamily housing revitalization...............           27,804   ................           27,714               -90           +27,714

    Mutual and self-help housing grants.......................           38,727   ................           38,727   ................          +38,727
    Rural housing assistance grants...........................           38,727            43,500            38,727   ................           -4,773

    Farm labor housing program account:
        (Loan authorization)..................................          (27,545)  ................          (17,798)          (-9,747)         (+17,798)
        Loan subsidy..........................................           11,916   ................            7,500            -4,416            +7,500
        Grants................................................            9,930   ................            7,500            -2,430            +7,500
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Farm Labor Housing Program Account...........           21,846   ................           15,000            -6,846           +15,000

    Rural community facilities program account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Community facility:
                Direct........................................         (294,948)         (302,430)         (294,948)  ................          (-7,482)
                Guaranteed....................................         (206,425)         (210,000)         (206,425)  ................          (-3,575)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations..................         (501,373)         (512,430)         (501,373)  ................         (-11,057)

        Loan subsidies and grants:
            Commmunity facility:
                Direct........................................           16,370            17,299            16,871              +501              -428
                Guaranteed....................................            7,596             6,468             6,358            -1,238              -110
                Grants........................................           20,373   ................           20,373   ................          +20,373
            Rural community development initiative............            6,256   ................            6,256   ................           +6,256
            Economic impact initiative grants.................           13,902   ................           13,902   ................          +13,902
            Tribal college grants.............................            3,972   ................            3,972   ................           +3,972
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, RCP Loan subsidies and grants............           68,469            23,767            67,732              -737           +43,965
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Subtotal, grants, and payments..................          167,769            67,267           160,186            -7,583           +92,919
                                                               =========================================================================================
              Total, Rural Housing Service....................        1,331,343         1,484,269         1,829,775          +498,432          +345,506
                  (Loan authorization)........................       (6,095,420)       (5,699,802)       (6,085,675)          (-9,745)        (+385,873)

Rural Business-Cooperative Service:
    Rural Business Program Account:
        (Guaranteed business and industry loans)..............         (993,000)         (700,000)         (993,000)  ................        (+293,000)
        Loan subsidies and grants:
            Guaranteed business and industry subsidy..........           42,898            30,450            43,196              +298           +12,746
            Grants:
                Rural business enterprise.....................           38,727   ................           38,727   ................          +38,727
                Rural business opportunity....................            2,483   ................            2,483   ................           +2,483
                Delta regional authority......................            2,979   ................            2,979   ................           +2,979
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants........           87,087            30,450            87,385              +298           +56,935

    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..................................          (33,536)          (33,772)          (33,536)  ................            (-236)
        Loan subsidy..........................................           14,384            14,134            14,035              -349               -99
        Administrative expenses (transfer to RD)..............            4,741             4,574             4,741   ................             +167
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Development Loan Fund..................           19,125            18,708            18,776              -349               +68

    Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account:
        (Loan authorization)..................................          (33,077)  ................          (33,077)  ................         (+33,077)

    Rural cooperative development grants:
        Cooperative development...............................            4,424             2,955             4,424   ................           +1,469
        Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas.......            2,582   ................            2,774              +192            +2,774
        Cooperative research agreement........................              492   ................              300              -192              +300
        Value-added agricultural product market development...           18,867   ................           16,153            -2,714           +16,153
        Grants to assist minority producers...................            1,463             1,500             1,463   ................              -37
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Cooperative development grants.........           27,828             4,455            25,114            -2,714           +20,659

    Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants.            8,130   ................            8,130   ................           +8,130

    Renewable energy program:
        (Loan authorization)..................................         (205,551)  ................         (197,500)          (-8,051)        (+197,500)
        Loan subsidy..........................................           19,860   ................           37,000           +17,140           +37,000
        Grants................................................           15,888   ................           13,000            -2,888           +13,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Renewable energy program.....................           35,748   ................           50,000           +14,252           +50,000
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, Rural Business-Cooperative Service...........          177,918            53,613           189,405           +11,487          +135,792
              (Loan authorization)............................       (1,265,164)         (733,772)       (1,257,113)          (-8,051)        (+523,341)
                                                               =========================================================================================
Rural Utilities Service:
    Rural water and waste disposal program account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Direct............................................       (1,022,162)       (1,304,217)       (1,094,500)         (+72,338)        (-209,717)
            Guaranteed........................................          (75,000)          (75,000)          (75,000)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorization.......................        1,097,162         1,379,217         1,169,500           +72,338          -209,717

        Loan subsidies and grants:
            Direct subsidy....................................           69,609            49,169           142,285           +72,676           +93,116
            Water and waste grants............................          464,228           216,373           391,552           -72,676          +175,179
            Solid waste management grants.....................            3,441             3,465             3,441   ................              -24
            Water and waste financing revolving fund..........              497   ................              497   ................             +497
            Water well system grants..........................              993   ................              993   ................             +993
            High energy cost grants...........................           19,860   ................           19,860   ................          +19,860
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Water loan subsidies and grants..........          558,628           269,007           558,628   ................         +289,621

    Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program
     Account:
        Loan authorizations:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5 percent.............................          (99,300)         (100,000)          (99,300)  ................            (-700)
                Direct, FFB...................................       (6,500,000)       (4,000,000)       (6,500,000)  ................      (+2,500,000)
                Guaranteed underwriting.......................         (500,000)  ................         (500,000)  ................        (+500,000)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Electric..........................       (7,099,300)       (4,100,000)       (7,099,300)  ................      (+2,999,300)

            Telecommunications:
                Direct, 5 percent.............................         (143,985)         (145,000)         (143,985)  ................          (-1,015)
                Direct, Treasury rate.........................         (248,250)         (250,000)         (248,250)  ................          (-1,750)
                Direct, FFB...................................         (292,935)         (295,000)         (292,935)  ................          (-2,065)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Telecommunications................         (685,170)         (690,000)         (685,170)  ................          (-4,830)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan authorizations..................       (7,784,470)       (4,790,000)       (7,784,470)  ................      (+2,994,470)

        Loan subsidies:
            Electric:
                Direct, 5 percent.............................              119   ................  ................             -119   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Electric..........................              119   ................  ................             -119   ................
            Telecommunications:
                Direct, 5 percent.............................              115   ................  ................             -115   ................
                Direct, Treasury rate.........................            1,663               525               521            -1,142                -4
                Direct, FFB...................................            1,816   ................  ................           -1,816   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Subtotal, Telecommunications................            3,594               525               521            -3,073                -4
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan subsidies.......................            3,713               525               521            -3,192                -4

        RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD)........           38,353            37,819            38,353   ................             +534
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications            42,066            38,344            38,874            -3,192              +530
           Loans Program Account..............................
              (Loan authorization)............................       (7,784,470)       (4,790,000)       (7,784,470)  ................      (+2,994,470)
                                                               =========================================================================================
    Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program:
        Loan authorizations:
            Broadband telecommunications......................         (297,900)         (297,923)         (297,900)  ................             (-23)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Loan authorizations......................         (297,900)         (297,923)         (297,900)  ................             (-23)

        Loan subsidies and grants:
            Distance learning and telemedicine:
                Grants........................................           34,755            20,000            34,755   ................          +14,755
            Broadband telecommunications:
                Direct........................................            6,405            11,619            11,618            +5,213                -1
                Grants........................................           13,406   ................           13,406   ................          +13,406
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Total, Loan subsidies and grants............           54,566            31,619            59,779            +5,213           +28,160
                                                               =========================================================================================
                  Total, Rural Utilities Service..............          655,260           338,970           657,281            +2,021          +318,311
                      (Loan authorization)....................       (9,179,532)       (6,467,140)       (9,251,870)         (+72,338)      (+2,784,730)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                  Total, title III, Rural Development Programs        2,333,957         2,135,732         2,887,855          +553,898          +752,123
                      (By transfer)...........................         (492,851)         (441,815)         (492,851)  ................         (+51,036)
                      (Loan authorization)....................      (16,540,116)      (12,900,714)      (16,594,658)         (+54,542)      (+3,693,944)
                                                               =========================================================================================
               TITLE IV--DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and                      593               655               610               +17               -45
 Consumer Services............................................

Food and Nutrition Service:
    Child nutrition programs..................................        7,647,965         7,925,700         7,733,849           +85,884          -191,851
        Transfer from section 32..............................        6,253,548         6,529,983         6,721,834          +468,286          +191,851
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Child nutrition programs.....................       13,901,513        14,455,683        14,455,683          +554,170   ................

    Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants,        5,620,000         6,100,000         6,750,000        +1,130,000          +650,000
     and children (WIC).......................................
        (emergency)...........................................          400,000   ................  ................         -400,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, WIC..........................................        6,020,000         6,100,000         6,750,000          +730,000          +650,000

    Food stamp program:
        Expenses..............................................       35,020,473        38,410,263        38,410,763        +3,390,290              +500
        Armed forces provision................................            1,000   ................  ................           -1,000   ................
        Indian Reservations (FDPIR)...........................  ................           92,117            92,117           +92,117   ................
        Reserve...............................................        3,000,000         3,000,000         3,000,000   ................  ................
        Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa........        1,621,250         1,684,424         1,684,424           +63,174   ................
        The emergency food assistance program.................          140,000           140,000           250,000          +110,000          +110,000
        Food stamp benefits due to CSFP elimination:
            CSFP outreach grant...............................  ................            2,000   ................  ................           -2,000
            CSFP transitional benefits........................  ................           20,000   ................  ................          -20,000
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Total, Food stamp program.......................       39,782,723        43,348,804        43,437,304        +3,654,581           +88,500

    Commodity assistance program:
        Commodity supplemental food program...................          139,715   ................          155,000           +15,285          +155,000
        Farmers market nutrition program......................           19,860            19,800            19,800               -60   ................
        Emergency food assistance program.....................           49,650            49,500            49,500              -150   ................
        Pacific island and disaster assistance................            1,063             1,070             1,070                +7   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Commodity assistance program.................          210,288            70,370           225,370           +15,082          +155,000

    Nutrition programs administration.........................          141,728           150,251           142,595              +867            -7,656
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Food and Nutrition Service...................       60,056,252        64,125,108        65,010,952        +4,954,700          +885,844
                                                               =========================================================================================
          Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs.............       60,056,845        64,125,763        65,011,562        +4,954,717          +885,799
                                                               =========================================================================================
       TITLE V--FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                  Foreign Agricultural Service

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation...................          158,354           168,042           169,042           +10,688            +1,000
    (Transfer from export loans)..............................           (4,950)           (4,985)           (4,985)             (+35)  ................
    (Transfer from Public Law 480)............................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Salaries and expenses program level..............         (163,304)         (173,027)         (174,027)         (+10,723)          (+1,000)

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts:
    Title II--Commodities for disposition abroad:
        Program level.........................................       (1,210,864)       (1,225,900)       (1,225,900)         (+15,036)  ................
        Appropriation.........................................        1,210,864         1,225,900         1,225,900           +15,036   ................

    Salaries and expenses:
        Foreign Agricultural Service (transfer to FAS)........  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).................            2,661             2,761             2,761              +100   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal............................................            2,661             2,761             2,761              +100   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Public Law 480:
              Program level...................................       (1,210,864)       (1,225,900)       (1,225,900)         (+15,036)  ................
              Appropriation...................................        1,213,525         1,228,661         1,228,661           +15,136   ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account
 (administrative expenses):
    Salaries and expenses (Export Loans):
        General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS)...............            4,950             4,985             4,985               +35   ................
        Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA).................              341               368               368               +27   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account.............            5,291             5,353             5,353               +62   ................

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child                 99,300           100,000           100,000              +700   ................
 nutrition program grants.....................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs.        1,476,470         1,502,056         1,503,056           +26,586            +1,000
          (By transfer).......................................           (4,950)           (4,985)           (4,985)             (+35)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
  TITLE VI--RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

            DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                 Food and Drug Administration

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation...................        1,714,337         2,033,770         2,038,964          +324,627            +5,194
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act............................         (459,412)         (511,108)         (497,108)         (+37,696)         (-14,000)
    Medical Device User Fee Act...............................          (48,431)          (52,547)          (52,547)          (+4,116)  ................
    Animal Drug User Fee Act..................................          (13,696)          (13,698)          (15,260)          (+1,564)          (+1,562)
    Generic drug (user fees) (leg. prop) NA...................  ................          (16,628)  ................  ................         (-16,628)
    Reinspection fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA..............  ................          (23,276)  ................  ................         (-23,276)
    Food export fees (user fees) (leg. prop) NA...............  ................           (3,741)  ................  ................          (-3,741)
    Animal Generic Drug (user fees) (leg propr) NA............  ................           (3,741)  ................  ................          (-3,741)
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal................................................       (2,235,876)       (2,627,751)       (2,603,879)        (+368,003)         (-23,872)

    Mammography clinics user fee (outlay savings).............          (18,398)          (19,318)          (19,318)            (+920)  ................
    Export and color certification............................           (9,500)          (10,300)          (10,300)            (+800)  ................

Buildings and facilities......................................            2,433            12,433            12,433           +10,000   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Food and Drug Administration.....................        1,716,770         2,046,203         2,051,397          +334,627            +5,194
                                                               =========================================================================================
                     INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative                (46,000)          (49,000)          (50,000)          (+4,000)          (+1,000)
 expenses)....................................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug             1,716,770         2,046,203         2,051,397          +334,627            +5,194
       Administration.........................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
                 TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Denali Commission.............................................              434   ................              434   ................             +434
Hunger Fellowships............................................  ................  ................            2,500            +2,500            +2,500
Section 32 (rescission).......................................         -684,000           -57,000          -110,000          +574,000           -53,000
Specialty crop grants.........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Healthy Forest Reserve........................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Simplified Summer Food Program................................            5,000   ................  ................           -5,000   ................
Food stamp program employment and training (rescission).......          -10,500   ................  ................          +10,500   ................
ARS buildings and facilities (rescission).....................  ................          -67,180   ................  ................          +67,180
Fruit and vegetable program...................................            9,831   ................  ................           -9,831   ................
High energy cost grant (rescission)...........................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
CACFP audit (rescission)......................................           -3,500   ................  ................           +3,500   ................
Hawaii APHIS facility.........................................              149   ................              500              +351              +500
National Center for Natural Products Research.................            3,724   ................            3,724   ................           +3,724
Emergency Conservation program................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
Hardwoods Trees...............................................              794   ................              794   ................             +794
Market development............................................  ................  ................            2,000            +2,000            +2,000
Disaster assistance (emergency)...............................          602,000   ................  ................         -602,000   ................
Farm Service Agency, salaries and expenses (emergency)........           20,000   ................  ................          -20,000   ................
Multifamily housing revitalization (rescission)...............  ................          -20,000   ................  ................          +20,000
Broadband loans (rescission)..................................  ................           -6,450   ................  ................           +6,450
Houlha Watershed project......................................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title VII, General provisions....................          -56,068          -150,630          -100,048           -43,980           +50,582

      Grand total.............................................       90,916,423        94,765,269        96,736,226        +5,819,803        +1,970,957
          Appropriations......................................      (90,592,423)      (94,915,899)      (96,846,226)      (+6,253,803)      (+1,930,327)
          Emergency Appropriations............................       (1,022,000)  ................  ................      (-1,022,000)  ................
          Rescissions.........................................        (-698,000)        (-150,630)        (-110,000)        (+588,000)         (+40,630)
      (By transfer)...........................................         (801,989)         (779,746)         (829,383)         (+27,394)         (+49,637)
      (Loan authorization)....................................      (19,967,700)      (16,342,311)      (20,022,242)         (+54,542)      (+3,679,931)
      (Limitation on administrative expenses).................         (154,696)         (159,351)         (160,351)          (+5,655)          (+1,000)
                                                               =========================================================================================
                        RECAPITULATION

Title I--Agricultural programs................................       24,450,902        24,304,630        24,412,241           -38,661          +107,611
    Mandatory.................................................      (17,817,997)      (17,706,639)      (17,706,939)        (-111,058)            (+300)
    Discretionary.............................................       (6,632,905)       (6,597,991)       (6,705,302)         (+72,397)        (+107,311)
Title II--Conservation programs (discretionary)...............          937,547           801,515           970,163           +32,616          +168,648
Title III--Rural development programs (discretionary).........        2,333,957         2,135,732         2,887,855          +553,898          +752,123
Title IV--Domestic food programs..............................       60,056,845        64,125,763        65,011,562        +4,954,717          +885,799
    Mandatory.................................................      (53,683,236)      (57,782,487)      (57,892,987)      (+4,209,751)        (+110,500)
    Discretionary.............................................       (6,373,609)       (6,343,276)       (7,118,575)        (+744,966)        (+775,299)
Title V--Foreign assistance and related programs                      1,476,470         1,502,056         1,503,056           +26,586            +1,000
 (discretionary)..............................................
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration           1,716,770         2,046,203         2,051,397          +334,627            +5,194
 (discretionary)..............................................
Title VII--General provisions (discretionary).................          -56,068          -150,630          -100,048           -43,980           +50,582
Other appropriations (discretionary)..........................  ................  ................  ................  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total...................................................       90,916,423        94,765,269        96,736,226        +5,819,803        +1,970,957
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```