43–577 PDF 

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 

R E P O R T 

[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 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

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 
Page

3 

Title III—Continued 

Rural Development Programs—Continued 

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 Senate .......................................................................................................................... 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 
(4) 

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] 

2008 2009 Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 24,450,902 24,412,241 

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 937,547 970,163 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 2,333,957 2,887,855 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 60,056,845 65,011,562 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 1,476,470 1,503,056 

Title VI: Related agency and FDA ............................................................................... 1,716,770 2,051,397 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥56,068 ¥100,048 

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 90,916,423 96,736,226 
(5) 

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 on-
6 

going 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 
7 

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. 
(8) 

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. 
9 

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 pro-
10 

curement 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 
11 

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 ClingerCohen 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 longrange 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 Tech-
12 

nology 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. 
13 

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 
14 

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] 

2008 enacted 2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

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. 
15 

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. 
16 

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 programrelated 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 Depart-
17 

ment 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 
18 

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. 
19 

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. 
20 

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 ArthropodBorne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory [ABADRL] from its 

current location in Laramie, Wyoming. Before deciding whether it 
21 

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 
22 

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 
23 

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; Alcorn State, MS .............................................................. 1,780 

Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT ....................................................................................................... 1,600 

Animal Waste Management Research Laboratory; Bowling Green, KY ........................................................... 1,390 

Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV ............................................................................................ 1,000 

ARS Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT ................................................................................................. 5,561 

Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du Sac, WI ...................................................................... 2,558 

Forage-Animal Production Research Facility; Lexington, KY ........................................................................... 2,085 

Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station; Hagerman, ID ............................................................................ 695 

Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; Stoneville, MS ......................................................................... 2,000 

National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia, MO ......................................................................... 2,086 

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. 
24 

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. 
25 

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 Kentucky Research Foundation ........................................ 481 

Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX ............................................................................... 149 

Aegilops cylindrica/Biomass (jointed goatgrass), Washington State University ...................................... 200 

Agricultural diversity, University of Minnesota, Crookston ....................................................................... 200 

Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, Pennsylvania State University ................................................ 248 

Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ............................... 300 

Alliance for food protection, University of Nebraska ................................................................................ 130 

Animal disease research, University of Wyoming ..................................................................................... 258 

Animal Health, Forages for Advancing Livestock Production Project, KY ................................................ 291 

Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State 

University, Kansas State University ..................................................................................................... 1,000 

Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, University of 

Michigan ............................................................................................................................................... 200 

Aquaculture product & marketing development, West Virginia University .............................................. 521 

Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center ................................................................... 200 

Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station .................................................. 385 

Aquaculture, North Carolina State University ........................................................................................... 242 

Armillaria root rot, Michigan State University .......................................................................................... 111 

Asparagus technology and production, Washington State University ...................................................... 184 

Avian bioscience, University of Delaware ................................................................................................. 100 

Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of Idaho ....................................... 547 

Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University ................................................................................ 223 

Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University ................... 894 

Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University ..... 187 

Center for One Medicine ........................................................................................................................... 250 

Center for Public Land and Rural Economies, Utah State University ..................................................... 223 

Center for rural studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ..................... 261 

Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ........ 180 

Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida ........................................................................................... 200 

Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington State University and the University of Washington .................................................................................................................................................... 350 

Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State 

University .............................................................................................................................................. 250 

Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia ..................................................... 368 

Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey ......................... 480 

Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts ................................................................................... 118 

Crop integration and production, South Dakota State University ............................................................ 275 

Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M University .................................................................. 100 

Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State University ........................................................................... 372 

Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State University ......................................................................... 187 

Designing foods for health, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ............................................. 500 

Detection and Food Safety, Auburn University, AL ................................................................................... 1,862 

Drought management, Utah State University ........................................................................................... 670 

Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas AgriLife 

Research, College Station, TX .............................................................................................................. 575 

Environmentally safe products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences .......... 200 

Floriculture, University of Hawaii .............................................................................................................. 259 

Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University ........................................................................................... 298 

Food safety, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ...................................................................... 74 

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, Mississippi State University ..................................... 849 
26 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Global change UV/B radiation, Colorado State University ....................................................................... 1,500 

Grain sorghum, Kansas State University, Texas Tech University ............................................................. 548 

Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, Oregon State University, University of 

Idaho, Washington State University ..................................................................................................... 150 

Great Basin Environmental Program, University of Nevada—Reno ........................................................ 225 

High Performance Computing, Utah State University .............................................................................. 559 

Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA ........................................ 526 

Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural commodities, University of Idaho .................................................. 642 

Infectious disease research, Colorado State University ........................................................................... 609 

Institute of Agriculture—Phytosensors for Crop Security, University of Tennessee ................................ 745 

Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, 

Purdue University .................................................................................................................................. 200 

Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and Extension, Utah State University .................................... 447 

Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State University ............................................................................ 112 

Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ............. 200 

Livestock waste, Iowa State University .................................................................................................... 196 

Lowbush Wild Blueberry research, University of Maine ........................................................................... 184 

Managed Drainage System for Crop Production, University of Missouri—Columbia .............................. 250 

Maple research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences .................................. 165 

Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, University of Nebraska .............................................. 365 

Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University ...................................................................... 200 

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, Colorado State University, Cornell University, 

University of Georgia ............................................................................................................................ 655 

National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri—Columbia ......................................... 735 

Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico State University ................................................ 223 

Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of Nevada—Reno ............................................................ 400 

New Century Farm, Iowa State University ................................................................................................ 300 

New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY ..................................................................................................... 559 

New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University ............... 697 

Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State University .............................................................. 187 

Organic cropping, Oregon State University .............................................................................................. 149 

Organic cropping, Washington State University ....................................................................................... 264 

Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State University .......................................................................... 74 

Peach tree short life research, Clemson University, SC .......................................................................... 208 

Pierce’s disease, University of California ................................................................................................. 1,500 

Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas 

AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ................................................................................................. 149 

Potato Cyst Nematode, University of Idaho .............................................................................................. 372 

Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, University 

of Maine ................................................................................................................................................ 750 

Precision agriculture, Auburn University, AL ............................................................................................ 446 

Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky Research Foundation ........................................................ 502 

Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University ..................................................................................... 151 

Protein utilization, Iowa State University ................................................................................................. 600 

Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University ............................................................ 1,000 

Ruminant nutrition consortium, University of Nebraska—Lincoln, South Dakota State University ....... 600 

Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University ..................................................................................... 228 

Seed technology, South Dakota State University ...................................................................................... 300 

Small fruit research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University ......... 300 

Soil and Environmental Quality, University of Delaware .......................................................................... 75 

Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico State University ............................ 187 

Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University .................................................. 250 

Soybean research, National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois ......................... 500 

Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture .............................................................. 175 

Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, Pennsylvania State University ......................................... 142 

Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University ................................................................................ 200 

Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia Tech ........................................ 250 

Sweet Sorghum for Energy Production, University of Nebraska—Lincoln ............................................... 149 
27 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Swine and other animal waste management, North Carolina State University ...................................... 372 

Tillage, silviculture, waste management, Louisiana State University ..................................................... 200 

Tri-state joint peanut research, Auburn University, AL ............................................................................ 440 

Tropical and subtropical research/T–STAR, University of Hawaii ............................................................ 800 

Uniform farm management program, University of Minnesota ............................................................... 250 

Virtual plant database enhancement project, Missouri Botanical Garden .............................................. 626 

Viticulture consortium, Cornell University, University of California ......................................................... 1,200 

Water conservation, Kansas State University ........................................................................................... 74 

Water use efficiency and water quality enhancements, University of Georgia ....................................... 368 

Wetland plants, Louisiana State University ............................................................................................. 200 

Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University .................................................................................... 256 

Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University ................................................................... 237 

Wood utilization (AK, ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, TN, WV) ............................................................. 4,841

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 institutions education grants ........................................ 3,196 

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, University of Hawaii ................................................. 372 

Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State University .................................................................. 485 

Agriculture-based industrial lubricants, University of Northern Iowa ..................................................... 405 

Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University .......................................... 250 

Aquaculture Research, Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council ..................................... 298 

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 Research, College Station, TX ................................. 200 

Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ................................... 340 

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, University of Central Florida .................................... 250 

Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen F. Austin State University, TX ................................................. 298 
28 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—RESEARCH 

AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa State University ............................ 187 

Mississippi Valley State University ........................................................................................................... 1,067 

NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the University of Maine ......................................................................................................................................... 150 

Office of Extramural Programs ................................................................................................................. 440 

Pay Cost .................................................................................................................................................... 4,973 

Peer Panels ............................................................................................................................................... 397 

PM–10 air quality study, Washington State University ........................................................................... 150 

Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS .................................................................................... 1,367 

Research, Education, and Economics Information System ...................................................................... 2,704 

Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS ........................................................................................... 229 

Shellfish, University of Rhode Island ....................................................................................................... 261 

Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi ......................................................................... 300 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH ......................................................................... 223 

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 
29 

$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 lowincome 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 
30 

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 longterm 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 ex-
31 

pressed 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 landgrant 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 
32 

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 State University Colleges .......................................... 37,643

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, Urbandale, IA ............................................................ 74 

Conservation technology transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension ..................................................... 400 

Dairy education, Iowa State University ..................................................................................................... 169 

E-commerce, Mississippi State University ................................................................................................ 246 

Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ........... 475 

Extension specialist, Mississippi State University ................................................................................... 98 

General administration ............................................................................................................................. 7,433 

Health education leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation ............................................ 628 

Iowa vitality center, Iowa State University ............................................................................................... 223 

National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College .................................................... 168 

Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions ................................................................................................................................................... 800 

Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH .................................................................. 496 

Pesticide Reduction on Vegetables, University of Wisconsin Extension .................................................. 350 
33 

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE [CSREES]—EXTENSION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University ............................... 223 

Potato Integrated Pest Management—Late Blight, University of Maine ................................................ 298 

Range improvement, New Mexico State University .................................................................................. 223 

Rural technologies, Maui Economic Development Board, HI ................................................................... 150 

Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL .............................................. 111 

Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing Power ............................................ 400 

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 Security) ............................................................................ 9,830 

Total, CSREES Integrated Activities ....................................................................................................... 55,850 

OUTREACH FOR SOCIALLY DISADVANTAGED FARMERS

Appropriations, 2008 ............................................................................. $6,395,000 

Budget estimate, 2009 ........................................................................... 6,930,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ........................... 
34 

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 
35 

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 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Committee 

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 
36 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

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. 
37 

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 diag-
38 

nostic 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. 
39 

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 
40 

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. 
41 

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 nec-
42 

essary 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 
43 

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. 
44 

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 emerg-
45 

ing 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 
46 

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, 
47 

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 actual Fiscal year 2008 estimate Fiscal year 2009 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 
48 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2007– 

2009—Continued 

Fiscal year 2007 

actual 

Fiscal year 2008 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2009 

estimate 

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. 
49 

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. 
50 

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; re-
51 

views 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 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Food Safety Inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 831,152 850,530 872,150 
52 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 enacted Fiscal year 2009 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

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

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries, and 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
53 

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 
54 

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 
55 

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 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget 

Committee 

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 
56 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2009 

budget 

Committee 

recommendation 

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 

Total ACIF 

Direct loan Guaranteed 

loan Total Appropriations Transfer to 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] 

2008 enacted 2009 budget Committee 

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 
57 

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 
58 

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. 
59 

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. 
(60) 

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. 
61 

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 
62 

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. 
63 

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 via-
64 

bility 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 
65 

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 
66 

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. 
67 

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 
68 

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 bio-
69 

diversity; and to enhance carbon sequestration. The program operates on a voluntary basis with private landowners utilizing costshare 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. 
(70) 

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. 
71 

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 appropria- recommendation 

tion 

2009 budget 

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 Account ....................................................................................... 38,339 37,819 38,353 

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 pri-
72 

vate 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 recommendation 2008 2009 request 

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 
73 

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 

recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 
74 

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 

1The 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 
75 

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 
76 

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 
77 

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 lowincome 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 

recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 
78 

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 

appropriation 

2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

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 
79 

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 
80 

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 

appropriation 

2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

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 

recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 
81 

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 

recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 
82 

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative 

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from nonFederal 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 
83 

Committee with suggestions on how to revise competitive grantmaking 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. 
84 

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 
85 

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 

appropriation 1

2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

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 
86 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2008 

appropriation 1

2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 1

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 estab- lishing 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. 
87 

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 

recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 Loans 

Programs Account .............................................................. 42,052 38,344 38,874 

(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. 
88 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANT LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 recommendation 2008 level 2009 request 

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 tele-
89 

vision 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. 
(90) 

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 
91 

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

Appropriation Section 32 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 
92 

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] 

Child nutrition programs 2008 estimate 2009 budget Committee 

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. 
93 

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. 
94 

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 
95 

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] 

Expenses Amount in 

reserve 

Puerto Rico and 

American 

Samoa 

TEFAP 

commodity 

purchases 

CSFP expenses Total 

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 
96 

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 breastfeeding 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. 
97 

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 nonPresidentially 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. 
98 

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 
99 

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. 
(100) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations Transfers from 

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 attache ́s 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 CCCowned 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. 
101 

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. 
102 

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

Credit level Loan subsidy Administrative 

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 

1Of 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 
103 

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. 

MC GOVERN-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 mod-
104 

est 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 

levels 1

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 1

Administrative 

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. 
105 

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. 
(106) 

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. 
107 

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] 

Appropriation 

Prescription 

drug user 

fees 

Medical 

device user 

fees 

Animal 

drug user 

fees 

Mammography clinics inspection fees 

Export and 

certification 

fees 

Total 

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 adminis-
108 

tration 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 recommendation 2008 enacted 2009 request 

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 
109 

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 
110 

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 test-
111 

ing 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 
112 

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 
113 

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. 
(114) 

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. 
115 

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. 
116 

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. 
(117) 

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 
118 

—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 
119 

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 

§ 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 

ø§ 2009aa–10. Records 

ø(a) Records of the Authority 

ø(1) In general 

øThe Authority shall maintain accurate and complete 

records of all transactions and activities of the Authority. 

ø(2) Availability 

øAll records of the Authority shall be available for audit 

and examination by the Comptroller General of the United 
120 

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). 

ø(b) Records of recipients of Federal assistance 

ø(1) In general 

øA 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. 

ø(2) Availability 

øAll 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). 

ø(c) Annual audit 

øThe 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 

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

ø(a) Authorization of travel relating to commercial sale of 

agricultural commodities 

øThe 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 travelrelated 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. 

* * * * * * * 
121 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS 

§ 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 øeight¿ nine States, of which øsix¿ 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 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 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 

2008 ......................................................................................... NA 28,283 NA 24,633 

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, pro-
122 

viding, 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. 
123 

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 Experiment Station. 1,117,000 Senators Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker 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 Agriculture ........... 619,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein APHIS .......................................... California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and Agriculture ..... 738,000 Senators Boxer and Feinstein 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 Agriculture ...... 223,000 Senators Casey and Specter 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 University ................. 1,400,000 Senators Conrad and Dorgan APHIS .......................................... Genetically modified products, Iowa State University .............................................................................................. 276,000 Senators Grassley and Harkin APHIS .......................................... Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana Department 

of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.

692,000 Senators Barrasso, Baucus, Craig, and 

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 Mississippi 

State University.

255,000 Senator Cochran 

APHIS .......................................... National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M ....................................................................................................... 309,000 Senator Hutchison APHIS .......................................... Nevada weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture ............................................................................. 250,000 Senator Reid 
124 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 Consumer Protection. 1,550,000 Senator Kohl 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 
125 

CS/Extension .............................. Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions ...... 800,000 Senator Kohl 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 Station, TX .. 200,000 Senators Domenici and Hutchison 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 University of 

Maine.

150,000 Senators Collins, Dodd, Lieberman, Snowe 

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 
126 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 University, 

Kansas State University.

1,000,000 Senators Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor, 

Roberts, 

CS/SRG ....................................... Apple fire blight, Cornell University/New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Michigan ...... 200,000 Senators Levin, Schumer, Stabenow 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 Washington ......... 350,000 Senators Cantwell and Murray CS/SRG ....................................... Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University. 250,000 Senators Cantwell, Conrad, Craig, Crapo, 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 
127 

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 AgriLife Research, 

College Station, TX.

575,000 Senators Bingaman, Cornyn, Domenici, 

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 Idaho, Washington State University. 150,000 Senators Cantwell, Craig, Crapo, Murray, 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, Purdue 

University.

200,000 Senator Lugar 

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 University, University of 

Georgia.

655,000 Senators Allard, Chambliss, Salazar, 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 
128 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

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, Texas AgriLife 

Research, College Station, TX.

149,000 Senator Hutchison 

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, University of 

Maine.

750,000 Senators Cantwell, Collins, Craig, 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 
129 

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 
130 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

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 Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts.

179,000 Senator Bingaman 

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 Conservation ............ 580,000 Senator McConnell 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 
131 

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, Butte, MT ........... 2,774,000 Senators Baucus, Boxer, Harkin, Johnson, 

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] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

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 
132 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 Economics .................................................................. 592 654 609 ∂17 ¥45 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 Extension Service ....................................................... 1,183,796 994,080 1,149,993 ¥33,803 ∂155,913 
133 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 716 792 737 ∂21 ¥55 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 collected) ......................................................................... (61,233 ) (62,888 ) (62,888 ) (∂1,655 ) ............................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer from section 32) ........................................ 16,798 17,270 17,270 ∂472 ............................

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 Agricultural Services .............................................................. 628 695 646 ∂18 ¥49 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 
134 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 
135 

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 ) 
136 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

(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 Environment ................................................................... 737 822 758 ∂21 ¥64 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 ) 
137 

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 ............................
138 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 
139 

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 
140 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 ) 
141 

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 Loans Program Account .................................. 42,066 38,344 38,874 ¥3,192 ∂530 

(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 
142 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 Consumer Services ............................................................. 593 655 610 ∂17 ¥45 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, and children (WIC) ......................................... 5,620,000 6,100,000 6,750,000 ∂1,130,000 ∂650,000 

(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 ............................
143 

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

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 nutrition program grants ............................................. 99,300 100,000 100,000 ∂700 ............................

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 ) 
145 

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 expenses) ....................................................................... (46,000 ) (49,000 ) (50,000 ) (∂4,000 ) (∂1,000 ) 

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 1,716,770 2,046,203 2,051,397 ∂334,627 ∂5,194 

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 
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2008 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2008 appropriation Budget estimate 

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 (discretionary) .......................................................................... 1,476,470 1,502,056 1,503,056 ∂26,586 ∂1,000 Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration (discretionary) ...................................................... 1,716,770 2,046,203 2,051,397 ∂334,627 ∂5,194 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 

Æ