50–718 PDF 

Calendar No. 99 

111TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 111–39 

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG 

ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010 

JULY 7 , 2009.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. KOHL, from the Committee on Appropriations, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1406] 

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1406) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

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

Total obligational authority, fiscal year 2010 

Total of bill as reported to the Senate ....................$123,993,248,000 

Amount of 2009 appropriations ............................... 126,962,906,000 

Amount of 2010 budget estimate ............................ 123,759,120,000 

Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 

2009 appropriations .......................................... ¥2,969,658,000 

2010 budget estimate ........................................ ∂234,128,000 
(2) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Breakdown by Title ................................................................................................. 4 

Summary of the Bill: 

Overview and Summary of the Bill ................................................................. 5 

Reports to Congress .......................................................................................... 5 

Title I: 

Agricultural Programs: 

Production, Processing, and Marketing: 

Office of the Secretary ....................................................................... 6 

Office of Tribal Relations ................................................................... 9 

Executive Operations ......................................................................... 9 

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 ........... 14 

Hazardous Materials Management .................................................. 14 

Departmental Administration ........................................................... 15 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ....... 16 

Office of Communications .................................................................. 17 

Office of Inspector General ................................................................ 17 

Office of the General Counsel ........................................................... 18 

Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .............................................................................................. 18 

Economic Research Service ............................................................... 19 

National Agricultural Statistics Service .......................................... 19 

Agricultural Research Service ........................................................... 20 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture ..................................... 26 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ............................................................................................... 36 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service .................................. 036 

Agricultural Marketing Service ........................................................ 48 

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration ............ 51 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ................................. 52 

Food Safety and Inspection Service .................................................. 52 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services ............................................................................................ 54 

Farm Service Agency ......................................................................... 55 

Risk Management Agency ................................................................. 60 

Corporations: 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund ...................................... 60 

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund ............................................... 61 

Title II: 

Conservation Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ........................................................................................................ 63 

Natural Resources Conservation Service ................................................ 63 

Title III: 

Rural Development Programs: 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ........................... 68 

Rural Housing Service .............................................................................. 69 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service ...................................................... 77 

Rural Energy for America Program ......................................................... 81 

Rural Utilities Service .............................................................................. 82 
Page

3 

Title IV: 

Domestic Food Programs: 

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

Services ................................................................................................... 88 

Food and Nutrition Service ...................................................................... 88 

Title V: Foreign Assistance and Related Programs: Foreign Agricultural Service .......................................................................................................................... 97 

Title VI: 

Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration: 

Food and Drug Administration ................................................................ 102 

Independent Agency: Farm Credit Administration ................................ 110 

Title VII: General Provisions .................................................................................. 112 

Program, Project, and Activity ............................................................................... 115 

Compliance With Paragraph 7, Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate .......................................................................................................................... 115 

Compliance With Paragraph 7(c), Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 116 

Compliance With Paragraph 12, Rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate ................................................................................................................... 116 

Budgetary Impact of Bill ......................................................................................... 120 

Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items ...................................... 122 

Comparative Statement of Budget Authority ........................................................ 130 
(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] 

2009 2010 Committee 

recommendation 

Title I: Agricultural programs ..................................................................................... 26,091,624 29,927,132 

Title II: Conservation programs .................................................................................. 1,309,177 1,015,027 

Title III: Rural economic and community development programs ............................. 7,092,791 3,046,473 

Title IV: Domestic food programs ............................................................................... 76,905,162 86,085,432 

Title V: Foreign assistance and related programs ..................................................... 2,594,405 2,079,499 

Title VI: Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration ................................. 2,051,397 2,350,089 

Title VII: General provisions ........................................................................................ ¥816,150 ¥510,404 

Other appropriations (discretionary) ........................................................................... 11,734,500 ..............................

Total, new budget (obligational) authority ................................................... 126,962,906 123,993,248 
(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 competing priorities 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 2010. 

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 provides 

full pay costs, as requested by the President, for agencies under the 

jurisdiction of this subcommittee. 

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. 

REPORTS TO CONGRESS 

The Committee has, throughout this report, requested agencies 

to provide studies and reports on various issues. The Committee 

utilizes these reports to evaluate program performance and make 

decisions on future appropriations. The Committee requests that 

all studies and reports be provided as one document per Department in an agreed upon format within 120 days after the date of 

enactment, unless an alternative submission schedule is specifically stated in the report request. 
(6) 

TITLE I 

AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, AND MARKETING

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,174,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,285,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,285,000 

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 $5,285,000 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. 

Global Food Security.—The Committee continues its strong support for programs that provide emergency food assistance throughout the world and work to achieve sustainable global food security. 

Elsewhere in this act, the Committee provides significant increases 

for Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education programs which provide both emergency, food systems, and nutritional 

development assistance. In addition, the Committee provides guidance and resources to improve the efficiency of food aid programs, 

enhance agricultural development activities in food-deprived regions, and provide for higher nutritional content in food aid products. 

The Government Accountability Office [GAO] has made a number of recommendations to reduce the non-food costs related to assistance programs administered by USDA and USAID which are 
7 

under the jurisdiction of this Committee. A general provision in 

this bill references a number of those recommendations and does 

so in a way that fully retains the balance of interests that have established the U.S. food aid programs as the most generous and effective in the world for more than half a century. 

This general provision requires agencies responsible for administering humanitarian food assistance programs under the jurisdiction of this act to provide information to the appropriations committees of the House and the Senate regarding improved program 

efficiencies. The Committee views humanitarian food assistance 

programs as a strong expression of the United States’ commitment 

as the world leader in fighting world hunger and in providing critical assistance to extremely vulnerable populations living in desperate environments. However, the GAO has reported that in recent years the cost of these programs has escalated while the actual volume of food assistance has declined. 

The Committee believes that the best way to initiate meaningful 

reforms in food aid program administration is for the primary 

agencies responsible to conduct a review and evaluation of current 

practices, examine recommendations by GAO (and others), and 

work together toward the common goal of supporting the primary 

objectives inherent in these programs and to maintain the integrity 

of these programs as envisioned by their authorization. The requirements included in this section will encourage the leading 

agencies to work toward consensus on ways to enhance the number 

of people receiving food assistance and to improve their coordination in program delivery. 

In addition, another general provision in this act provides for 

grant(s) to develop and field test new food products designed to 

cost-effectively improve the nutritional delivery and functional form 

of food assistance products provided through the McGovern-Dole 

and Food for Peace title II programs, and to best address recipient 

needs within the logistical operating environment of these fieldbased programs. The Committee is aware of the potential to greatly 

enhance the short and long-term health of individuals, especially 

infants and young children, suffering from malnutrition if improvements in nutritional content, product composition, packaging, and 

other components of food products were realized. Also, humanitarian food assistance is frequently delivered in some of the 

harshest physical environments in the world and in areas where 

transportation and storage logistics are extremely challenging. 

The Committee is aware of significant advances in food science 

and technology that should be utilized to cost-effectively improve 

products beneficial for use in food assistance programs and the Secretary is directed, acting through the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, to carry out a grants program 

better to incorporate those and other advances as part of McGovern-Dole and Food for Peace title II programs. The Secretary is further encouraged to give priority to proposals from non-governmental organizations that demonstrate private sector partnering 

and in-kind contributions. 

In addition, the Secretary is encouraged, through the authorities 

of the Research, Education, and Economics mission area, to conduct 

assessments of methods and tools used by non-governmental orga-
8 

nizations and international agencies to assess nutritional gaps 

among populations served by U.S. humanitarian food assistance 

programs with recommendations on how to improve such programs 

in the field at the lowest possible cost. The Secretary should also 

undertake an assessment on the most cost-effective technologies for 

the purification and supply of safe water which could be implemented in the field to benefit these highly vulnerable populations 

and to make recommendations on the most cost-effective and commercially available systems that require priority research assistance. 

The Committee expects a report on the status of these activities. 

In addition, the Committee expects a report by September 1, 2010, 

regarding the actual awarding of such grant or grants, the findings 

of relevant field tests, and the projected applications of new products in food assistance programs. 

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 act 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 Committee believes that the establishment of sustainable 

food systems is the proper alternative to emergency food assistance. 

This will require increased awareness in under-developed countries 

of effective farm practices and the dynamics of agriculture on local 

and regional economies. Resources and guidance provided in this 

act will help U.S. Federal agencies and non-Federal partners, including land grant institutions, play an increased role in this important transition in the direction of global food security. 

The differing nutritional needs of populations, particularly in 

areas with high incidence of HIV/AIDS and other diseases, makes 

the composition and quality of foods available through programs 

such as Food for Peace and the McGovern-Dole Food for Education 

Program extremely important elements in the delivery of humanitarian food assistance. Elsewhere in this act, the Committee makes 

recommendations for improvements to the quality and nutritional 

content of food products that are included in U.S. foreign food assistance programs. The Committee strongly believes that these 

measures will result in substantial short and long-term health benefits among food aid beneficiaries, especially among the most vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, and those facing 

life-threatening disease. The Secretary is directed to continue 

working with the State Department and, in particular the USAID, 

and affected stakeholders toward modifications which are necessary to improve nutritional benefits while maintaining efficiency 
9 

in procurement and payment practices. The Committee further requests the Department to keep the Committee apprised of ongoing 

studies on this subject. 

OFFICE OF TRIBAL RELATIONS

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

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

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

The Office of Tribal Relations will interact with USDA program 

agencies to understand pending actions that may affect Indian 

tribes. This interaction and programmatic knowledge will improve 

USDA’s ability to conduct consultation activities, thereby better addressing the needs of USDA tribal constituents and improving relationships. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for 

the Office of Tribal Relations. 

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, the Office of Homeland Security and the Office of 

Advocacy and Outreach. 

CHIEF ECONOMIST

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $10,651,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 16,732,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,032,000 

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, and costbenefit analysis related to domestic and international food and agriculture issues, provides policy direction for renewable energy development, conducts analyses of climate change impacts on agriculture and forestry, 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 $13,032,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Economist. The Committee recommendation 

includes an increase of $3,000,000 for the Office of Energy and Climate Change. 
10 

NATIONAL APPEALS DIVISION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $14,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 15,559,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,219,000 

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 $15,219,000 for 

the National Appeals Division. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $200,000 for information technology modernization. 

OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM ANALYSIS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $9,054,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 9,436,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,436,000 

The Office of Budget and Program Analysis provides direction 

and administration of the Department’s budgetary functions including development, presentation, and execution of the budget; reviews program and legislative proposals for program, budget, and 

related implications; analyzes program and resource issues and alternatives, and prepares summaries of pertinent data to aid the 

Secretary and departmental policy officials and agency program 

managers in the decisionmaking 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 $9,436,000 for 

the Office of Budget and Program Analysis. 

OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $974,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,994,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,859,000 

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. 
11 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,859,000 for 

the Office of Homeland Security. The Committee recommendation 

includes increases of $750,000 for a protective security detail and 

$115,000 for national intelligence analysis. 

OFFICE OF ADVOCACY AND OUTREACH

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

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $3,000,000 

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

The purpose of the Office of Advocacy and Outreach is to increase the accessibility of USDA programs to underserved constituents. The Office would oversee the Office of Small Farms Coordination and the Advisory Committee for Beginning Farmers and 

Ranchers. In addition, the Office would coordinate the activities of 

various USDA programs and agencies that have as a mission purpose the provision of assistance to underserved constituents and 

would generally encourage and advocate for full participation by all 

Americans in USDA programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for the Office of Advocacy and Outreach. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $17,527,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 63,579,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 63,579,000 

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 Technology Center with locations in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Kansas 

City, Missouri. Direct ADP operational services are also provided 

to the Office of the General Counsel, Office of Communications, the 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and Executive Operations. 

On November 28, 2004, the information technology staffs of the 

Service Center Agencies [SCA] were converged into one IT organization within the office of the Chief Information Officer; this converged organization is named Information Technology Services and 
12 

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 $63,579,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This amount is an increase of $46,052,000 above the fiscal year 2009 level. 

Information Technology Security.—The Committee is greatly concerned by security failures of the Department’s various information 

technology components. The Department produces and compiles a 

number of information documents that are extremely market sensitive or otherwise of a nature that the public release of such information must be tightly controlled. It is completely unacceptable for 

these information systems to be accessed by unauthorized entities. 

Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes the full increase requested by the President for upgrading the security of the 

Department’s information systems, including increases of 

$19,000,000 for security assessments, $14,500,000 for security tool 

deployment, and $12,300,000 for the Agriculture and Security Operations Center. Further, the Committee expects a report on the introduction of these improvements to the Department’s information 

system, including a timetable for their full implementation, and a 

summary of all Department-wide activities relating to information 

security. 

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,954,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 6,566,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,566,000 

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 $6,566,000 for 

the Office of the Chief Financial Officer. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $871,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights provides 

oversight of civil rights and related functions. This includes coordi-
13 

nation 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 $895,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. 

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $21,551,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 23,922,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 23,422,000 

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 $23,422,000 for 

the Office of Civil Rights. The Committee remains concerned by reports relating to the Department’s long civil rights history and expects the Department to continue working toward resolution of associated claims. To better assist the Department in this regard, the 

Committee’s recommendation for the Office of Civil Rights includes 

increases of $250,000 each for alternative dispute resolution standardization, alternative dispute resolution training, and for investigations. In addition, the recommendation includes an increase of 

$750,000 to address civil rights-related deficiencies as identified by 

the General Accountability Office. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $687,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 806,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 806,000 

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). 
14 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $806,000 for the 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. 

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $268,244,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 346,182,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 274,482,000 

1 Includes $24,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

Department headquarters presently operates in a four-building 

Government-owned complex in downtown Washington, DC, and in 

leased buildings in the Metropolitan Washington, DC, area. Annual 

appropriations finance payments to the General Services Administration [GSA] for leased space and related services. Under this arrangement USDA operates, maintains, and repairs D.C. complex 

buildings, while GSA remains responsible for major nonrecurring 

repairs. GSA charges commercial rent rates pursuant to the Public 

Buildings Amendments of 1972, and agencies may review rate procedures and exercise rights to appeal. For the last several years the 

Department has implemented a strategic space plan to locate staff 

more efficiently, renovate its buildings, and eliminate safety hazards, particularly in the Agriculture South Building. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $274,482,000 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 2009 

and budget request levels: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2009 enacted 2010 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Rental Payments ........................................................................................ 168,901 237,901 168,901 

Building Operations ................................................................................... 61,843 94,781 92,081 

DHS Building Security ................................................................................ 13,500 13,500 13,500 

Public Law 111–5 ...................................................................................... 24,000 ........................ ........................

Total .............................................................................................. 268,244 346,182 274,482 

The Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$27,000,000 for the consolidation of leased space, which is an activity the Department has identified for the achievement of long-term 

savings. The Secretary is directed to provide a report to the Committee on the progress of this consolidation and a detailed estimate 

on the amount and timing of near and long-term savings. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of 

$3,000,000 for security support. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,100,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 5,125,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,125,000 
15 

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 $5,125,000 for 

Hazardous Materials Management. 

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $27,011,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 43,319,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,319,000 

Departmental Administration is comprised of activities that provide staff support to top policy officials and overall direction and 

coordination of administrative functions of the Department. These 

activities include departmentwide programs for human resource 

management, ethics, occupational safety and health management, 

real and personal property management, procurement, contracting, 

motor vehicle and aircraft management, supply management, 

emergency preparedness, small and disadvantaged business utilization, and the regulatory hearing and administrative proceedings 

conducted by the Administrative Law Judges and Judicial Officer. 

Departmental Administration is also responsible for representing 

USDA in the development of Governmentwide policies and initiatives; and analyzing the impact of Governmentwide trends and developing appropriate USDA principles, policies, and standards. In 

addition, Departmental Administration engages in strategic planning and evaluates programs to ensure USDA-wide compliance 

with applicable laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to administrative matters for the Secretary and general officers of the Department. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,319,000 for 

Departmental Administration. 

Global Food Security.—The President’s budget includes 

$13,000,000 for Provincial Reconstruction Teams to provide policy 

advice, technical assistance, and related support activities in the 

rural areas of select countries. The Committee takes very seriously 

its responsibility to support sustainable food systems in under-developed countries, and believes the basic initiative proposed by the 

President has substantial merit. The Committee feels strongly that 

the development of sustainable food systems is the proper alternative to emergency food assistance. 

Elsewhere in this act, the Committee makes recommendations to 

enhance efficiencies in the administration of food aid programs, improve the nutrient content of food aid products, and to encourage 

the Secretary to play a lead role with Federal and non-governmental partners in the task of helping achieve global food security. 
16 

Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes an increase 

of $13,000,000 for Departmental assistance to agricultural producers and allied entities in areas of the world (not limited to those 

countries identified by the President) where the development of 

sustainable food systems, as part of overall regional economic stability, remains a high priority. 

The Committee expects these funds to be used in a manner that 

best promotes long-term development of rural economies and food 

systems by relying on the expertise of USDA agencies and their 

partners, such as land grant institutions. In much of the world, 

there is a desperate need for technical assistance in the areas of 

agricultural production, land and water conservation, rural development systems, and a better understanding of the structure and 

dynamics of local and regional economic structures. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is perhaps the best repository in the world 

for the collection and dissemination of this expertise, and the opportunity now exists for the expansion of this knowledge base to 

occur, on a global humanitarian scale, in much the same way that 

the Extension Service and other USDA agencies have served U.S. 

agriculture. 

The Committee expects a report on the allocation of resources 

under this directive with a follow-up report by June 1, 2010, regarding the countries served, the agencies and partners selected for 

these activities, the program objectives and goals achieved, and 

other information relating to this program including the practicality of expansion to other regions in the future. 

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL

RELATIONS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $3,877,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 3,968,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,968,000 

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 $3,968,000 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. 
17 

OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $9,514,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 9,922,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 9,722,000 

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 $9,722,000 for 

the Office of Communications. 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $108,266,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 88,781,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 88,025,000 

1 Includes $22,500,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

The Office of 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 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 $88,025,000 for 

the Office of Inspector General. The Committee recommendation 

includes an increase of $500,000 for investigations related to food 

safety and civil rights. In addition, the recommendation includes 

the fiscal year 2009 level for OIG to continue to address violations 

of section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. 2156) and to co-
18 

ordinate with State and local law enforcement personnel in this effort. 

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $41,620,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 44,651,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,551,000 

The Office of the General Counsel provides all legal advice, counsel, and services to the Secretary and to all agencies, offices, and 

corporations of the Department. The Office represents the Department in administrative proceedings; non-litigation debt collection 

proceedings; State water rights adjudications; proceedings before 

the Environmental Protection Agency, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Maritime Administration, and International Trade 

Commission; and, in conjunction with the Department of Justice, in 

judicial proceedings and litigation. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $43,551,000 for 

the Office of the General Counsel. 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND

ECONOMICS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $609,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

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; National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Economic Research Service; and National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $895,000 for the 

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

The Committee is aware that the Food, Conservation and Energy 

Act of 2008 authorized a program for competitive research and education grants for the study of antibiotic resistant bacteria and safe 

and effective alternatives for antibiotics in animal agriculture. The 

Committee encourages USDA to work with other entities, as appropriate, to analyze sources of antibiotic resistance as they pertain to 

food production and processing methods and develop and recommend new practices to reduce the development and transfer to 

humans of antibiotic resistance. The Committee directs USDA to 

report on its activities to this effect. 
19 

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $79,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 82,478,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 82,078,000 

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 $82,078,000 for 

the Economic Research Service. The Committee recommendation 

includes increases of $900,000 for research on the economics of environmental service markets and policies for reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, and $500,000 to carry out the Organic Production 

and Market Data Initiative. 

The Committee directs the Economic Research Service to prepare 

and publish a report on consumer perceptions of canned fruits and 

vegetables. The Economic Research Service shall share these findings with the Food and Nutrition Service to assist in the development of an effective marketing and promotional pilot program for 

canned fruits and vegetables under the Healthy Incentives Pilot 

program authorized under the Food, Conservation and Energy Act 

of 2008. 

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $151,565,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 161,830,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 161,830,000 

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 $161,830,000 for 

the National Agricultural Statistics Service. The Committee rec-
20 

ommendation includes increases of $5,750,000 for the restoration of 

the Agricultural Chemical Use Program, and $1,600,000 to provide 

a data series on bio-energy production and utilization. Included in 

this amount is $37,908,000 for the Census of Agriculture. 

Organic Data Collection.—The Committee is pleased that NASS 

is currently conducting an Organics Production follow-on survey. 

The Committee encourages NASS to take all necessary steps to collect in-depth coverage on acreage, yield, production, inventory, production practices, sales and expenses, marketing channels, and demographics of the organic industry, and includes $250,000 for this 

purpose. 

Rice Stocks Reporting.—Market transparency provided by timely 

stocks reporting enhances the ability of rice farmers to profitably 

market their crop. The Committee expects that NASS will implement a September 1 stocks report for rice to include old crop 

stocks. 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,140,406,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,153,368,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,181,632,000 

The Agricultural Research Service [ARS] is responsible for conducting basic, applied, and developmental research on: soil, water, 

and air sciences; plant and animal productivity; commodity conversion and delivery; human nutrition; and the integration of agricultural systems. The research applies to a wide range of goals; commodities; natural resources; fields of science; and geographic, climatic, and environmental conditions. 

ARS is also responsible for the Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library which provides agricultural information and library services through traditional library functions and modern 

electronic dissemination to agencies of the USDA, public and private organizations, and individuals. 

As the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s in-house agricultural research unit, ARS has major responsibilities for conducting and 

leading the national agricultural research effort. It provides initiative and leadership in five areas: research on broad regional and 

national problems, research to support Federal action and regulatory agencies, expertise to meet national emergencies, research 

support for international programs, and scientific resources to the 

executive branch and Congress. 

The mission of ARS research is to develop new knowledge and 

technology which will ensure an abundance of high-quality agricultural commodities and products at reasonable prices to meet the increasing needs of an expanding economy and to provide for the continued improvement in the standard of living of all Americans. This 

mission focuses on the development of technical information and 

technical products which bear directly on the need to: (1) manage 

and use the Nation’s soil, water, air, and climate resources, and improve the Nation’s environment; (2) provide an adequate supply of 

agricultural products by observing practices that will maintain a 

sustainable and effective agriculture sector; (3) improve the nutri-
21 

tion 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 $1,181,632,000 

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 2010 appropriation does not accept the budget 

proposals to transfer the Office of Pest Management Policy to the 

Office of the Chief Economist or to decrease funds for property 

management. The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000, as requested in the budget for increased research on new varieties and 

hybrids of bioenergy feedstocks and the development of new production practices to maximize sustainable yield of high quality 

feedstocks. The Committee recommendation also includes increases 

of $3,816,000, as requested in the budget, for increased research on 

livestock and crop production, including strengthening grain disease research to protect the world grain supply at Manhattan, Kansas; Corvallis, Oregon; and St. Paul, Minnesota. Further, the Committee recommendation includes an increase of $8,513,000, as requested in the budget, for increased research relating to human nutrition, including the prevention of childhood obesity. Finally, the 

Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,250,000, as 

requested in the budget, for increased research for assessing and 

managing climate change risks to agricultural production systems, 

including the development of new crop varieties that can thrive 

under stress of weather variability and the development of agricultural management strategies for systems that are economically 

competitive and environmentally sustainable at Akron, Colorado. 

The Committee recommendation includes increases of $2,000,000 

for research regarding cranberry production, including the development of more environmentally sound growing methods; and 

$2,000,000 for increased research regarding Asian Citrus Psyllid/ 

Citrus Greening Disease. 

The Committee recommendation does not concur with the President’s fiscal year 2010 budget proposals as it relates to the following projects: Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, Stuttgart, Arkansas; Bioremediation Research, 

Beltsville, Maryland; Center for Agroforestry, Booneville, Arkansas; 

Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, Arkansas; Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research (Pennington), New Orleans, Louisiana; Endophyte Research, Booneville, Arkansas; Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, New Orleans, Louisiana; 

Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization, Beltsville, Maryland; Improved Crop Production Practices, Auburn, Alabama; Medicinal 

and Bioactive Crops, Washington, DC; National Center for Agricultural Law, Beltsville, Maryland; Poultry Diseases, Beltsville, Maryland; Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation 
22 

Laboratory, Oxford, Mississippi; Sorghum Research, Little Rock, 

Arkansas; Tropical Aquaculture Feeds (Oceanic Institute), Hilo, 

Hawaii; and Water Use Reduction, Dawson, Georgia. 

The Committee recommendation provides the following funding: Biomass Crop Production, Brookings, South Dakota, $1,250,000; 

Biomedical Materials in Plants (Biotech Foundation), Beltsville, 

Maryland, $1,700,000; Biotechnology Research and Development 

Corporation, Washington, DC, $3,500,000; Human Nutrition Research, Boston, Massachusetts, $350,000; Human Nutrition Research, Houston, Texas, $300,000; New England Plant, Soil, and 

Water Research Laboratory, Orono, Maine, $2,249,000; Northwestern Center for Small Fruits, Corvallis, Oregon, $275,000; 

Phytoestrogen Research, New Orleans, Louisiana, $1,750,000; Potato Diseases, Beltsville, Maryland, $40,000; Water Management 

Research Laboratory, Brawley, California, $340,000; Wild Rice, St. 

Paul, Minnesota, $300,000; Genomics Specialist, St. Paul, Minnesota, $200,000; Dairy Forage Research Center, Marshfield, Wisconsin, $2,500,000; North Carolina Human Nutrition Center, 

Kannapolis, North Carolina, $1,000,000; Computer Vision Engineer 

and Technician, Appalachian Fruit Research Station, 

Kearneysville, West Virginia, $400,000; and Forage Crop Stress 

Tolerance and Virus Disease Management, Prosser, Washington, 

$200,000. 

Aquaculture.—The Committee agrees with the merger of the 

Aquaculture Fisheries Center, Pine Bluff, Arkansas, with the 

Harry K. Dupree Stuttgart National Aquaculture Research Center. 

However, the Committee does not agree with the budget proposal 

as it relates to the Aquaculture Fisheries Center in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and directs that the important work of the Center be continued at full funding. Further, the Committee directs that 

$350,000 from this amount be used for a specific cooperative agreement with the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center at the University of 

Arkansas at Pine Bluff. 

Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory.—The 

Committee supports the administration’s request to relocate the 

Arthropod Borne Animal Disease Research Laboratory [ABADRL]. 

The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 to relocate 

ABADRL from its current location to Manhattan, Kansas. 

Bighorn Sheep Health.—Bighorn sheep disease is a major issue 

for domestic sheep producers in the West. Potential disease transmission arising from interactions between wild and domestic sheep 

pose significant challenges with considerable economic impact. ARS 

shall provide the Committee with a report on its current research 

on this subject as well as a research proposal to develop methods 

to control infectious diseases at the domestic animal-wildlife interface with specific focus on bighorn sheep health. When preparing 

this report the Committee encourages the Department to work with 

scientists at the Animal Disease Research Unit, co-located at the 

University of Idaho and Washington State University and the U.S. 

Sheep Experiment Station in DuBois, Idaho. 

Bioenergy Feedstock.—Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory in Mandan, North Dakota, is a partner in the agency’s high 

priority bioenergy feedstock program to develop strategies to integrate bioenergy production into existing U.S. agricultural systems. 
23 

The Mandan laboratory is studying new production practices and 

systems that can maximize yields of high quality feedstock in the 

Northern Great Plains. The Committee recommendation restores 

$543,000 at the Mandan ARS laboratory, which shall be made 

available for the location’s bioenergy feedstock research program. 

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. 

Food Allergies.—The Committee expects ARS to fund research 

related to food allergies at no less than the fiscal year 2009 level, 

and encourages the agency to consider how processing technologies 

can alter the characteristics of allergens in foods, to assess any potential to reduce allergenicity in foods through food processing 

technologies, and develop better immunoassays for detection of food 

allergen residues before and after food processing. 

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 recommendation includes an increase of $1,000,000, as proposed in the budget as part of increased research on Human Nutrition, to the ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, 

which provides unique contributions related to these nutrition-related challenges. Further, the Committee directs the agency to continue development of the Center’s programs to address obesity and 

diet-related health issues in rural and Native American communities, the study of minerals and other nutrients contained in widely consumed foods contributing to healthy diets, and the role of nutrition in preventing chronic diseases among all Americans. 

The Human Nutrition Centers, including the Center in Little 

Rock, Arkansas, focus on the effects of dietary factors and nutritional status (including body composition) on disease prevention 

and maintenance of good health. The Committee recommends that 

particular attention be given to critical periods of development and 

vulnerable stages of life (including the nutritional status of women 

at the time of conception; nutritional issues during pregnancy and 

lactation; and diets, nutrition, and the development of eating behaviors during childhood, adolescence, and later stages of life). The 

Committee further recommends attention to disease prevention of 

cancer, cardiovascular disease, and bone and muscle disease. Other 

extremely important areas requiring continued attention include 

brain development and cognitive function in children; maintenance 

of cognitive function and vision in the elderly; the developmental 

origins of adult health and disease; the effects of non-nutrient bioactive food components; the development, function, and enhancement of the immune system; the understanding of dietary influences on inflammation; and gene/nutrient interactions. The Committee recommendation therefore includes $1,000,000, as proposed 

in the budget as part of increased research on Human Nutrition, 

to the Children’s Nutrition Center in Little Rock, Arkansas and 

$3,937,000, as requested in the budget, for increased research on 

human nutrition headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas. 
24 

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. 

The Committee recommendation also includes $1,000,000 for the 

establishment of an Agriculture Research Service Human Nutrition 

Center on the North Carolina Research Campus in Kannapolis, 

North Carolina. 

Invasive Weed Management.—The Committee is aware of the severity of the invasive weed problem in the Northwestern United 

States, including cheat grass, medusa head rye, salt cedar, and tall 

white top and Eurasian water milfoil. The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $500,000 for increased research to address invasive species genetics, population ecology, and management for these critical problems. 

Muscadine Grape Research.—The Committee recognizes that the 

muscadine grape’s unique natural properties allow for great potential in nutraceutical and food additive uses provided more varietal 

characterization and horticulture improvements. The Committee 

requests ARS and its Poplarville, Mississippi facility to report to 

the Committee on an appropriate multi-year research and development strategy that could assist small fruit growers and processors 

to take full commercial advantage of this native plant. 

National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.—The National Bio and 

Agro-Defense Facility [NBAF] will research biological threats involving zoonotic and foreign animal diseases. The facility will allow 

basic research; diagnostic development, testing and validation; advanced countermeasure development; and training for high-consequence livestock diseases. The Department of Homeland Security 

recently selected the Manhattan Campus Site in Manhattan, Kansas for the construction of NBAF, which will serve as the successor 

site to the Plum Island Animal Disease Center [PIADC]. In order 

to begin the transition from the PIADC to NBAF, the Committee 

recommendation includes $1,500,000 for a cooperative agreement 

with Kansas State University for research into Rift Valley Fever, 

African Swine Fever, and Peste des Petits Ruminants. 

Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center.—The Committee concurs with the staffing plan at the Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center and the Committee recommendation includes 

$700,000 to support two new scientists in organic/sustainable agriculture and value-added/biofuel production. 

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 an increase of $1,000,000 for ARS research related to pollinator species. 

Shellfish Research.—Natural oyster production has fallen dramatically from a combination of factors leading to increased mortality, including low disease resistance and prevention. The Committee understands the need for comprehensive research on shellfish and shellfish disease in the Northeast, and provides an in-
25 

crease of $500,000 for ARS to coordinate research, including genetic research, among institutions with expertise. 

Termite Research.—The Committee supports continuation of the 

development and deployment of sustainable areawide control of termites through community engagement and development of control 

methods for Pacific-Asian invasive termites and the Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for this purpose. The Committee 

further recommends that the administrative venue for this initiative be the Agriculture Research Service Mid South Area to realize 

the synergy of the termite research and outreach conducted at the 

Southern Regional Research Center in New Orleans. 

Wheat Stem Rust.—The rapid spread of the wheat stem rust 

known as Ug99, from East Africa to the Arabian Peninsula and 

most recently to the Middle East is of great concern to the Committee. Ug99 is a very virulent strain of stem rust and could 

threaten 80 percent of the world’s wheat supply (including wheat 

production in the United States) if resistant varieties of wheat are 

not developed. The Committee recommendation includes 

$3,500,000, an increase of $2,000,000, to speed efforts to develop 

Ug99-resistant wheat varieties. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $222,752,000 

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 47,027,000 

1 Includes $176,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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 $47,027,000 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 

Agricultural Research Center; Beltsville, MD .................................................................................................. 3,000 

Agricultural Research Center; Logan, UT ........................................................................................................ 4,527 

Agricultural Research Center; Pullman, WA .................................................................................................... 3,740 

Animal Bioscience Facility; Bozeman, MT ....................................................................................................... 2,500 
26 

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV ............................................................................................ 2,000 

ARS Biotechnology Lab; Lorcom, MS ............................................................................................................... 1,500 

ARS Forage-Animal Production Research Facility; Lexington, KY ................................................................... 2,000 

ARS Research and Development Center; Auburn, AL ...................................................................................... 3,500 

ARS Waste Management Research Facility; Bowling Green, KY ..................................................................... 2,000 

Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du Sac, WI ...................................................................... 4,000 

Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center; Stoneville, MS ......................................................................... 4,000 

National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia, MO ......................................................................... 3,500 

Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center; Hilo, HI ...................................................................................... 5,000 

Sugarcane Research Laboratory; Houma, LA ................................................................................................... 2,000 

Systems Biology Research Facility; Lincoln, NE .............................................................................................. 3,760 

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 47,027 

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. 

Red River Valley, North Dakota.—The Committee is aware of the 

facility improvement needs at the Red River Valley Agricultural 

Research Center in Fargo, North Dakota, and directs ARS to provide an updated report on the feasibility, requirements, and scope 

for facility needs at this location. The report should detail any expansion of building size, costs, associated facilities, scientific capacity, and other requirements for operations. The report should also 

detail existing and planned program and resource requirements for 

this location. 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

Section 7511(f)(2) of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 amends the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 

1994 (7 U.S.C. 6971) by establishing an agency to be known as the 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture [NIFA]. The Secretary 

shall transfer to NIFA, effective not later than October 1, 2009, any 

and all other authorities administered by the Administrator of the 

Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service. 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $691,043,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 622,892,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 757,821,000 

Research and Education programs administered by NIFA are 

USDA’s principal entre ́e to the university system of the United 

States for the purpose of conducting agricultural research and education programs as authorized by the Hatch Act of 1887, as amended (7 U.S.C. 361a–361i); the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry 

Act of 1962, as amended (16 U.S.C. 582a et seq.); the Competitive, 
27 

Special, and Facilities Research Grant Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 

450i); the National Agricultural, Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 (7 U.S.C. 301 

note); the Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform 

Act of 1998 (Public Law 105–185), as amended; the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–624); 

the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 

107–171); and the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110–246). Through these authorities, USDA participates with State and other cooperators to encourage and assist the 

State institutions in the conduct of agricultural research and education through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations of the 

50 States and the territories; by approved Schools of Forestry; the 

1890 Land-Grant Institutions and Tuskegee University and West 

Virginia State University; 1994 Land-Grant Institutions; by Colleges of Veterinary Medicine; and other eligible institutions. The 

appropriated funds provide Federal support for research and education programs at these 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 $757,821,000 for 

research and education activities of the National Institute of Food 

and Agriculture. In addition to the appropriation for research and 

education activities, this bill makes available $149,000,000 in mandatory funding for research related to organics, specialty crops, beginning farmer and rancher, renewable energy, and other research. 

Therefore, NIFA will have a total of $906,821,000 in funding for research and related activities in fiscal year 2010, which is an increase of $77,778,000 above the previous year. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for research and education activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Hatch Act ........................................................................................................................................................... 215,000 

McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program ................................................................................. 30,000 

Evans-Allen program (1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University) .................... 49,000 

Animal Health and Disease Research ............................................................................................................... 1,000 

Special Research Grants: 

Advanced Genetic Technologies (KY) ........................................................................................................ 650 

Advancing Biofuel Production (TX) ........................................................................................................... 300 

Aegilops Cylindrica (WA) ........................................................................................................................... 200 

Agricultural Diversification (HI) ................................................................................................................ 153 

Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives (PA) .......................................................................................... 248 

Agriculture Science (OH) ........................................................................................................................... 450 

Air Quality (TX, KS) ................................................................................................................................... 300 

Animal Science Food Safety Consortium (AR, IA, KS) .............................................................................. 1,000 

Aquaculture (LA) ....................................................................................................................................... 150 

Aquaculture (MS) ...................................................................................................................................... 361 

Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development (WV) .......................................................................... 550
28 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Avian Bioscience (DE) ............................................................................................................................... 150 

Barley for Rural Development (MT, ID) ..................................................................................................... 547 

Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration (TN) ........................................................................... 1,000 

Biodesign and Bioprocessing (VA) ............................................................................................................ 223 

Biomass-based Energy Research (OK, MS) .............................................................................................. 839 

Brucellosis Vaccine (MT) ........................................................................................................................... 305 

Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance (NM) ............................................ 176 

Center for One Medicine ........................................................................................................................... 500 

Center for Rural Studies (VT) ................................................................................................................... 350 

Childhood Obesity and Nutrition (VT) ....................................................................................................... 250 

Citrus Canker/Greening (FL) ..................................................................................................................... 200 

Competitiveness of Agricultural Products (WA) ........................................................................................ 400 

Cool Season Legume Research (ID, ND, WA) ........................................................................................... 350 

Cotton Insect Management and Fiber Quality (GA) ................................................................................. 346 

Cranberry/Blueberry (MA) .......................................................................................................................... 160 

Cranberry/Blueberry Disease and Breeding (NJ) ....................................................................................... 550 

Crop Integration and Production (SD) ...................................................................................................... 400 

Dairy and Meat Goat Research (TX) ......................................................................................................... 200 

Dairy Farm Profitability (PA) ..................................................................................................................... 372 

Delta Revitalization Project (MS) .............................................................................................................. 176 

Drought Mitigation (NE) ............................................................................................................................ 600 

Efficient Irrigation (NM, TX) ...................................................................................................................... 575 

Emerald Ash Borer (OH) ............................................................................................................................ 550 

Environmentally Safe Products (VT) ......................................................................................................... 250 

Floriculture (HI) ......................................................................................................................................... 300 

Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (IA, MO, NV) .................................................................. 1,213 

Food and Fuel Initiative (IA) ..................................................................................................................... 298 

Forages for Advancing Livestock Production (KY) .................................................................................... 473 

Fresh Produce Food Safety (CA) ............................................................................................................... 750 

Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease 

(MS) ...................................................................................................................................................... 797 

Global Change, UV Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 1,408 

Grain Sorghum (KS) .................................................................................................................................. 1,000 

Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable Agriculture (OR, WA) .................................................................... 150

High Performance Computing (UT) ........................................................................................................... 263 

Human Nutrition (LA) ................................................................................................................................ 526 

Infectious Disease Research (CO) ............................................................................................................ 650 

Inland Marine Aquaculture (VA) ............................................................................................................... 400 

Institute for Food Science and Engineering (AR) ..................................................................................... 500 

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

(IN) ........................................................................................................................................................ 188 

Invasive Plant Management (MT) ............................................................................................................. 270 

Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and Extension (UT) ................................................................. 210 

Leopold Center Hypoxia (IA) ...................................................................................................................... 105 

Livestock and Dairy Policy (NY) ................................................................................................................ 200 

Maple Research (VT) ................................................................................................................................. 165 

Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses (IN) .............................................................................................. 188 

Midwest Poultry Consortium (IA) .............................................................................................................. 250 

Milk Safety (PA) ........................................................................................................................................ 821 

National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium (CO, GA, NY) ........................................................ 655 

National Center for Soybean Biotechnology (MO) ..................................................................................... 690 

Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering (NM) ..................................................................................... 209 

Nevada Arid Rangelands (NV) .................................................................................................................. 500 

New Century Farm (IA) .............................................................................................................................. 350 

New Crop Opportunities (KY) .................................................................................................................... 525 

New Satellite and Computer-based Technology for Agriculture (MS) ...................................................... 654 

Oil Resources from Desert Plants (NM) .................................................................................................... 176 

Organic Cropping (OR) .............................................................................................................................. 149 

Organic Cropping (WA) ............................................................................................................................. 264 

Organic Waste Utilization (NM) ................................................................................................................ 69 

Pierce’s Disease (CA) ................................................................................................................................ 2,000 
29 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Policy Analysis for a National Secure and Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry, and Energy Program 

(TX) ....................................................................................................................................................... 200 

Potato Research (ID, ME, OR, WA) ........................................................................................................... 1,037 

Precision Agriculture (KY) ......................................................................................................................... 671 

Preharvest Food Safety (KS) ..................................................................................................................... 500 

Protein Utilization (IA) ............................................................................................................................... 600 

Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics (ID) ..................................................................................................... 300 

Renewable Energy Products (ND) ............................................................................................................. 1,000 

Ruminant Nutrition Consortium (SD) ........................................................................................................ 563 

Rural Policies Institute (IA) ...................................................................................................................... 889 

Russian Wheat Aphid (CO) ....................................................................................................................... 250 

Seed Technology (SD) ................................................................................................................................ 350 

Small Fruit Research (ID, OR, WA) ........................................................................................................... 300 

Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture (NM) ................................................................... 187 

Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium (NM) ......................................................................................... 350 

Soybean Cyst Nematode (MO) ................................................................................................................... 556 

Soybean Research (IL) .............................................................................................................................. 400 

Specialty Crops (AR) ................................................................................................................................. 175 

Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources (PA) .............................................................................. 142 

Sustainable Beef Supply (MT) .................................................................................................................. 200 

Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Sources (VA) ........................................................... 250 

Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty Crops (ME) ........................... 200 

Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management (LA) .......................................................................................... 200 

Tropical and Subtropical Research/T-Star (HI) ........................................................................................ 800 

Virtual Plant Database Enhancement Project (MO) ................................................................................. 588 

Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape Foundation Block (WA) ..................................................... 260 

Viticulture Consortium (CA) ...................................................................................................................... 1,200 

Water Conservation (KS) ........................................................................................................................... 500 

Wetland Plants (LA) .................................................................................................................................. 200 

Wheat Genetic Research (KS) ................................................................................................................... 1,000 

Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership (WY) ............................................................................ 300 

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

World Food and Health Initiative (IL) ....................................................................................................... 250 

Total, Special Research Grants ............................................................................................................ 50,456 

Improved Pest Control: 

Expert IPM Decision Support System ........................................................................................................ 158 

Integrated Pest Management .................................................................................................................... 2,450 

Minor Crop Pest Management, IR–4 ........................................................................................................ 12,360 

Pest Management Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 1,455 

Total, Improved Pest Control ................................................................................................................ 16,423 

Critical Ag Materials Act of 1984 ..................................................................................................................... 1,083 

Aquaculture Centers, section 1475 ................................................................................................................... 3,928 

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education ............................................................................................. 14,500 

1994 Institutions Research Program ................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Supplemental and Alternative Crops, section 1473 D ...................................................................................... 850 

AFRI .................................................................................................................................................................... 295,181 

Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration (NM, TX, MT) ........................................................................... 983 

New Era Rural Technology Program .................................................................................................................. 750 

Farm Business Management and Benchmarking Program ............................................................................... 2,000 

Sun Grant Program ............................................................................................................................................ 1,500 

Federal Administration: 

Ag-based Industrial Lubricants (IA) ......................................................................................................... 405 

Agriculture Development in the American Pacific (HI) ............................................................................ 400 

Agriculture Waste Utilization (WV) ............................................................................................................ 500 

Animal Health Research and Diagnostics (KY) ........................................................................................ 300 

Applied Agriculture and Environmental Research (CA) ............................................................................ 350 

Aquaculture (PA) ....................................................................................................................................... 164 
30 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—RESEARCH AND EDUCATION 

ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Biotechnology Research (MS) .................................................................................................................... 480 

Center for Dairy and Beef Excellence (PA) ............................................................................................... 340 

Clemson University Veterinary Institute (SC) ........................................................................................... 1,000 

Cotton Research (TX) ................................................................................................................................ 200 

Council for Agriculture Science and Technology (IA) ............................................................................... 110 

Data Information System (REEIS) ............................................................................................................. 2,704 

Ethnobotanicals (MD) ................................................................................................................................ 550 

Farmland Preservation (OH) ...................................................................................................................... 160 

Florida Biomass to Fuels Conversion Program ......................................................................................... 300 

International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand Markets (IN) .................................... 750 

Kansas Biobased Polymer Initiative ......................................................................................................... 750 

Medicinal and Bioactive Crops (TX) ......................................................................................................... 300 

Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center (IA) ....................................................................... 187 

Mississippi Valley State University ........................................................................................................... 1,002 

NE Center for Invasive Plants (CT, VT, ME) ............................................................................................. 295 

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

Pay, Move and Administrative Costs ........................................................................................................ 9,212 

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

PM–10 Study (WA) .................................................................................................................................... 150 

Polymer Research (KS) .............................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Rural Systems (MS) .................................................................................................................................. 215 

Shrimp Aquaculture (MS) .......................................................................................................................... 300 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (OH) .......................................................................................................... 500 

Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (MI) ........................................................................................................... 150 

Water Pollutants (WV) ............................................................................................................................... 500 

Total, Federal Administration ............................................................................................................... 25,111 

Higher Education: 

Graduate Fellowships Grants .................................................................................................................... 3,859 

Institution Challenge Grants ..................................................................................................................... 5,654 

1890s Institution Capacity Building Grants ............................................................................................. 16,500 

Multicultural Scholars ............................................................................................................................... 981 

Hispanic Serving Institutions Education Grants Program ........................................................................ 7,737 

Tribal Colleges Education Equity Grants Program ................................................................................... 3,342 

Secondary/2-Year Post Secondary ............................................................................................................. 983 

Veterinary Medical Services Act ................................................................................................................ 5,000 

Alaska Native-Serving and Native-Hawaiian Serving Institutions ........................................................... 3,200 

Resident Instruction Grants for Insular Areas ......................................................................................... 800 

Total, Higher Education Grants ............................................................................................................ 48,056 

Total, Research and Education ............................................................................................................ 757,821 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.—The Committee recommendation includes $296,681,000 for the Agriculture and Food 

Research Initiative [AFRI]. 

Section 7406 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

specifies priority areas within the Agriculture and Food Research 

Initiative [AFRI], including an 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 
31 

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 Policy Research.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $1,213,000 for the Food and Agriculture Policy Institute, 

of which $340,000 shall be used to conduct analysis of rangeland, 

cattle, and hay with the University of Nevada-Reno. 

Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions 

Education Grants.—The Committee recommends $3,200,000 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 $850,000 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. 

Food Allergies.—The Committee notes that evidence suggests 

that the prevalence of food allergies are increasing. It has been reported that food allergy is the leading cause of anaphylaxis outside 

the hospital setting. Currently, there is no treatment or cure, and 

the only way of dealing with such allergies is strict avoidance. The 

Committee encourages USDA, through AFRI, to fund meritorious 

research regarding food allergies, including efforts to determine 
32 

risk factors for food allergies and the development of models for allergic sensitization to foods. 

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 NIFA for research on forestry and related natural 

resource topics has fallen behind. In the future, the Committee directs the AFRI program administrator to put a greater emphasis 

on AFRI funding for forestry and natural resources topics with a 

goal of eventually providing at least 10 percent of the total funds 

provided for AFRI for forestry and natural resources related research on topics including: woody plant systems, including large 

scale efforts to sequence the genome for several economically important tree species, technologies for enhanced pest and disease resistance, and increased tree growth rates; management of complex 

forest ecosystems, including issues of forest health, productivity, 

economic sustainability, and restoration; assessing alternative 

management strategies, with emphasis on risk analysis, geospatial 

analysis including landscape implications, consideration of ecological services, providing decision support systems; and development 

of nanotechnology and biorefining technologies for the forest products sector as critical to enhancing global competitiveness and energy security. 

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 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-
33 

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 2010, 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, 2010 regarding the status of grant awards for 

fiscal year 2010 and the specific objectives to be sought in each 

case. 

NATIVE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS ENDOWMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $11,880,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $474,250,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 487,005,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 491,292,000 

Cooperative extension work was established by the Smith-Lever 

Act of May 8, 1914, as amended. The Department of Agriculture is 
34 

authorized to provide, through the land-grant colleges, cooperative 

extension work that consists of the development of practical applications of research knowledge and the giving of instruction and 

practical demonstrations of existing or improved practices or technologies in agriculture, uses of solar energy with respect to agriculture, home economics, related subjects, and to encourage the application of such information by demonstrations, publications, 

through 4–H clubs, and other means to persons not in attendance 

or resident at the colleges. 

To fulfill the requirements of the Smith-Lever Act, State and 

county extension offices in each State, the District of Columbia, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 

Northern Marianas, and Micronesia conduct educational programs 

to improve American agriculture and strengthen the Nation’s families and communities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $491,292,000 for 

extension activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for extension activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Smith-Lever Act, section 3(b)&(c) ..................................................................................................................... 300,000 

Smith-Lever, section 3d Programs: 

Food and Nutrition Education [EFNEP] ..................................................................................................... 68,139 

Farm Safety ............................................................................................................................................... 4,863 

New Technologies for Ag Extension .......................................................................................................... 2,000 

Improve Rural Quality of Life ................................................................................................................... ..........................

Pest Management ..................................................................................................................................... 10,085 

Children, Youth, and Families at Risk ..................................................................................................... 8,427 

Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification ....................................................................................... 493 

Federally-Recognized Tribes Extension Program ....................................................................................... 3,090 

Sustainable Agriculture ............................................................................................................................. 4,705 

Total, section 3d Programs .................................................................................................................. 101,802 

1890 Colleges, Tuskegee University and West Virginia State University ......................................................... 41,354 

Rural Health and Safety Education ................................................................................................................... 1,738 

1890 Facilities (sec. 1447) ................................................................................................................................ 18,540 

Grants to Youth Serving Institutions ................................................................................................................. 1,767 

Renewable Resources Extension Act [RREA] ..................................................................................................... 4,128 

Extension Services at the 1994 Institutions ..................................................................................................... 4,000 

Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database [FARAD] ......................................................................................... 1,000 

Women and Minorities in STEM Fields .............................................................................................................. 500 

Federal Administration: 

Ag in the Classroom ................................................................................................................................. 553 

Childhood Farm Safety (IA) ....................................................................................................................... 75 

Conservation Technology Transfer (WI) ..................................................................................................... 376 

Dairy Education (IA) .................................................................................................................................. 175 

E-commerce (MS) ...................................................................................................................................... 231 

Efficient Irrigation (NM, TX) ...................................................................................................................... 475 

Extension Specialist (MS) ......................................................................................................................... 98 

Food Production Education (VT) ................................................................................................................ 120 

General Administration, including Pay Costs ........................................................................................... 8,012 

Health Education Leadership (KY) ............................................................................................................ 590 
35 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—EXTENSION ACTIVITIES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (WI) ................................................................................................ 400 

Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach (MI) ...................................................................................... 155 

Iowa Vitality Center ................................................................................................................................... 250 

Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program ................................................................................................. 700 

National Center for Farm Safety (IA) ........................................................................................................ 170 

Nutrition Enhancement (WI) ...................................................................................................................... 950 

Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative ............................................................................................................... 700 

Pilot Technology Transfer (MS, OK) .......................................................................................................... 209 

Potato Integrated Pest Management—Late Blight (ME) ......................................................................... 450 

Range Improvement (NM) ......................................................................................................................... 223 

Urban Horticulture (WI) ............................................................................................................................. 376 

Urban Horticulture and Marketing (IL) ..................................................................................................... 175 

Veterinary Technology Satellite Programs (KS) ......................................................................................... 1,000 

Total, Federal Administration ............................................................................................................... 16,463 

Total, Extension Activities .................................................................................................................... 491,292 

INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $56,864,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 56,864,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 56,864,000 

Section 406, as amended, 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 $56,864,000 for 

integrated activities of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations for integrated activities: 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE [NIFA]—INTEGRATED ACTIVITIES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Section 406 Legislative Authority: 

Water Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 12,649 

Food Safety .................................................................................................................................................. 14,596 

Regional 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 ........................................................................................ 3,000 

Critical Issues Program ....................................................................................................................................... 732 

Regional Rural Development Centers Program ................................................................................................... 1,312 

Homeland Security, Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative .............................................................................. 9,830 

Total, Integrated Activities ..................................................................................................................... 56,864 
36 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR MARKETING AND

REGULATORY PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $737,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

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 $895,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs. 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $876,675,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 872,423,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 911,394,000 

The Secretary of Agriculture established the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service [APHIS] on April 2, 1972, under the authority of reorganization plan No. 2 of 1953, and other authorities. 

The major objectives of APHIS are to protect the animal and plant 

resources of the Nation from diseases and pests. These objectives 

are carried out under the major areas of activity, as follows: 

Pest and Disease Exclusion.—The agency conducts inspection and 

quarantine activities at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal and plant diseases and pests. The Agency also 

participates in inspection, survey, and control activities in foreign 

countries to reinforce its domestic activities. 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI].—The agency collects 

user fees to cover the cost of inspection and quarantine activities 

at U.S. ports of entry to prevent the introduction of exotic animal 

and plant diseases and pests. 

Plant and Animal Health Monitoring.—The agency conducts programs to assess animal and plant health and to detect endemic and 

exotic diseases and pests. 

Pest and Disease Management Programs.—The agency carries 

out programs to control and eradicate pest infestations and animal 

diseases that threaten the United States; reduce agricultural losses 

caused by predatory animals, birds, and rodents; provide technical 

assistance to other cooperators such as States, counties, farmer or 

rancher groups, and foundations; and ensure compliance with 

interstate movement and other disease control regulations within 

the jurisdiction of the agency. 
37 

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 $911,394,000 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 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION: 

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI] ................................... 26,979 26,000 29,000 

Cattle Fever Ticks ....................................................................... 9,907 13,157 13,157 

Foreign Animal Disease/Foot and Mouth Disease ...................... 4,000 4,004 4,004 

Fruit Fly Exclusion & Detection .................................................. 62,320 62,920 62,920 

Import/Export ............................................................................... 12,963 13,298 13,298 

Overseas Technical & Trade Operations .................................... 15,725 16,172 16,172 

Screwworm .................................................................................. 27,635 27,714 27,714 

Tropical Bont Tick ....................................................................... 425 429 429 

Subtotal, Pest and Disease Exclusion ................................... 159,954 163,694 166,694 

PLANT AND ANIMAL HEALTH MONITORING: 

Animal Health Monitoring & Surveillance .................................. 129,180 127,122 130,614 

Animal & Plant Health Reg. Enforcement .................................. 13,694 13,983 13,983 

Avian Influenza ........................................................................... 60,594 60,243 60,243 

Emergency Management Systems .............................................. 15,619 15,794 15,794 

National Veterinary Stockpile ...................................................... 3,739 3,757 3,757 

Pest Detection ............................................................................. 27,776 26,756 28,113 

Select Agents .............................................................................. 5,128 5,176 5,176 

Subtotal, Plant and Animal Health Monitoring ..................... 255,730 252,831 257,680 

PEST AND DISEASE MANAGEMENT: 

Aquaculture ................................................................................. 5,887 5,806 5,972 

Biological Control ........................................................................ 9,737 9,967 10,467 

Brucellosis ................................................................................... 9,584 9,057 9,707 

Chronic Wasting Disease ............................................................ 17,014 15,607 16,875 

Contingency Funds ...................................................................... 2,025 2,058 2,058 

Cotton Pests ................................................................................ 29,590 25,047 23,390 

Emerging Plant Pests ................................................................. 133,677 143,831 159,300 

Golden Nematode ........................................................................ 816 831 831 

Grasshopper ................................................................................ 5,552 4,578 6,078 

Gypsy Moth .................................................................................. 4,843 4,920 5,170 
38 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 enacted Fiscal year 2010 

budget request 

Committee recommendation 

Imported Fire Ant ........................................................................ 1,893 1,902 1,902 

Johne’s Disease ........................................................................... 6,821 5,937 6,876 

Noxious Weeds ............................................................................ 1,993 1,171 1,790 

Plum Pox ..................................................................................... 2,195 2,206 2,206 

Pseudorabies ............................................................................... 2,446 2,510 2,510 

Scrapie ........................................................................................ 17,733 17,906 17,906 

Tuberculosis ................................................................................ 15,657 15,516 15,764 

Wildlife Services Operations ....................................................... 76,047 70,502 76,281 

Witchweed ................................................................................... 1,510 1,517 1,517 

Subtotal, Pest and Disease Management .............................. 345,020 340,869 366,600 

ANIMAL CARE: 

Animal Welfare ............................................................................ 21,522 21,979 21,979 

Horse Protection .......................................................................... 499 500 500 

Subtotal, Animal Care ............................................................ 22,021 22,479 22,479 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES: 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services ............................................. 12,877 12,791 13,050 

Environmental Compliance ......................................................... 2,669 2,715 2,715 

Plant Methods Development Labs .............................................. 9,712 9,949 9,949 

Veterinary Biologics .................................................................... 16,922 17,325 17,325 

Veterinary Diagnostics ................................................................ 23,585 23,778 26,073 

Wildlife Services Methods Development ..................................... 17,986 15,793 18,630 

Subtotal, Scientific and Technical Services .......................... 83,751 82,351 87,742 

MANAGEMENT: 

APHIS Information Technology Infrastructure ............................. 4,474 4,474 4,474 

Physical/Operational Security ..................................................... 5,725 5,725 5,725 

Subtotal, Management ........................................................... 10,199 10,199 10,199 

TOTAL, APHIS .......................................................................... 876,675 872,423 911,394 

The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of contingency funding from Commodity Credit Corporation monies, as in 

past fiscal years, to cover additional emergencies as the Secretary 

determines necessary. 

PEST AND DISEASE EXCLUSION

Agricultural Quarantine Inspection [AQI] 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes an appropriation of $29,000,000 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 

$3,000,000 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 
39 

inspections for flights originating at neighbor island airports and 

connecting in Honolulu. 

Fruit Fly Exclusion and Detection 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $62,920,000 for the fruit fly exclusion and detection program, of which no less than the fiscal year 2009 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 $130,614,000 for the animal health monitoring and surveillance program, which includes $350,000 for the Trichinae certification program. 

Animal Identification.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$14,607,000 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. 

Disease Surveillance.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$700,000 to work with North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University to develop, test, and implement the use of 

RFID tags for animal identification, strengthening pathogen diagnostic and identification capabilities and pinpointing problem areas 

in the traceback systems and methods to resolve them. 

National Farm Animal Identification and Records.—The Committee recommendation includes $343,000 to allow additional producers to participate in the National Farm Animal Identification 

and Records Project, which electronically identifies individual animals and tracks their movements from birth to slaughter within 48 

hours in order to combat animal disease outbreaks. 

New Mexico Rapid Syndrome Validation Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $404,000 for the New Mexico 

Rapid Syndrome Validation Program to develop an early detection 

and reporting system for infectious animal diseases. 

Animal and Plant Health Regulatory Enforcement 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $13,983,000 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 $60,243,000 for avian influenza activities. 

Emergency Management Systems 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $15,794,000 for emergency management systems. 
40 

National Veterinary Stockpile 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $3,757,000 for the National Veterinary Stockpile. 

Pest Detection 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $28,113,000 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 $5,972,000 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. 

Invasive Aquatic Species.—The Committee recommendation includes $94,000 for the State of Vermont’s Lake Champlain’s Fish 

and Wildlife Management Cooperative for the control of invasive 

aquatic species, which cause 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 $4,600,000 for the control of VHS in the 

Great Lakes States. 

Biological Control 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $10,467,000 for biological control. 

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for control of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid in Tennessee. 
41 

Brucellosis Eradication 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $9,707,000 for brucellosis eradication. 

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee.—The 

Committee recommendation includes $650,000 for the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee to continue brucellosis 

prevention, surveillance, control, and eradication. The Committee 

encourages the coordination of Federal, State, and private actions 

to eliminate brucellosis from wildlife in the Greater Yellowstone 

area. This amount shall be equally divided between the States of 

Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. 

Chronic Wasting Disease [CWD] 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $16,875,000 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. 

Contingency Funds 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $2,058,000 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 $23,390,000 for the cotton pests program. 

Emerging Plant Pests 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $159,300,000 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 2010, as necessary. 

The Committee is concerned about the ever-increasing number of 

nonnative plant pests and diseases discovered in the United States. 

Significant Federal, State, and grower resources are being spent on 

controlling these pests and diseases, such as Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter and Pierce’s Disease, Asian Citrus Psyllid and 

Huanglongbing Disease, Light Brown Apple Moth, and other plant 

pests. These pests pose a real threat to the long-term economic viability of U.S. agriculture. The Committee urges APHIS to address 

this issue and to undertake extremely careful review of requests for 

importation from growing regions that are home to pests or diseases that do not exist in the United States so as not to add to the 

current pest and disease crisis. 

Asian Long Horned Beetle.—The Committee recommendation includes $30,021,000 for Asian long horned beetle. 
42 

Citrus Health Response Program.—The Committee recommendation includes $45,687,000 for the citrus health response program. 

Emerald Ash Borer.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$39,705,000 for emerald ash borer. This invasive species has been 

found in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

West 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. 

Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $22,983,000 for glassy-winged sharpshooter. 

Karnal Bunt.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$2,151,000 for karnal bunt. 

Light Brown Apple Moth.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,008,000 for Light Brown Apple Moth. 

Miscellaneous Pests.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$2,102,000 for miscellaneous pests. 

Potato Cyst Nematode.—The Committee recommendation includes $8,327,000 for potato cyst nematode. 

Sirex Woodwasp.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,500,000 for sirex woodwasp. 

Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramora).—The Committee recommendation includes $5,347,000 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 $469,000 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 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 $6,078,000 for the grasshopper program. 

Mormon Cricket.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,000,000 for grasshopper and cricket survey and control activities 

in the State of Nevada. 

Gypsy Moth 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $5,170,000 for the gypsy moth program. 

Gypsy Moth, New Jersey.—The Committee recommendation includes $250,000 to support and enhance gypsy moth control in communities and public lands in the State of New Jersey. 
43 

Johne’s Disease 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $6,876,000 for Johne’s disease. 

Noxious Weeds 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $1,790,000 for the noxious weeds program. 

Cogongrass Control.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$208,000 for an invasive species program to prevent the spread of 

cogongrass in Mississippi, and requests that the agency take necessary steps to address this invasive weed as a regional infestation 

problem. 

Nez Perce Bio-Control Center.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $176,000 for the Nez Perce Bio-Control Center to increase 

the availability and distribution of biological control organisms 

used in an integrated weed management system. 

Noxious Weed Management.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $235,000 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. 

Tuberculosis 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $15,764,000 for the tuberculosis program. 

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 recommendation includes $248,000 for 

bovine tuberculosis eradication efforts in the State of Michigan. 

Wildlife Services Operations 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $76,281,000 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. 

Animal Management and Control.—The Committee recommendation includes $496,000 for animal 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 animal damage to cropland and forests. 

Blackbird Management.—The Committee recommendation includes $265,000 to conduct methods development and continue control measures for minimizing blackbird damage in North and South 
44 

Dakota. The Committee recommendation also includes $94,000 for 

blackbird management activities in Louisiana. 

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 

$465,000 for cormorant management and control, which includes 

$139,000 for the State of Michigan, $103,000 for the Lake Champlain basin, and $223,000 for Delta States’ operations. 

Integrated Predation Management Activities.—The Committee 

recommendation includes $280,000 for integrated predation management activities in the State of West Virginia. 

Oral Rabies Vaccination.—The Committee recommendation includes $23,810,000 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 $926,000 for the tri-State predator control 

program in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming to respond to wolf depredation and monitor wolf populations. 

Wildlife Services, Hawaii.—The Committee recommendation includes $2,230,000 for Wildlife Service Operations in Hawaii. These 

operations include support for the State office to provide on-site coordination of prevention and control activities in Hawaii and the 

American Pacific, support for a permanent facility in Hilo for 

vertebrate pest control in Hawaii and the Pacific Region, continued 

rodent control efforts in active agricultural areas, prevention of the 

movement of Brown Tree Snakes from Guam to Hawaii, efforts to 

control coqui frog infestations, and other wildlife services activities. 

Wildlife Services South Dakota.—The Committee recommendation includes $519,000 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 $21,979,000 for the animal care unit for enforcement of 

the Animal Welfare Act. 

Horse Welfare.—The Committee directs the Government Accountability Office [GAO] to conduct an investigation on the status of 

horse welfare in this country as it relates to the cessation of horse 

slaughter operations. In particular, the Committee believes that 

GAO should consider, at least, how the horse industry has re-
45 

sponded to the closure of U.S. horse slaughter facilities in terms of 

both the numbers of horse sales, exports, adoptions, or abandonments; the implications these changes have had on farm income 

and trade; the extent to which horses in the United States are 

slaughtered for any purpose; any impacts to State and local governments and animal protection organizations; how the Department 

oversees the transport of horses destined for slaughter in foreign 

countries, particularly Canada and Mexico; the manner in which 

the Department coordinates with the Department of the Interior 

and State governments to assist them in identifying, holding and 

transporting unwanted horses for foreign export; and general conclusions regarding the welfare of horses as a result of a ban on 

horse slaughter for human consumption. The Committee expects a 

report in this investigation by March 1, 2010. 

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Biotechnology Regulatory Services 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $13,050,000 for biotechnology regulatory services. 

Genetically Modified Products.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $259,000 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 $9,949,000 for the Plant Methods Development Laboratories Program. 

Sericea Lespedeza.—Sericea lespedeza is an important field crop 

in the southeastern United States. Sericea lespedeza also poses environmental challenges to ecosystems in tall grass prairie lands in 

the Great Plains region. APHIS is encouraged to collaborate with 

conservation programs in the Great Plains region where sericea 

lespedeza is an invasive species to find economically and ecologically appropriate approaches. 

Veterinary Diagnostics 

Committee Recommendation.—The Committee recommendation 

includes $26,073,000 for veterinary diagnostics, which includes an 

increase of $1,657,000 for APHIS costs associated with the agency’s 

mission at the National Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa. 

Agriculture Compliance Laboratory.—The Committee recommendation includes $69,000 for the animal health diagnostic 

laboratory in the State of Delaware. 

Disease Prevention.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$69,000 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 $500,000 for the National Agriculture Bio-
46 

security 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 $18,630,000 for wildlife services methods development. 

Berryman Institute.—The Committee recommendation includes 

$1,500,000 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 Station, Texas.—The Committee recommendation includes $290,000 for the National Wildlife Research 

Station located in the State of Texas for activities related to emerging infectious diseases associated with wildlife populations and 

human health. 

Predator Control.—The Committee understands that APHIS is 

currently evaluating a theobromine and caffeine mixture as a possible tool for predation management. The Committee also understands that this mixture induces mortality with minimal pre-mortality symptoms, and because theobromine and caffeine are readily 

available, antidotes exist should it be accidentally ingested by livestock or a pet. The Committee encourages APHIS to continue evaluating this method, conduct field studies, and take the appropriate 

steps to register these compounds with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

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. 

The following is a list of congressionally designated projects: 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

Project Program Amount 

Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department of Agriculture.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ $69,000 

Animal management and control, APHIS Mississippi ................... Wildlife services operations ................... 496,000 

Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station.Wildlife services methods development.1,500,000 

Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont ........ Animal health monitoring and surveillance.240,000 

Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana ..................................... Wildlife services operations ................... 94,000

Blackbird management, APHIS North and South Dakota ............. Wildlife services operations ................... 265,000 

Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department 

of Agriculture.

Tuberculosis ............................................ 248,000 
47 

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS— 

Continued 

Project Program Amount 

California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and Agriculture.Pest detection ......................................... 619,000 

California county pest detection import inspection program, 

California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Pest detection ......................................... 738,000 

Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture ......... Noxious weeds ........................................ 208,000 

Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania 

and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.

Wildlife services operations ................... 223,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan .............................................. Wildlife services operations ................... 139,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi ........................................... Wildlife services operations ................... 223,000 

Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department.Wildlife services operations ................... 103,000 

Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ 69,000 

Disease surveillance in North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University.Animal health monitoring and surveillance.700,000 

Genetically modified products, Iowa State University ................... Biotechnology regulatory services .......... 259,000 

Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho 

Department of Agriculture, Montana Department of Livestock, 

Wyoming Livestock Board.

Brucellosis .............................................. 650,000 

Gypsy moth, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Agriculture .. Gypsy moth ............................................. 250,000 

Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii ...................................................... Agricultural quarantine inspection ........ 3,000,000 

Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS Hawaii ......................... Wildlife services operations ................... 2,230,000 

Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee ...... Biological control .................................... 500,000 

Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia.Wildlife services operations ................... 280,000 

Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife 

Management Cooperative, Vermont.

Aquaculture ............................................ 94,000 

Mormon cricket Nevada, APHIS Nevada ........................................ Grasshopper ............................................ 1,000,000 

National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University.Veterinary diagnostics ............................ 500,000 

National farm animal identification and records, Holstein Association.Animal health monitoring and surveillance.343,000 

National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M ............................ Wildlife services methods development.290,000 

New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico 

State University.

Animal health monitoring and surveillance.404,000 

Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe .............................. Noxious weeds ........................................ 176,000 

Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture .. Noxious weeds ........................................ 235,000 

Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.Wildlife services operations ................... 926,000 

Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii ........................................ Emerging plant pests ............................. 469,000 

Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of 

Game, Fish, and Parks.

Wildlife services operations ................... 519,000 

TOTAL, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ....... ................................................................. 18,059,000 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $4,712,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,712,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,712,000 

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 

$4,712,000 for buildings and facilities of the Animal and Plant 
48 

Health Inspection Service. This funding is necessary to allow 

APHIS to maintain existing facilities, and perform critically needed 

repairs to and replacements of building components, such as heating, ventilation and air-conditioning on a prioritized basis at 

APHIS facilities. The Committee notes that due to the environmentally sensitive nature of many APHIS facilities, closure of a facility could result if APHIS is unable to complete the required repairs. 

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

MARKETING SERVICES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $86,711,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 90,848,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 90,848,000 

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 $90,848,000 for 

marketing services of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

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 $6,667,000 

for the National Organic Program [NOP]. The Committee encourages the agency to fund independent and comprehensive scientific 

reviews of substances and materials proposed for use in organic agriculture, prior to their consideration by the National Organic 

Standards Board, as required by the Organic Foods Production Act 

[OFPA]. The Committee further encourages the agency to finalize 

the pending pasture rule for organic livestock and initiate rulemaking to address the issue of the origin of livestock. Finally, the 

Committee expects the NOP to move forward with respect to Peer 
49 

Review Panel requirements of the OFPA and USDA’s organic regulations. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $62,888,000 

Budget limitation, 2010 ......................................................................... 64,583,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 64,583,000 

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 $64,583,000 on administrative expenses of the Agricultural Marketing Service. 

FUNDS FOR STRENGTHENING MARKETS, INCOME, AND SUPPLY

(SECTION 32)

MARKETING AGREEMENTS AND ORDERS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $17,270,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 20,056,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,056,000 

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 

2008–2010: 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2008– 

2010 

Fiscal year 2008 

actual 

Fiscal year 2009 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2010 

estimate 

Appropriation (30 percent of Customs Receipts) .......................... $7,563,683,777 $7,979,334,788 $8,061,101,371 

Rescission ...................................................................................... ¥684,000,000 ¥293,530,000 ¥43,000,000 

Less Transfers: 

Food and Nutrition Service ................................................... ¥6,253,548,000 ¥6,455,802,000 ¥6,747,877,000 

Commerce Department ......................................................... ¥84,594,777 ¥108,510,788 ¥114,224,371 

Total, Transfers ................................................................ ¥6,338,142,777 ¥6,564,312,788 ¥6,862,101,371 

Budget Authority ............................................................................ 541,541,000 1,121,492,000 1,156,000,000 

Unobligated Balance Available, Start of Year .............................. 500,000,000 293,529,985 343,491,985 

Offsetting Collections .................................................................... 53,516,377 ............................ ............................
50 

ESTIMATED TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE AND BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD—FISCAL YEARS 2008– 

2010—Continued 

Fiscal year 2008 

actual 

Fiscal year 2009 

estimate 

Fiscal year 2010 

estimate 

Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations ............................................. 11,861 ............................ ............................

Available for Obligation ................................................................. 1,095,069,238 1,415,021,985 1,499,491,985 

Less Obligations: 

Child Nutrition Programs (Entitlement Commodities) .......... 464,937,227 465,000,000 465,000,000 

12 Percent Commodity Floor Requirement ........................... ............................ ............................ 176,000,000 

Accounting Adjustment ......................................................... 2,750,442 ............................ ............................

State Option Contract ........................................................... 174,201 ............................ 5,000,000 

Removal of Defective Commodities ...................................... 49,914,151 2,500,000 2,500,000 

Emergency Surplus Removal ................................................ 53,653,928 279,167,505 ............................

Direct Payments .................................................................... ............................ 750,000 ............................

Disaster Relief ...................................................................... 1,722,264 5,000,000 5,000,000 

Additional Fruits, Vegetables, and Nuts Purchases ............. 180,777,638 119,500,000 199,000,000 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program ..................................... ............................ 108,000,000 101,000,000 

Whole Grain Products Study [FSA] ....................................... ............................ 4,000,000 ............................

Estimated Future Needs ....................................................... ............................ 38,261,495 193,108,000

Total, Commodity Procurement ........................................ 753,929,851 1,022,179,000 1,146,608,000 

Administrative Funds: 

Commodity Purchase Support ............................................... 32,594,780 22,081,000 22,336,000 

WebSCM—Additional Funding .............................................. ............................ 10,000,000 10,000,000 

Marketing Agreements and Orders ....................................... 15,014,622 17,270,000 20,056,000 

Total, Administrative Funds ............................................. 47,609,402 49,351,000 52,392,000 

Total, Obligations ............................................................. 801,539,253 1,071,530,000 1,199,000,000 

Unobligated Balance Available, End of Year ................................ 293,529,985 343,491,985 300,491,985 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a transfer from section 32 funds of 

$20,056,000 for the formulation and administration of marketing 

agreements and orders. 

Section 32 Authorities.—Under the authority described in clause 

3 of 7 U.S.C. 612c, the Secretary is able to direct funds from the 

section 32 account to increase the purchasing power of producers. 

This practice has been used on various occasions to provide direct 

assistance to producers when market forces or natural conditions 

adversely affect the financial condition of farmers and ranchers. 

The Committee notes the importance in the ability of the Secretary 

to utilize this authority, but believes that communication between 

the Department and the Congress should be improved when this 

practice is used. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary to 

provide notification to the Appropriations Committee in advance of 

any public announcement or release of section 32 funds under the 

specific authorities cited above. 

PAYMENTS TO STATES AND POSSESSIONS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $1,334,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,334,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,334,000 

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 
51 

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 $1,334,000 for 

payments to States and possessions for Federal-State marketing 

projects and activities. 

GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $40,342,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 41,964,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,564,000 

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 

[GIPSA] was established pursuant to the Secretary’s 1994 reorganization. Grain inspection and weighing programs are carried out 

under the U.S. Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71 et seq.) and other 

programs under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 

1946, including the inspection and grading of rice and grain-related 

products; conducting official weighing and grain inspection activities; and grading dry beans and peas, and processed grain products. Under the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), 

assurance of the financial integrity of the livestock, meat, and poultry markets is provided. The administration monitors competition 

in order to protect producers, consumers, and industry from deceptive and fraudulent practices which affect meat and poultry prices. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,564,000 for 

salaries and expenses of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration. The Committee recommendation includes an 

increase of $500,000 for enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards 

Act. 

LIMITATION ON INSPECTION AND WEIGHING SERVICES EXPENSES

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $42,463,000 

Budget limitation, 2010 ......................................................................... 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 
52 

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, 2009 ............................................................................. $613,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 813,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 813,000 

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 processed egg products. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $813,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety. 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $971,566,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,018,520,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,018,520,000 

The major objectives of the Food Safety and Inspection Service 

are to assure that meat and poultry products are wholesome, unadulterated, and properly labeled and packaged, as required by the 

Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and the Poultry 

Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.); and to provide continuous in-plant inspection to egg processing plants under the Egg 

Products Inspection Act. 

The Food Safety and Inspection Service was established on June 

17, 1981, by Secretary’s Memorandum No. 1000–1, issued pursuant 

to Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953. 

The inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service provides continuous in-plant inspection of all domestic plants 

preparing meat, poultry or egg products for sale or distribution; reviews foreign inspection systems and establishments that prepare 

meat or poultry products for export to the United States; and provides technical and financial assistance to States which maintain 

meat and poultry inspection programs. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,018,520,000 

for the Food Safety and Inspection Service. 

Codex Alimentarius.—Codex Alimentarius is critical for the protection of consumer health globally and facilitating international 

trade. Therefore, the Committee recommends $3,884,000 exclusively for the activities of the U.S. Codex office including international outreach and education. 
53 

Humane Slaughter.—The Committee continues to include 

$3,000,000, as requested in the budget, for maintenance of the Humane Animal Tracking System. Further, the Committee notes that 

the budget request will maintain no less than 150 full-time equivalent positions which have been provided solely for humane slaughter enforcement. The Committee is pleased that FSIS is currently 

hiring additional Public Health Veterinarians and Consumer Safety Inspectors to be located at Federally inspected plants who 

slaughter a high number of cull cattle, and directs FSIS to report 

on this hiring activity. 

The Committee has previously encouraged FSIS to consider a 

number of objective scoring techniques to measure more precisely 

the extent to and the occasions in which regulatory actions may be 

appropriate, including means by which FSIS personnel can actually 

document improvements or failures in animal handling and slaughter operations. These scoring techniques may include, but not be 

limited to, overall facility ratings in regard to layout, a systematic 

approach to monitoring HMSA requirements, or other means to establish an objective measure of operational performance. The Committee directs FSIS to provide a report on the potential for these 

actions. 

Poultry Imports.—With respect to imports of processed poultry 

products, the Committee has concerns that the People’s Republic of 

China may not have in place the tracing mechanisms required to 

guarantee that only eligible raw material is used in further processing, that raw inputs or final products destined for the United 

States market are not commingled with ineligible inputs or products, or that the end product is sufficiently cooked so that all 

pathogens have been killed. The Committee believes that standards 

relating to food safety (including the safety of imported products) 

must be based on a strong scientific basis. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a general provision requiring special measures 

by the Secretary to guarantee food safety for United States consumers relating to poultry products from China including enhanced 

audit systems, port of entry inspections, and the establishment of 

an information system relating to audits and plant inspections. 

State Meat Inspection.—The Committee notes that USDA is promulgating regulations regarding interstate shipment of meat and 

poultry from eligible State-inspected plants, in accordance with 

Public Law 110–246. The Committee further notes that the Final 

Rule is expected to be published by December 2009 and strongly 

encourages USDA to collaborate with State agencies, as appropriate, on this effort. 

The following table represents the Committee’s specific recommendations for the Food Safety and Inspection Service as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Food Safety Inspection: 

Federal .............................................................................................. 871,150 903,067 903,067 

State .................................................................................................. 64,703 65,654 65,654 
54 

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE SALARIES AND EXPENSES—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget request 

Committee 

recommendation 

International ...................................................................................... 18,916 19,445 19,445 

Codex Alimentarius ........................................................................... 3,827 3,884 3,884 

PHDCIS .............................................................................................. 12,970 26,470 26,470 

Total .............................................................................................. 971,566 1,018,520 1,018,520 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FARM AND FOREIGN

AGRICULTURAL SERVICES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $646,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

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 $895,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural 

Services. 

Food Aid Quality.—The Committee expects that commodities 

procured by USDA and provided for the purpose of international 

humanitarian food assistance meet adequate levels of quality assurance to fully comply with program requirements. Toward that 

goal, the Department has conducted an initial assessment of food 

aid quality systems and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 

2008 authorized the Secretary to use Food for Peace title II funds 

to implement food quality assurance measures. The Committee encourages the Secretary to move forward with the development and 

implementation of quality systems improvements, such as those 

identified through the initial assessment, and to utilize existing authorities to improve the quality, shelf life, bioavailability, and safety of food aid commodities and products procured by the Department. 

Additionally, the Secretary is directed to conduct an assessment 

to evaluate the most cost-effective and practical means to assure 

the safety and quality of food assistance products procured through 

local and regional purchase authorities. The Committee expects the 

USAID Administrator to cooperate with such assessment by providing data on food assistance products (types, quantities, cost, etc.) 

procured locally and regionally through the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance, PEPFAR and other relevant authorities, and the 

requirements and systems in place to assure the quality and safety 

of such products. 
55 

The Committee expects a report on the activities under this 

heading. 

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

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

program accounts 

Total, FSA, salaries, and expenses 

Appropriations, 2009 1 ......................................................................... 1,220,273 312,487 1,532,760 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................ 1,253,777 321,340 1,575,117 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 1,253,777 316,340 1,570,117 

1 Includes $50,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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, Food for Peace 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,570,117,000 

for salaries and expenses of the Farm Service Agency. 

National Agriculture Imagery Program.—The Committee recommends that funds be allocated to purchase high resolution sat-
56 

ellite 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. 

The Committee recognizes the potential for substantial overlap 

between the National Agriculture Imagery Program [NAIP] and the 

Commerce Department’s responsibilities to map broadband accessibility in rural areas, as required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5). High resolution imagery will be the foundation of an effective broadband mapping system and the Committee is concerned that these two initiatives not 

duplicate efforts. NAIP has a demonstrated history with USDA of 

delivering effective results at acceptable costs. The Committee directs the Secretary to engage the Secretary of Commerce in discussions concerning utilizing the established NAIP program, through 

reimbursable agreements, to help address broadband mapping requirements of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The 

Committee also encourages the Secretary to pursue reimbursable 

agreements with other agencies and Departments that benefit from 

NAIP services. 

STATE MEDIATION GRANTS

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

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 4,369,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 4,369,000 

This program is authorized under title V of the Agricultural 

Credit Act of 1987 (7 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.). Originally designed to 

address agricultural credit disputes, the program was expanded by 

the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 

Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354) to include other 

agricultural issues such as wetland determinations, conservation 

compliance, rural water loan programs, grazing on National Forest 

System lands, and pesticides. The authorization for this program 

was extended through fiscal year 2010 by Public Law 109–17. 

Grants are made to States whose mediation programs have been 

certified by the FSA. Grants will be solely for operation and administration of the State’s agricultural mediation program. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,369,000 for 

State Mediation Grants. 

GRASSROOTS SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

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

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 

Grassroots Source Water Protection. 
57 

DAIRY INDEMNITY PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $1,700,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 1 ......................................................................... 930,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 930,000 

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

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 such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2010 to be $930,000, for 

repayment to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for net 

realized losses. 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account is 

used to provide direct and guaranteed farm ownership, farm operating, conservation, Indian highly fractioned land, and emergency 

loans to individuals, as well as the following types of loans to associations: irrigation and drainage, grazing, Indian tribe land acquisition, and boll weevil eradication. 

FSA is also authorized to provide financial assistance to borrowers by guaranteeing loans made by private lenders having a 

contract of guarantee from FSA as approved by the Secretary of 

Agriculture and to establish Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development grant accounts. 

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 
58 

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. 

Conservation Loans.—Made to farmers, ranchers, and other entities controlled by farmers and ranchers and primarily engaged in 

agricultural production. Direct and guaranteed loans may be used 

for conservation projects that support a USDA-approved conservation plan. Guarantees cover 75 percent of the principal loan 

amount. 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans.—Made to Indian tribal 

members to purchase highly fractionated lands, as authorized by 

the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development 

Grants.—Made to beginning farmers and ranchers who lack significant assets and have incomes below either 80 percent of the State’s 

median income, or 200 percent of the State’s poverty income level. 

Grants provide for matching-funds savings accounts to be used for 

specified farming-related expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends a total loan level of $4,149,457,000 

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 2009 and the 

budget request levels: 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget 

Committee 

recommendation 

Farm ownership: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 222,298 392,990 392,990 

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–32 ................................ 360,000 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed .................................................................................. 1,238,768 1,500,000 1,500,000 

Farm Operating: 

Direct ........................................................................................... 575,095 700,000 700,000 

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–5 .................................. 173,367 .......................... ..........................

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–32 ................................ 400,000 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed unsubsidized ........................................................... 1,017,497 1,150,000 1,150,000 

Guaranteed unsubsidized, as provided in Public Law 111– 

32 ........................................................................................... 50,201 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed subsidized ............................................................... 269,986 144,467 144,467 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition ............................................................. 3,940 2,000 2,000 

Conservation Loans: 

Direct ........................................................................................... .......................... 75,000 75,000 

Guaranteed .................................................................................. .......................... 75,000 75,000 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .............................................. .......................... 10,000 10,000 
59 

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT PROGRAMS—LOAN LEVELS—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

enacted 

Fiscal year 2010 

budget 

Committee 

recommendation 

Boll Weevil Eradication ........................................................................ 100,000 60,000 100,000 

Total, Farm loans (excluding Public Law 111–5 and Public 

Law 111–32) ...................................................................... 3,427,584 4,109,457 4,149,457 

Total, Farm loans, as provided by Public Law 111–5 and 

Public Law 111–32 ............................................................ 983,568 .......................... ..........................

Total, Farm loans ................................................................... 4,411,152 4,109,457 4,149,457 

LOAN SUBSIDIES, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Subsidies 

Grants 

Administrative expenses 

Total ACIF 

Direct loan Guaranteed 

loan Total Appropriations 

Transfer to 

FSA 

Appropriations, 2009 1 .................. 171,227 67,905 239,132 ................ 317,323 309,403 556,455 

Budget estimate, 2010 ................. 51,072 53,050 104,122 5,000 326,093 318,173 435,215 

Committee recommendation ......... 51,072 53,050 104,122 ................ 321,093 313,173 425,215 

1 Includes $91,710,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5 and Public Law 111–32. 

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 programs under credit reform: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2009 enacted 2010 budget Committee 

recommendation 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership: 

Direct .................................................................................. 12,715 16,034 16,034 

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–32 ....................... 22,860 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed ......................................................................... 4,088 5,550 5,550 

Farm operating: 

Direct .................................................................................. 67,804 33,180 33,180 

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–5 ......................... 20,440 .......................... ..........................

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–32 ....................... 47,160 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed unsubsidized .................................................. 25,336 26,910 26,910 

Guaranteed unsubsidized, as provided in Public Law 

111–32 .......................................................................... 1,250 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed subsidized ...................................................... 37,231 20,312 20,312 

Indian Tribe Land Acquisition .................................................... 248 .......................... ..........................

Conservation Loans: 

Direct .................................................................................. .......................... 1,065 1,065 

Guaranteed ......................................................................... .......................... 278 278 

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans ..................................... .......................... 793 793 

Total, loan subsidies, excluding Public Law 111–5 and 

Public Law 111–32 ............................................................ 147,422 104,122 104,122 

Total loan subsidies provided by Public Law 111–5 and 

Public Law 111–32 ............................................................ 91,710 .......................... ..........................
60 

[In thousands of dollars] 

2009 enacted 2010 budget Committee 

recommendation 

Total, loan subsidies .............................................................. 239,132 104,122 104,122 

Individual Development Accounts ........................................................ .......................... 5,000 ..........................

ACIF expenses ...................................................................................... 317,323 326,093 321,093 

RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $77,177,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 80,325,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 79,425,000 

The Risk Management Agency performs administrative functions 

relative to the Federal crop insurance program that is authorized 

by the Federal Crop Insurance Act (7 U.S.C. 1508), as amended by 

the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 [ARPA], Public Law 

106–224, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 

(Public Law 110–246). 

ARPA authorized significant changes in the crop insurance program. This act provides higher government subsidies for producer 

premiums to make coverage more affordable; expands research and 

development for new insurance products and under-served areas 

through contracts with the private sector; and tightens compliance. 

Functional areas of risk management are: research and development; insurance services; and compliance, whose functions include 

policy formulation and procedures and regulations development. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $79,425,000 for 

the Risk Management Agency. 

CORPORATIONS 

FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION FUND

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $6,582,945,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 1 ......................................................................... 7,502,601,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 7,502,601,000 

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. 
61 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated to be $7,502,601,000 for the Federal 

Crop Insurance Corporation Fund. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION FUND

The Commodity Credit Corporation [CCC] is a wholly owned 

Government corporation created in 1933 to stabilize, support, and 

protect farm income and prices; to help maintain balanced and adequate supplies of agricultural commodities, including products, 

foods, feeds, and fibers; and to help in the orderly distribution of 

these commodities. CCC was originally incorporated under a Delaware charter and was reincorporated June 30, 1948, as a Federal 

corporation within the Department of Agriculture by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act, approved June 29, 1948 (15 

U.S.C. 714). 

The Commodity Credit Corporation engages in buying, selling, 

lending, and other activities with respect to agricultural commodities, their products, food, feed, and fibers. Its purposes include stabilizing, supporting, and protecting farm income and prices; maintaining the balance and adequate supplies of selected commodities; 

and facilitating the orderly distribution of such commodities. In addition, the Corporation makes available materials and facilities required in connection with the storage and distribution of such commodities. The Corporation also disburses funds for sharing of costs 

with producers for the establishment of approved conservation 

practices on environmentally sensitive land and subsequent rental 

payments for such land for the duration of Conservation Reserve 

Program contracts. 

Corporation activities are primarily governed by the following 

statutes: the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (Public 

Law 80–806), as amended; the Agricultural Act of 1949 (Public Law 

81–439), as amended (1949 Act); the Agricultural Adjustment Act 

of 1938 (Public Law 75–430), as amended (the 1938 Act); the Food 

Security Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–198), as amended (1985 Act); 

and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Public Law 

110–246). 

Management of the Corporation is vested in a board of directors, 

subject to the general supervision and direction of the Secretary of 

Agriculture, who is an ex officio director and chairman of the 

board. The board consists of seven members, in addition to the Secretary, who are appointed by the President of the United States 

with the advice and consent of the Senate. Officers of the Corporation are designated according to their positions in the Department 

of Agriculture. 

The activities of the Corporation are carried out mainly by the 

personnel and through the facilities of the Farm Service Agency 

[FSA] and the Farm Service Agency State and county committees. 

The Foreign Agricultural Service, the General Sales Manager, 

other agencies and offices of the Department, and commercial 

agents are also used to carry out certain aspects of the Corporation’s activities. 
62 

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, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $11,106,324,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 1 ......................................................................... 13,878,054,000 

Committee recommendation 1 ............................................................... 13,878,054,000 

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of such sums as 

may be necessary, estimated in fiscal year 2010 to be 

$13,878,054,000, for the payment to reimburse the Commodity 

Credit Corporation for net realized losses. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $5,000,000 

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

Commodity Credit Corporation’s hazardous waste management 

program. 
(63) 

TITLE II 

CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND

ENVIRONMENT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $758,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

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 $895,000 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. 

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, 2009 ............................................................................. $853,400,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 867,197,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 949,577,000 

Conservation operations are authorized by Public Law 74–46 (16 

U.S.C. 590a–590f). Activities include: 
64 

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 $949,577,000 for 

Conservation Operations. The recommendation includes the following: $9,930,000 for Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative; 

$93,939,000 for Soil Surveys; $10,965,000 for Snow Survey and 

Water Forecasting; $11,088,000 for Plant Materials Centers; 

$751,214,000 for conservation technical assistance; $21,711,000 for 

congressionally directed spending; and $50,730,000 for RC&D’s. 

National Geospatial Development Center.—The Committee encourages NRCS to continue activities at the National Geospatial 

Development Center in Morgantown, West Virginia. 

Resource Conservation and Development.—The Committee includes funding within the appropriation for Conservation Operations to support the Resource Conservation and Development 

[RC&D] program. The agency may use up to $50,730,000, the 

amount available in fiscal year 2009, to continue this program. If 

the Secretary chooses to provide funding for this program, the 

Committee expects the agency to fund meritorious RC&D councils 

with a proven track record in promoting conservation, development, 

and utilization of natural resources. Further, the Committee expects a report on the allocation of these funds including: the RC&D 

council receiving funds, the amount provided, and what activities 

the council will undertake. 
65 

For fiscal year 2010, the Committee recommends funding, as 

specified below, for new and ongoing conservation activities. 

Amounts recommended by the Committee for specific conservation 

measures shall be in addition to levels otherwise made available to 

States. 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE—CONSERVATION OPERATIONS— 

CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee recommendation 

Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey (WY) ................................................................................................................ 200 

Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation (HI) ................................................................................ 1,400 

Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center (MS) ................................................................................................... 939 

Appropriate Wetland and Wet-Mesic Species (IA) ............................................................................................... 134 

CEMSA with Iowa Soybean Association (IA) ........................................................................................................ 288 

Center for Invasive Species Eradication (TX) ...................................................................................................... 1,000 

Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative (LA) ......................................................................................................... 500 

Conservation Fuels Management and Restoration (NV) ...................................................................................... 269 

Conservation Internships (WI) .............................................................................................................................. 120 

Conservation Technical Assistance in New Jersey .............................................................................................. 236 

Conservation Technical Assistance in Tennessee ............................................................................................... 1,000 

Conservation Technology Transfer (WI) ................................................................................................................ 516 

Delta Conservation Demonstration (MS) .............................................................................................................. 376 

Delta Water Study (MS) ....................................................................................................................................... 235 

Farm Viability Program (VT) ................................................................................................................................ 300 

Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement (GA) ............................................... 800 

Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education Watershed Project (TX) ................................................ 300 

Grazing Land Conservation (WI) .......................................................................................................................... 732 

Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control .................................................................. 404 

Great Plain Riparian Initiative (NE) .................................................................................................................... 500 

Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project (KY) ........................................................................ 100 

Hungry Canyons Alliance (IA) .............................................................................................................................. 282 

Illinois Conservation Initiative (IL) ...................................................................................................................... 576 

Kentucky Soil Erosion Control .............................................................................................................................. 724 

Mississippi Conservation Initiative ...................................................................................................................... 2,000 

Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient Irrigation (CA) ............................................................ 150 

Nitrate Pollution Reduction (RI) ........................................................................................................................... 155 

Operation Oak Program ........................................................................................................................................ 100 

Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain (VT) ................................................................................................... 179 

Phosphorous Reduction Cooperative Agreement (KS) .......................................................................................... 1,000 

Potomac River Tributary (WV) .............................................................................................................................. 168 

Riparian Restoration (NM) ................................................................................................................................... 200 

Risk Management Initiative (WV) ........................................................................................................................ 673 

Soil Phosphorus Studies (WV) .............................................................................................................................. 202 

Soil Survey (RI) .................................................................................................................................................... 134 

Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts ................................................................ 545 

UMASS—Amherst Ecological Conservation Initiative (MA) ................................................................................. 140 

Utah Conservation Initiative ................................................................................................................................ 2,500 

Watershed Demonstration Project (IA) ................................................................................................................. 134 

Watershed Planning Staff (HI) ............................................................................................................................. 500 

Yankee Tank Dam (KS) ........................................................................................................................................ 1,000 

Total, Conservation Operations .............................................................................................................. 21,711 

WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $314,289,000 

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

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 24,394,000 

1 Includes $290,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 
66 

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 $24,394,000 for 

Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. The Committee encourages NRCS to fund the highest ranked projects identified in 

State priority lists and work to complete the final phase of multipurpose structures. 

The following is a list of congressionally designated projects: 

NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE—WATERSHED AND FLOOD PREVENTION 

OPERATIONS—CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED PROJECTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Committee 

recommendation 

Ashley Valley Flood Control (UT) .......................................................................................................................... 300 

Dry Creek Watershed (CA) .................................................................................................................................... 500 

Dunloup Creek (WV) ............................................................................................................................................. 1,500 

DuPage County Watershed (IL) ............................................................................................................................ 1,000 

Lahaina Watershed (HI) ....................................................................................................................................... 1,000 

Lost River (WV) .................................................................................................................................................... 4,000 

Lower Hamakua (HI) ............................................................................................................................................ 1,800 

Missouri Watershed projects (MO) ....................................................................................................................... 2,000 

Pocasset River (RI) .............................................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Upcountry Maui (HI) ............................................................................................................................................. 2,000 

Upper Clark Fork Watershed (MT) ........................................................................................................................ 200 

Wailuku-Alenaio (HI) ............................................................................................................................................ 250 

Total, Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations ............................................................................... 16,550 

WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $90,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 40,161,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,161,000 

1 Includes $50,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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 
67 

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 $40,161,000 for 

the Watershed Rehabilitation Program. 

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, 2009 ............................................................................. $50,730,000 

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

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

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 provides funding for Resource Conservation and 

Development within the appropriation for Conservation Operations. 
(68) 

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, 2009 ............................................................................. $646,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 895,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 895,000 

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 $895,000 for the 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— 

Committee 

2009 recommendation 

appropriation 

2010 budget 

request 

Appropriation ........................................................................................ 192,484 195,987 207,237 

Transfer from: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Loan Program Account ............. 460,217 468,593 468,593 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Program Account ....................................................................................... 39,245 39,959 39,959 

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account ....................... 4,853 4,941 4,941 

Total RD salaries and expenses ............................................ 696,799 709,480 720,730 
69 

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 $720,730,000 for salaries and expenses of Rural Development. Rural Development’s administrative 

support, particularly in the area of information technology, has not 

kept pace with the explosive growth in its portfolio. The Committee 

is providing additional funds to ensure that as Rural Development’s responsibilities expand into new spheres, including renewable energy, Rural Development has adequate resources to handle 

the tasks. 

RURAL HOUSING SERVICE

The Rural Housing Service [RHS] was established under the 

Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994, dated October 13, 1994. 

The mission of the Service is to improve the quality of life in 

rural America by assisting rural residents and communities in obtaining adequate and affordable housing and access to needed community facilities. The goals and objectives of the Service are: (1) facilitate the economic revitalization of rural areas by providing direct and indirect economic benefits to individual borrowers, families, and rural communities; (2) assure that benefits are communicated to all program eligible customers with special outreach efforts to target resources to underserved, impoverished, or economically declining rural areas; (3) lower the cost of programs while retaining the benefits by redesigning more effective programs that 

work in partnership with State and local governments and the private sector; and (4) leverage the economic benefits through the use 

of low-cost credit programs. 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2009 (budget authority) 1 ........................................... $861,168,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 (budget authority) ........................................... 624,325,000 

Committee recommendation (budget authority) ................................. 711,313,000 

1 Includes $200,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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, 
70 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $711,313,000 for 

the Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account [RHIF]. 

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 

2010, as well as for administrative expenses. The following table 

presents the loan subsidy levels as compared to the 2009 levels and 

the 2010 budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriation 

2010 budget 

request 

Committee recommendation 

Loan Levels: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct, excluding Public Law 111–5 ................................. 1,121,488 1,121,488 1,226,501 

Direct, as provided in Public Law 111–5 ......................... 1,000,000 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed, excluding Public Law 111–5 ........................ 6,223,859 6,204,444 12,000,000 

Guaranteed, as provided by Public Law 111–5 ................ 10,472,000 .......................... ..........................

Housing Repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... 34,410 34,412 34,412 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 69,512 69,512 69,512 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 129,090 129,090 129,090 

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. 5,045 5,045 5,045 

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 11,447 11,448 11,448 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 4,970 4,970 4,970 

Total loan levels, excluding Public Law 111–5 ..................... 7,599,821 7,580,409 13,480,978 

Total loan levels, provided by Public Law 111–5 ................. 11,472,000 .......................... ..........................

Total, loan levels .................................................................... 19,071,821 7,580,409 13,480,978 

Loan Subsidies: 

Single-Family Housing (sec. 502): 

Direct, excluding Public Law 111–5 ................................. 75,364 40,710 44,522 

Direct, as provided by Public Law 111–5 ......................... 67,000 .......................... ..........................

Guaranteed, excluding Public Law 111–5 ........................ 79,043 89,624 172,800 

Guaranteed, as provided by Public Law 111–5 ................ 133,000 .......................... ..........................

Housing Repair (sec. 504) .......................................................... 9,246 4,422 4,422 

Direct rental housing (sec. 515) ................................................ 28,611 18,935 18,935 

Guaranteed rental housing (sec. 538) ....................................... 8,082 1,485 1,485 

Site loans (sec. 524) .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ..........................

Credit sales of acquired property ............................................... 523 556 556 

Self help land development loans (sec. 523) ............................ 82 .......................... ..........................

Total loan subsidies, excluding Public Law 111–5 ............... 200,951 155,732 242,720 

Total loan subsidies as provided by Public Law 111–5 ....... 200,000 .......................... ..........................
71 

RURAL HOUSING INSURANCE FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriation 

2010 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Total, loan subsidies .............................................................. 400,951 155,732 242,720 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 460,217 468,593 468,593 

Total, loan subidies and administrative expenses ................ 861,168 624,325 711,313 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $902,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,091,430,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 980,000,000 

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 $980,000,000 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 funding 

increase recommended over fiscal year 2009 is due to the increase 

in contracts requiring renewal. 
72 

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $27,714,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 26,616,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 39,651,000 

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 Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program includes funding for housing vouchers, a multi-family revolving loan program, 

and a program for the preservation and revitalization of affordable 

multi-family housing projects. Rural Development’s multi-family 

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 Multi-family 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 $39,651,000 for 

the Multi-family Housing Revitalization Program, including 

$18,000,000 for vouchers, $1,791,000 for revolving loan funds, and 

$19,860,000 for a housing preservation demonstration program. 

The Committee is aware of the large and growing demand for 

housing vouchers to protect multi-family housing residents from 

substantial rent increases if owners pre-pay their loans and leave 

the multi-family housing program. Sufficient funding is provided 

for expiring vouchers and new vouchers anticipated to be issued in 

fiscal year 2010. 

When originated this pilot was envisioned to provide limited, 

transitional assistance to aid tenants in obtaining alternative living 

arrangements with affordable rents. However, as it is being operated the Department is silent to tenants regarding program duration, leaving the impression that voucher assistance will be provided indefinitely. Unless revised, funding needs for vouchers will 

grow without limits to unacceptable and unsustainable levels. The 

Committee directs the Secretary to review experiences and lessons 

learned under this pilot, and propose a program that is limited in 

duration and transitional in nature. 
73 

MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $38,727,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 38,727,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,727,000 

The Mutual and Self-Help Housing Grants Program is authorized by title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Grants are made to local 

organizations to promote the development of mutual or self-help 

programs under which groups of usually 6 to 10 families build their 

own homes by mutually exchanging labor. Funds may be used to 

pay the cost of construction supervisors who will work with families in the construction of their homes and for administrative expenses of the organizations providing the self-help assistance. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $38,727,000 for 

Mutual and Self-help Housing Grants. 

The Committee is concerned that the Rural Housing Service does 

not have a permanent contract in place for technical assistance for 

the Mutual and Self Help Housing program, which is an important 

element in the agency’s affordable housing efforts. The Committee 

understands that the original solicitation for a contract was issued 

in October 2007. A subsequent solicitation was then published in 

February 2009. Despite over 16 months of applications, evaluations, and internal deliberations there is still no agreement in place 

for self help technical assistance. The Committee directs the Rural 

Housing Service to submit a status report on the self help technical 

assistance contract within 30 days of enactment of this act. 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $41,500,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 41,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,500,000 

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, 
74 

and grant assistance is limited to persons, or families headed by 

persons who are 62 years of age or older. 

Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.—Supervisory and 

technical assistance grants are made to public and private nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 533 of the 

Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to very low-income 

families in underserved areas where at least 20 percent of the population is below the poverty level and at least 10 percent or more 

of the population resides in substandard housing. In fiscal year 

1994 a Homebuyer Education Program was implemented under 

this authority. This program provides low-income individuals and 

families education and counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining 

occupancy of adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to 

become successful homeowners. 

Compensation for Construction Defects.—Compensation for construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible section 502 

borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay claims of owners 

arising from such defects on a newly constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. Claims are not paid until 

provisions under the builder’s warranty have been fully pursued. 

Requests for compensation for construction defects must be made 

by the owner of the property within 18 months after the date financial assistance was granted. 

Rural Housing Preservation Grants.—Rural housing preservation 

grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-Rural Recovery Act 

of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the Rural Housing Service to 

administer a program of home repair directed at low- and very lowincome people. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $41,500,000 for 

the Rural Housing Assistance Grants Program. 

The following table compares the grant program levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2009 levels and the 

budget request: 

RURAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE GRANTS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 level 2010 request 

Very low-income housing repair grants .............................................. 31,600 31,600 31,600 

Compensation for construction defects ............................................... 500 500 500 

Housing preservation grants ............................................................... 9,400 9,400 9,400 

Total ........................................................................................ 41,500 41,500 41,500 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $18,269,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 16,968,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,968,000 

The direct farm labor housing loan program is authorized under 

section 514 and the rural housing for domestic farm labor housing 
75 

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 $16,968,000 for 

the cost of Direct Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants. 

The following table compares the loan and grant levels recommended by the Committee to the fiscal year 2009 levels and the 

budget request: 

FARM LABOR PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 2010 request Committee recommendation 

Direct loan level ................................................................................... 21,678 21,677 21,677 

Direct loan subsidy .............................................................................. 9,135 7,834 7,834 

Grants .................................................................................................. 9,134 9,134 9,134 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT

Appropriation, 2009 1 ............................................................................. $193,830,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 54,993,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,993,000 

1 Includes $130,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

Community facility loans were created by the Rural Development 

Act of 1972 (7 U.S.C. 1926 et seq.) to finance a variety of rural 

community facilities. Loans are made to organizations, including 

certain Indian tribes and corporations not operated for profit and 

public and quasi-public 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 
76 

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 $54,993,000 for 

the Rural Community Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

RURAL COMMUNITY FACILITIES PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriation 

2010 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Community facility direct loans 1 .............................................................. 83,871 3,864 3,864 

Community facility guaranteed loans ....................................................... 6,358 6,626 6,626 

Community facility grants 2 ....................................................................... 83,373 20,373 20,373 

Economic impact initiative grants ............................................................ 10,000 13,902 13,902 

Rural community development initiative ................................................... 6,256 6,256 6,256 

Tribal college grants .................................................................................. 3,972 3,972 3,972 

Total .............................................................................................. 193,830 54,993 54,993 

1 Includes $67,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

2 Includes $63,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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: Administrative and Judicial Complex (New Mexico); 

Bethel Public Safety Building (Alaska); City of Cordova Gas utility 

(Alaska); City of Craig Community Association Waste Boiler Tie-In 

(Alaska); City of Munising Fire/Police Building (Michigan); City of 

Sault Sainte Marie—Ashmun Bay Boat Access and Channel Project 

(Michigan); Community Center Rehabilitation Project (Michigan); 

Community Center/EMS & Fire Facility (Florida); Cordova Center 

(Alaska); Fire Station Renovations, Town of Haynesville (Louisiana); Kekaha Siphons and Flumes Repair (Hawaii); Keweenaw 

National Historic Park-Village of Calumet Theater Building (Michigan); Kohala Irrigation System Repair (Hawaii); Lewbowski Theater Rebuilding Project (Michigan); Louisiana Tech University 

Rural Development Center (Louisiana); Luce County Community 

Center (Michigan); Mid-Ohio Foodbank (Ohio); Mora County Complex (New Mexico); Multi-Use Facility (New Mexico); Pepekeo Community Hydroelectric Generation (Hawaii); Public Safety Building 

(Alaska); Seaside School District Relocation (Oregon); Siena 

Heights University Community Center (Michigan); Slaughter and 

Processing Facilities Planning and Design (Hawaii); The Greening 

of the Upper Peninsula Children’s Museum (Michigan); Torrance 

County Community Facilities (New Mexico); Traditional Ceremonial Facility (New Mexico); and YMCA Facility Renovation, Bogalusa (Louisiana). 
77 

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, 2009 1 ............................................................................. $237,385,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 97,116,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 97,116,000 

1 Includes $150,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

The Rural Business and Industry Loan Program was created by 

the Rural Development Act of 1972, and finances a variety of rural 

industrial development loans. Loans are made for rural industrialization and rural community facilities under Rural Development 

Act amendments to the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 

Act (7 U.S.C. 1932 et seq.) authorities. Business and industrial 

loans are made to public, private, or cooperative organizations organized for profit, to certain Indian tribes, or to individuals for the 

purpose of improving, developing or financing business, industry, 

and employment or improving the economic and environmental climate in rural areas. Such purposes include financing business and 

industrial acquisition, construction, enlargement, repair or modernization, financing the purchase and development of land, easements, rights-of-way, buildings, payment of startup costs, and supplying working capital. 

Rural business enterprise grants were authorized by the Rural 

Development Act of 1972. Grants are made to public bodies and 

nonprofit organizations to facilitate development of small and 

emerging business enterprises in rural areas, including the acquisition and development of land; the construction of buildings, plants, 

equipment, access streets and roads, parking areas, and utility extensions; refinancing fees; technical assistance; and startup operating costs and working capital. 

Rural business opportunity grants are authorized under section 

306(a)(11) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 
78 

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 $97,116,000 for 

the Rural Business Program Account. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

RURAL BUSINESS PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriation 

2009 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendations 

Business and industry guaranteed loans 1 ............................................... 173,196 52,927 52,927 

Business enterprise grants 2 ..................................................................... 58,727 38,727 38,727 

Business opportunity grants ...................................................................... 2,483 2,483 2,483 

Delta Regional Authority grants ................................................................ 2,979 2,979 2,979 

Total .............................................................................................. 237,385 97,116 97,116 

1 Includes $130,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

2 Includes $20,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

Rural Business Program Account.—The Committee recommends 

$500,000 for transportation technical assistance. 

The Committee directs that of the $4,000,000 recommended for 

grants to benefit Federally Recognized Native American Tribes, 

$250,000 shall be used to implement an American Indian and Alaska Native passenger transportation development and assistance 

initiative. 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 level 2010 request 

Estimated loan level ............................................................................ 33,536 33,536 33,536 

Direct loan subsidy .............................................................................. 14,035 8,464 8,464 

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 4,853 4,941 4,941 

Total, loan subsidies and administrative expenses .............. 18,870 13,405 13,405 

The rural development (intermediary relending) loan program 

was originally authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 

(Public Law 88–452). The making of rural development loans by 

the Department of Agriculture was reauthorized by Public Law 99– 

425, the Human Services Reauthorization Act of 1986. 

Loans are made to intermediary borrowers (small investment 

groups) who in turn will reloan the funds to rural businesses, com-
79 

munity 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 $13,405,000 for 

the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account. 

RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 level 2010 request 

Estimated loan level ............................................................................ 33,077 33,077 33,077 

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 recommends a loan program level of $33,077,000, 

to be funded from earnings on the Cushion of Credit and fees on 

guaranteed underwriting loans made pursuant to section 313A of 

the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. 

RURAL COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $12,636,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 38,636,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 38,854,000 

Rural cooperative development grants are authorized under section 310B(e) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 

as amended. Grants are made to fund the establishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative development with their primary purpose being the improvement of economic conditions in 

rural areas. Grants may be made to nonprofit institutions or institutions of higher education. Grants may be used to pay up to 75 

percent of the cost of the project and associated administrative 

costs. The applicant must contribute at least 25 percent from nonFederal sources, except 1994 institutions, which only need to pro-
80 

vide 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 $38,854,000 for 

Rural Cooperative Development Grants. 

Of the funds recommended, $2,800,000 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 $3,463,000 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 $21,867,000 for 

value-added agricultural product market development grants. 

RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM

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

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $22,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 22,000,000 

This program, authorized by section 379E of the Consolidated 

Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1981 et seq.), provides 

micro-entrepreneurs with the skills necessary to establish new 

rural microenterprises, as well as support these types of businesses 

with technical and financial assistance. The program provides 

loans and grants to intermediaries that assist micro-entrepreneurs. 

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 makes available 

$4,000,000 of mandatory funding for fiscal year 2010. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,000,000 for 

the Rural Microenterprise Investment Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 
81 

RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 level 2010 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. ........................ 51,522 51,522 

Loan subsidy .............................................................................................. ........................ 11,000 11,000 

Grants ........................................................................................................ ........................ 11,000 11,000 

RURAL EMPOWERMENT ZONES AND ENTERPRISE COMMUNITIES GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $8,130,000 

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

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

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee does not recommend an appropriation for Rural 

Enterprise Zones and Enterprise Community Grants due to the expiration of the authorization of these entities. 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $5,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 68,130,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 68,130,000 

The Rural Energy for America Program is authorized under section 9007 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 

(7 U.S.C. 8107). 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 $68,130,000 for 

the Rural Energy for America Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

RURAL ENERGY FOR AMERICA PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 level 2010 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. 28,380 246,334 246,334 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... 2,750 33,600 33,600 

Grants ........................................................................................................ 2,250 34,530 34,530 

BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

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

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... $17,339,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,339,000 

The Biorefinery Assistance Program is authorized under section 

9003 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. 

Under this program assistance is provided to aid in the development of new and emerging technologies for expanding production 

of advanced biofuels. Grants are available for development and con-
82 

struction of demonstration-scale biorefineries and guaranteed loans 

are available for development, construction or retrofitting commercial-scale biorefineries. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,339,000 for 

the Biorefinery Assistance Program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendation as 

compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

BIOREFINERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

level 2010 request Committee recommendation 

Estimated loan level .................................................................................. ........................ 48,884 48,884 

Guaranteed loan subsidy ........................................................................... ........................ 17,339 17,339 

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: 

Arkansas Virtual Enterprise Center (Arkansas); Biofuel Supply 

Chain Development (Wisconsin); Connect ME (Maine); Fort 

Belknap Buffalo Program (Montana); Keweenaw Bay Indian Community Commer Stamp Sand Reuse Project (Michigan); Matanuska 

Susitna Borough Agricultural Food Processing and Product Development Center (Alaska); Mentoring and Community Agriculture 

Initiative (Vermont); Montana Food and Agriculture Innovation 

Center Action Plan (Montana); Nevada Wool Growers (Nevada); 

Rural Business Energizer Program (Maine); Rural Enterprises of 

Oklahoma (Oklahoma); Rural Entrepreneurs Revitalization Fund 

(Michigan); San Joaquin County Agricultural Center Solar Project 

(California); and Scottsboro Electric Economic Development (Alabama). 

In addition, the Committee encourages the Department to consider applications for grants to rural public television broadcasting 

systems. 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 

RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE

The Rural Utilities Service [RUS] was established under the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–354), October 13, 1994. 

RUS administers the electric and telephone programs of the former 

Rural Electrification Administration and the water and waste programs of the former Rural Development Administration. 

The mission of the RUS is to serve a leading role in improving 

the quality of life in rural America by administering its electric, 

telecommunications, and water and waste programs in a service 

oriented, forward looking, and financially responsible manner. All 

three programs have the common goal of modernizing and revital-
83 

izing 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

Appropriation, 2009 1 ............................................................................. $1,936,268,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 546,230,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 568,730,000 

1 Includes $1,380,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

The water and waste disposal program is authorized by sections 

306, 306A, 309A, 306C, 306D, 306E, 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 $568,730,000 for 

the Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account. 

The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for water and waste 

disposal systems grants for Native Americans, including Native 

Alaskans, the Colonias, and residents of Hawaiian Homelands. 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 $14,000,000 available for the circuit rider program. 

The following table provides the Committee’s recommendations, 

as compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 
84 

RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT 

[Budget authority in thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year 2009 

appropriation 1

2010 budget 

request 

Committee 

recommendation 

Not specified .................................................................................. 538,768 ............................ ............................

Water and waste disposal direct loans 2 ...................................... 412,000 77,071 77,071 

Water and waste disposal grants 3 ............................................... 968,000 464,228 469,228 

Solid waste management grants .................................................. ............................ 3,441 3,441 

Water well system grants .............................................................. ............................ 993 993 

Water and waste water revolving funds ....................................... ............................ 497 497 

High energy cost grants ................................................................ 17,500 ............................ 17,500 

Total .................................................................................. 1,936,268 546,230 568,730 

1 In fiscal year 2009, the Committee did not specify the distribution of funding among water and waste disposal loans and grants.

2 $412,000,000 provided in Public Law 111–5. 

3 $968,000,000 provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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: 76th Street Sanitary Sewer Force Main Relocation (Michigan); Aberdeen Water Treatment Plant and Wellfield 

Project (Ohio); Akiachak Solid Waste Facility (Alaska); Benton 

County Fairgrounds Waste Water Collection and Drainage Project 

(Oregon); Blaine Water Reclamation Facility (Washington); Blue 

River Hills Improvement District (Kansas); Buena Vista Wastewater Improvement Project (Michigan); Cathlamet Water Treatment Plant (Washington); City of Eagle Point Reservoir Retrofit 

(Oregon); City of LaBelle Water Treatment Plant (Florida); County 

of Coloma Water Tower Replacement (Michigan); Elk County Rural 

Water District #2 (Kansas); Expanded Solid Waste Transfer Station (Florida); Fayetteville Water Authority (Alabama); Ferriday 

Town Water System (Louisiana); Green River Pumping Project 

(Utah); Griffith Spring Collection Box and Building Replacement 

(New Mexico); Hubbard Creek Impoundment Improvement Project 

(Oregon); Imperial Keystone Regional Water Reclamation Facility 

and Wastewater Collection System (California); Kane County 

Water Improvement Initiative (Utah); Kettle Falls Water Treatment Facility (Washington); Lake County Kelseyville Wastewater 

System (California); Lawtey Wastewater Collection Facilities and 

Equipment Project-Phase II (Florida); New Holland Water Tower 

Replacement (Ohio); Old Highway 62/Royal Avenue Water Main 

Replacement (Oregon); Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority (Arkansas); Partridge Creek Diversion (Michigan); San Luis 

Obispo County Los Osos Wastewater Project (California); Spalding 

Sewer Lift Station (Oregon); Sutter County Regional Wastewater 

Project (California); Town of Repton (Alabama); Tulare Rural Community Water Systems (California); Village of Blanchester (Ohio); 

Village of Spencer (Ohio); Washoe Tribe (Nevada); Wastewater 

Treatment Plant (Florida); and Willapa Regional Wastewater Facility (Washington). 
85 

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 

2010, as well as for administrative expenses. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The following table reflects the Committee’s recommendation for 

the rural electrification and telecommunications loans program account, the loan subsidy and administrative expenses, as compared 

to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 level 2010 request 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5 percent ................................................................ 100,000 100,000 100,000 

Direct FFB .......................................................................... 6,500,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 

Guaranteed underwriting ................................................... .......................... .......................... 500,000 

Subtotal ......................................................................... 6,600,000 6,600,000 7,100,000 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent ......................................................................... 145,000 145,000 145,000 

Direct, Treasury rate ................................................................... 250,000 250,000 250,000 

Direct, FFB .................................................................................. 295,000 295,000 295,000 

Subtotal .................................................................................. 690,000 690,000 690,000 

Total, loan authorizations ...................................................... 7,290,000 7,290,000 7,790,000 

Loan subsidies: 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate .......................................................... 525 .......................... ..........................

Subtotal ......................................................................... 525 .......................... ..........................

Total, loan subsidies ..................................................... 525 .......................... ..........................

Administrative expenses ...................................................................... 39,245 39,959 39,959 

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans 

Programs Account .............................................................. 39,770 39,959 39,959 

(Loan authorization) ...................................................... 7,290,000 7,290,000 7,790,000 
86 

The Rural Utilities Service, Electric Programs, is directed to develop loan security procedures and instruments for renewable energy loans that distinguishes the differences between privately developed project financing and system financing as is traditionally 

used with rural electric cooperatives. 

DISTANCE LEARNING, TELEMEDICINE, AND BROADBAND PROGRAM

LOANS AND GRANTS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 level 2010 request 

Loan and Grant Levels: 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program: 

Grants ................................................................................ 34,755 29,790 37,755 

Broadband program, excluding Public Law 111–5: 

Treasury rate loans ..................................................................... 400,487 531,699 531,699 

Treasury rate loans budget authority ......................................... 15,619 38,495 38,495 

Grants ......................................................................................... 13,406 13,406 13,406 

Total broadband budget authority, excluding Public Law 

111–5 ................................................................................. 63,780 81,691 89,656 

Total broadband program level, excluding Public Law 111– 

5 ......................................................................................... 448,648 574,895 582,860 

Budget authority, provided by Public Law 111–5 .............................. 2,500,000 .......................... ..........................

Budget authority, from all sources ..................................................... 2,563,780 81,691 89,656 

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. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $89,656,000 for 

the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program. The 

Committee recommendation includes $4,965,000 for public broadcasting systems grants to allow noncommercial educational television broadcast stations that serve rural areas to convert from 

analog to digital operations. 

The Committee is concerned about the longstanding, unmet 

health needs in the Mississippi Delta. The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to address critical health care 

needs in the region, as authorized by section 379G of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. 
87 

The Committee continues its support for extending high speed 

broadband service to the most remote, un-served areas of rural 

America. Substantial funds have been made available in annual 

appropriations bills, and $2,500,000,000 was provided to USDA for 

this purpose in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 [ARRA]. The Committee recognizes that reaching the most remote and un-served areas requires substantial Government investment, and recommends full funding of the President’s budget request for continued investment. However, the Committee insists 

that USDA should utilize these funds effectively and directs the 

Secretary to include in the quarterly spending plans and obligations reports required by ARRA comparable information on the use 

of annual appropriations funding. 

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: Batavia, New York Rural 

Broadband Expansion Plan 2009 (New York); Creating 

Connectivity Across Nez Perce Lands (Idaho); East Central 

Vermont Community Fiber Network (Vermont); Eastern Shore 

Broadband Buildout (Virginia); Expanding Home Telehealth for the 

Aging Population in New York State (New York); Humboldt County 

Redundant Broadband Link (California); Jamestown, NY to 

Whitesville, NY Fiber Build (New York); Open Access Fiber Optic 

Broadband Deployment on the Northern Neck and Middle Peninsula (Virginia); Otsego County Telecommunications Open Access 

Model (New York); Project Bluebird (Virginia); Rural Broadband 

Initiative for Economic Development (New York); Rural Medical 

Education Project (Nevada); and Tribal Internet Utility Services 

(New Mexico). 

The Committee expects the Department to consider only those 

applications judged meritorious when subjected to the established 

review process. 
(88) 

TITLE IV 

DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD, NUTRITION AND

CONSUMER SERVICES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $610,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 813,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 813,000 

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 

nutrition assistance activities. The Office has oversight and management responsibilities for the Food and Nutrition Service. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $813,000 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 
89 

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 $253,250,000 in fiscal year 2010 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. 
90 

CHILD NUTRITION PROGRAMS

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriation Section 32 transfers Total 

Appropriations, 2009 1 ............................................................. 8,596,109 6,455,802 15,051,911 

Budget estimate, 2010 ............................................................ 10,049,369 6,747,877 16,797,246 

Committee recommendation .................................................... 10,051,707 6,747,877 16,799,584 

1 Includes $100,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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 $10,051,707,000, 

plus transfers from section 32 of $6,747,877,000, for a total of 

$16,799,584,000 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 2009 estimate 2010 budget Committee 

recommendation 

School Lunch Program ......................................................................... 8,472,755 9,821,347 9,821,347 

School Breakfast Program ................................................................... 2,633,048 2,866,683 2,866,683 

Child and Adult Care Food Program ................................................... 2,513,852 2,686,523 2,686,523 

Summer Food Service Program ............................................................ 357,984 377,752 377,752 

Special Milk Program ........................................................................... 14,941 13,590 13,590 

State administrative expenses ............................................................ 178,994 193,268 193,268 

Commodity procurement and computer support ................................. 750,701 802,570 802,570 

Team Nutrition ..................................................................................... 15,000 15,016 15,016 

Food safety education .......................................................................... 2,500 2,510 2,510 

Coordinated review .............................................................................. 5,636 5,751 5,751 

CACFP training and technical assistance ........................................... 3,500 3,537 3,537 

Child Nutrition Program Studies and Evaluations .............................. 3,000 3,000 5,338 

Hunger-Free Community Grants .......................................................... .......................... 5,000 5,000 

Healthier U.S. School Challenge .......................................................... .......................... 699 699 

The Committee recommends $15,016,000 for TEAM nutrition. Included in this amount is $5,500,000 for food service training grants 
91 

to States; $3,000,000 for technical assistance materials; $800,000 

for National Food Service Management Institute cooperative agreements; $1,000,000 for print and electronic food service resource systems; $1,500,000 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 $3,216,000 for other 

activities. 

In addition, the Committee recommendation includes $2,338,000 

to allow the agency to increase efforts to work directly with State 

and local administrators and provide technical assistance to promote early detection of erroneous payment problems and to develop 

appropriate improvement strategies. Funding will support increased technical assistance to States in areas such as data analysis, policy interpretation and training development. 

The Committee expects FNS to utilize the National Food Service 

Management Institute to carry out the food safety education program. 

Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program.—Section 4304 of the Food, 

Conservation and Energy Act provided $101,000,000 for a Fresh 

Fruit and Vegetable Program to be made available on July 1, 2010. 

Of this amount, the Committee has included a general provision to 

delay availability of $76,000,000 of these funds until October 1, 

2010. 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 

2011. The full funding amount of $101,000,000 will be available for 

the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program for the school year beginning July 1, 2010, as specified in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. 

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

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $7,360,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 7,777,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,552,000,000 

1 Includes $500,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–5. 

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 9.8 million participants at an average 

food cost of $45.01 per person per month in fiscal year 2010. 

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 
92 

delivered to the participant’s home; and (3) direct distribution systems in which participants pick up food from a distribution outlet. 

The food is free of charge to all participants. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,552,000,000 

for the Special Supplemental Food Program for Women, Infants, 

and Children [WIC]. The Committee notes that $487,000,000 in 

contingency funds will be available in fiscal year 2010 making a 

total of $8,039,000,000 available for WIC in fiscal year 2010. 

The Committee recommendation fully funds estimated WIC participation in fiscal year 2010 and makes significant program improvements. The Committee recommendation includes $80,000,000 

for breastfeeding support initiatives, $60,000,000 for State management information systems, and $14,000,000 for infrastructure improvements. In addition, the Committee recommendation provides 

funding to increase fruit and vegetable vouchers for all women up 

to the Institute of Medicine recommendation. The Committee also 

includes authorizing language that exempts military combat pay 

from WIC eligibility determination. 

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[In thousands of dollars] 

Expenses Amount in 

reserve 

Puerto Rico and American 

Samoa 

TEFAP 

commodity 

purchases 

Total 

Appropriations, 2009 ................................. 48,951,741 3,000,000 1,767,505 250,000 53,969,246 

Public Law 111–5 (fiscal year 2009) ....... ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... 4,859,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 .............................. 56,217,970 3,000,000 1,880,626 253,250 61,351,846 

Committee recommendation ...................... 56,217,970 3,000,000 1,880,626 253,250 61,351,846 

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 SNAP 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 benefit 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. 
93 

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 fraud investigations and prosecutions. 

States are required to implement an employment and training 

program for the purpose of assisting members of households participating in SNAP in gaining skills, training, or experience that 

will increase their ability to obtain regular employment. The Department of Agriculture has implemented a grant program to 

States to assist them in providing employment and training services. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $61,351,846,000 

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. 

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, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $380,800,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 233,388,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 233,388,000 

1 Includes $150,000,000 for The Emergency Food Assistance Program provided in Public Law 

111–5. 

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. 

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. 
94 

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 makes $253,250,000 available for the purchase of TEFAP commodities in 

fiscal year 2010. 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 $233,388,000 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 $162,818,000 for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. 

Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program.—The Committee is aware 

that the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program provides fresh fruits 

and vegetables to low-income mothers and children, benefiting not 

only WIC participants, but local farmers as well. Therefore, the 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 for the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program and directs the Secretary to obligate these funds 

within 45 days. 

Food Bank Infrastructure Grants.—The Committee recommends 

a general provision providing $7,000,000 for Food Bank Infrastruc-
95 

ture Grants as authorized under section 209 of the Emergency 

Food Assistance Act of 1983 with particular emphasis placed on Indian tribal organizations. 

The Emergency Food Assistance Program.—The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 provides $253,250,000 for TEFAP 

commodities to be purchased with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funds. The Committee recommendation includes 

$49,950,000 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, 2009 ............................................................................. $142,595,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 150,139,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 147,801,000 

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 $147,801,000 for 

Nutrition Programs Administration. 

Dietary Guidelines.—The Committee notes that during the coming year, USDA will receive the report of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, and will then have the responsibility to 

formulate and issue science-based dietary guidance. In view of the 

need to communicate clear messages and motivate changes in consumer behavior, the Committee recommends that USDA provide a 

limited number of easily understandable, readily actionable guidelines that will encourage consumers to build their diets around nutrient-dense foods. 

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 organi-
96 

zations throughout the country, including the St. John’s Bread & 

Life Program in Brooklyn, New York to provide technical and financial assistance where appropriate, to help these organizations 

further their goals. 
(97) 

TITLE V 

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

[In thousands of dollars] 

Appropriations Transfers from 

loan accounts Total 

Appropriations, 2009 ........................................................................... 165,436 4,985 170,421 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................ 180,367 6,465 186,832 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 180,367 6,465 186,832 

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 97 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 facilities financing guarantees, (2) Food for Peace, (3) section 416b Overseas 

Donations Program, (4) Market Access Program, and (5) programs 

authorized by the Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act including barter, export sales of most CCC-owned commodities, export payments, and other programs as assigned to encourage and 

enhance the export of U.S. agricultural commodities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $186,832,000 for the Foreign Agricultural Service, including a direct appropriation of $180,367,000. 
98 

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 $3,606,000 for Capital Security Cost Sharing [CSCS], as 

proposed in the budget. The Committee funds the fiscal year 2010 

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 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 2009 level. 

Market Access Program.—The Committee continues the full mandatory funding for the Market Access Program and expects the Department to administer the program as authorized in 7 U.S.C. 

5623, without changing the eligibility requirements for participation of cooperative organizations, small businesses, trade associations, and other entities. 

Specialty Crops.—The Committee is aware of FAS activities to 

provide technical assistance for the promotion of specialty crop exports and encourages the agency to continue these activities. 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE I PROGRAM ACCOUNT

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $2,736,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 2,812,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,812,000 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,812,000 for 

administrative expenses to continue servicing existing Food for 

Peace title I agreements. 
99 

FOOD FOR PEACE TITLE II GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 1 ........................................................................... $2,320,900,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 1,690,000,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,690,000,000 

1 Includes supplemental funding of $395,000,000 as provided in Public Law 110–252 and supplemental funding of $700,000,000 as provided in Public Law 111–32. 

The Committee recognizes the important mission of the Food for 

Peace Program to combat hunger and malnutrition; promote broadbased 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 $1,690,000,000 

for Food for Peace title II grants. The Committee does not support 

the President’s proposal to reduce the amount available for direct 

food assistance to cover administrative costs instead of providing 

for those costs through the Commodity Credit Corporation as is the 

current practice. Instead, the Committee believes it is more important to provide a higher level of direct humanitarian assistance to 

help meet the world’s growing hunger crisis. 

Safe Box.—The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 contained a provision mandating a minimum level of Food for Peace 

title II resources be used for non-emergency assistance 

($400,000,000 in fiscal year 2010), 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. 
100 

MC GOVERN-DOLE INTERNATIONAL FOOD FOR EDUCATION AND CHILD

NUTRITION PROGRAM GRANTS

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $100,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 199,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 199,500,000 

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 $199,500,000 for 

the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 

Nutrient Fortification Pilot.—The Committee recommends 

$10,000,000 from within the amount appropriated to conduct pilot 

projects to develop, pilot, and field test new and improved micronutrient fortified products designed to meet the energy and nutrient needs of populations served by the McGovern-Dole Food for 

Education Program. This program serves school-age children, pregnant women, nursing mothers, infants, and children under five, 

and these populations are the most susceptible to long-term health 

implications due to the composition and content of daily food intake. These funds may be provided to non-governmental organizations and international agencies to provide technical assistance to 

carry out improvements in the products distributed through the 

McGovern-Dole program. The Committee expects a report on the 

status of this program with a follow-up report on the progress 

made to date by September 1, 2010. 

COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION EXPORT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

(EXPORT CREDIT PROGRAMS AND GSM–102)

[In thousands of dollars] 

Guaranteed loan 

levels 1

Guaranteed loan 

subsidy 1

Administrative 

expenses 

Appropriations, 2009 ........................................................................... 5,470,000 40,000 5,333 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................ 5,500,000 11,130 6,820 

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 5,500,000 11,130 6,820 

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 noncommer-
101 

cial 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. CCC also provides 

facilities financing guarantees. 

The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the program 

account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee programs 

are exempt from the requirement of advance appropriations of 

budget authority according to section 504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 101–508. Appropriations to this 

account will be used for administrative expenses. 
(102) 

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 blend 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 four separate areas, 

Human Drugs, Animal Drugs, Medical Devices and Biologics. FDA 

is responsible for the life cycle of products, including premarket review and postmarket surveillance of human and animal drugs, 

medical devices and biological products to ensure their safety and 

effectiveness. 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 
103 

prevention of diseases in animals and the improved production of 

food-producing animals, are approved for marketing. 

The FDA Biologics program assures that blood and blood products, blood test kits, vaccines, and therapeutics are pure, potent, 

safe, effective, and properly labeled. The program inspects blood 

banks and blood processors, licenses and inspects firms collecting 

human source plasma, evaluates and licenses biologics manufacturing firms and products; lot releases licensed products; and monitors adverse events associated with vaccine immunization, blood 

products, and other biologics. 

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, and MRIs. Radiological products include items such as 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 lead to 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 User fees Total 

Appropriations, 2009 ....................................................................................................... 2,038,964 612,911 2,651,875 

Budget estimate, 2010 .................................................................................................... 2,337,656 687,280 3,024,936 

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................ 2,337,656 687,280 3,024,936 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,337,656,000 

for FDA salaries and expenses. The Committee also recommends 

$578,162,000 in Prescription Drug User Fee Act user fee collections; $57,014,000 in Medical Device User Fee and Modernization 

Act user fee collections; $17,280,000 in Animal Drug User Fee Act 

user fee collections; $5,106,000 in Animal Generic Drug User Fee 

Act user fee collections; $19,318,000 in Mammography Quality 

Standards Act fee collections; and $10,400,000 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 following table reflects the Committee’s recommendations, as 

compared to the fiscal year 2009 and budget request levels: 
104 

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Fiscal year— Committee 

recommendation 2009 enacted 2010 request 

Centers and related field activities: 

Foods ........................................................................................... 648,722 782,915 782,915 

Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition [CFSAN] ..... 210,486 236,418 236,418 

Field Activities ................................................................... 438,236 546,497 546,497 

Human Drugs .............................................................................. 413,482 457,814 457,814 

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research [CDER] ........... 302,386 329,588 329,588 

Field Activities ................................................................... 111,096 128,226 128,226 

Biologics ...................................................................................... 183,451 206,438 206,438 

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research [CBER] ..... 148,134 166,182 166,182 

Field Activities ................................................................... 35,317 40,256 40,256 

Animal Drugs .............................................................................. 116,471 135,475 135,475 

Center for Veterinary Medicine [CVM] ............................... 73,035 82,452 82,452 

Field Activities ................................................................... 43,436 53,023 53,023 

Medical and radiological devices ............................................... 280,587 315,377 315,377 

Center for Devices and Radiological Health [CDRH] ........ 209,061 234,974 234,974 

Field Activities ................................................................... 71,526 80,403 80,403 

National Center for Toxicological Research [NCTR] ................... 52,511 58,745 58,745 

Other Activities .................................................................................... 120,560 143,712 143,712 

Rent and related activities .................................................................. 88,829 91,158 91,158 

Rental payments to GSA ...................................................................... 134,351 146,022 146,022 

Total, FDA salaries and expenses, new budget authority ..... 2,038,964 2,337,656 2,337,656 

The Committee recommendation includes the following increases 

in budget authority for FDA salaries and expenses activities, as requested in the budget: $29,536,000 for cost-of-living adjustments; 

$14,000,000 for rental payments to GSA and other rent-related activities; $151,967,000 for food safety investments; $98,189,000 for 

investments relating to safer drugs, biologics and medical devices; 

and $5,000,000 for development of policies proposed in the budget. Of the increases provided, $151,967,000 will be used for food 

safety investments. This funding will allow FDA to hire additional 

investigators to conduct additional domestic and foreign food and 

feed inspections and field exams; improve laboratory capacity and 

technologies to test additional samples for analysis in FDA laboratories; and build and expand existing relationships with regulatory 

partners, including State and local governments. This funding will 

also be used to promote industry training and develop additional 

controls to support industry prevention efforts, with specific controls for high-risk commodities; increase the Agency’s understanding of food and feed vulnerabilities and risks and ability to 

detect contamination; work on more rapid response efforts; improve 
105 

risk communication during a food safety event; and upgrade and 

integrate information technology systems necessary to appropriately screen, sample and enforce FDA regulations. 

Of the increases provided, $98,189,000 will be used for activities 

related to drug, device and biologics safety. This includes funds for 

increased foreign and domestic medical product inspections and improved laboratory capacity and sample processing. FDA will also 

conduct increased work on blood, tissue and vaccine safety, including the hiring of additional staff and increasing training to support 

product development and the development of new screening tests 

for emerging blood-borne diseases. Further, FDA will implement 

safety requirements related to the FDA Amendments Act; increase 

activities relating to adverse event information collection and analysis; conduct research on bioequivalence standards for generic 

forms of novel products; improve enforcement against fraudulent 

products; develop noninvasive techniques to better understand the 

risks of anesthetic use in children; and upgrade and integrate information technology systems. 

The Committee expects FDA to continue all projects, activities 

and programs at no less than the fiscal year 2009 level, unless otherwise specified. 

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. 

Antibiotic Development.—Regulatory uncertainty in the antibiotic 

drug arena has been a serious impediment to new antibiotic development. Although a number of indication-specific draft guidance 

documents have recently been published, there are several serious 

infection diseases for which guidance is still needed, including hospital acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and 

complicated skin and skin structure infections. The Committee directs FDA to issue guidance for these diseases. Further, the Committee is aware that as part of the 2001 Interagency Public Health 

Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance, FDA, along with 

CDC, agreed to be the designated lead to identify ways to promote 

the development and/or appropriate use of priority antibacterial 

drugs for humans, for which current market incentives are inadequate. The FDA is encouraged to work with other governmental 

entities and interested parties to begin this work, including commissioning a study with an outside entity if necessary, and to report to the Committee on those efforts. 

Antimicrobial Resistance.—The Committee directs FDA to continue to implement all directives contained in the Food and Drug 

Administration Amendments Act and the Animal Drug User Fee 

Act regarding antimicrobial resistance. The Committee also encourages FDA to conduct a focused reassessment on the human importance ranking of antibiotics, in consultation with infectious disease 

experts, to determine the appropriateness of the current ranking of 

these drugs according to their importance in human medicine. 
106 

Budget Justification.—The Committee directs the agency to submit the fiscal year 2011 budget request in a format that follows the 

same account structure as the fiscal year 2010 budget request unless otherwise approved by the Committee. Further, the Committee 

directs that in future budget requests, all performance measures 

and outputs, such as number of staff hired and number of inspection performed, be measured according to budget authority requests. The Committee directs FDA to provide any performance 

measures and outputs related to proposed or current law user fees 

separately and independent of one another. 

Finally, the Committee notes that the administration’s budget request included increases of nearly 15 percent in budget authority. 

However, the budget justification related all of these increases into 

two major themes, ‘‘Food Safety’’ and ‘‘Medical Product Safety’’ 

without any significant detail on how this funding would be used. 

The Committee eventually received some level of detail regarding 

the request, and directs FDA to provide significantly more detailed 

information, including a high level of details on each budgetary 

theme, in future budget requests. 

Cosmetics.—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $2,000,000 for the cosmetics program. With this increase, 

total funding for cosmetics activities at FDA will be $10,200,000 in 

fiscal year 2010, which includes the Office of Cosmetics and Colors 

in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and inspection 

activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs. 

Critical Path and Modernizing Drug Safety.—The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 for the critical path initiative, 

including not less than $6,000,000 for critical path partnerships as 

authorized by section 566 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

Act (FD&C Act). The Committee expects that this funding will be 

used to further FDA’s work on critical path opportunities and to 

promote collaborations with other government agencies, academia, 

patient groups, and other interested parties including, but not limited to, the Critical Path Institute, the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Technology and Education, the Coalition Against Major 

Diseases, and the Coalition Against Tuberculosis. 

Of the $6,000,000 provided for critical path partnerships, not less 

than $2,000,000 shall be used to support research partnerships for 

the treatment and/or rapid diagnosis of tropical diseases as defined 

by section 524 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The 

Committee is particularly concerned with treatments for tuberculosis [TB] and drug-resistant TB. Worldwide, almost 2 million 

people die from TB and more than 9 million people develop active 

disease every year. The rise of drug-resistant TB can result in a 

global, untreatable epidemic. The Committee believes that the use 

of single drugs too often results in drug resistance, and that more 

effective combinations of treatment are needed. Therefore, the 

Committee directs the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research to 

enter into a competitive agreement with an entity eligible for funding under section 566 of the FD&C Act to assist with the development of new combinations of drugs for the rapid and effective therapy of tuberculosis. 

The Committee directs FDA to report on critical path spending 

quarterly. Reports should include activities undertaken with the 
107 

$18,000,000 provided for the overall initiative, and more specifically projects awarded with the $6,000,000 in partnership funding. 

The report shall include the amount of each project or activity, the 

center responsible for the funding, a description of the specific 

project or activity being funded, and in the case of partnership 

funding, the recipient of the funds. 

Definition of Food.—The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 included section 912, which prohibits interstate 

commerce of food to which certain articles have been added. On 

July 29, 2008, FDA published a Federal Register notice seeking 

comments on this section. One of the questions for which FDA requested comments was the applicability of section 912 to dietary 

supplements, given that dietary supplements already clearly exclude certain articles as defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Committee notes that comments were 

due on October 27, 2008, and more than 8 months later, FDA still 

has not resolved this issue. The Committee directs FDA to dispose 

of this issue. 

Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device Availability.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 for 

Demonstration Grants for Improving Pediatric Device Availability, 

as authorized by the Food and Drug Amendments Act of 2007. 

Epilepsy Drug Safety Research.—The Committee is concerned 

about recent reports of unexpected side effects, including seizures, 

when epileptic individuals switch among different manufacturers’ 

versions of the same therapeutic agent. The Committee directs the 

FDA to submit a report not later than September 30, 2010 detailing FDA’s advice on planned research on the impact of substituting 

bioequivalent anti-epileptic drugs on epileptic individuals and detailing FDA proposed guidance or actions to minimize the health 

impact or side effects as a result of the agency’s research on switching bioequivalent anti-epileptic drugs. 

Generic Drugs.—The Committee recommendation includes no 

less than $92,966,000 for the generic drugs program at FDA, of 

which $51,545,000 is for the Office of Generic Drugs. Total funding 

for the Office of Generic Drugs is an increase of $10,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2009 level. 

Human Resources.—The Committee is concerned that FDA is not 

being appropriately serviced by the Rockville Human Resources 

[HR] Center. In 2004, HHS consolidated all human resource functions into five human resource centers. FDA, along with several 

other agencies, is serviced by the Rockville HR Center. An audit 

conducted by the Office of Personnel Management [OPM] and HHS 

in 2008, found that the Rockville HR Center was failing in many 

areas, and the center’s authority to hire individuals from outside 

the Government was suspended. As a result, FDA made the decision to independently contract with OPM to facilitate FDA’s continued need to hire individuals from outside of Government. It may 

be more than a year before the Rockville HR Center gets all of its 

hiring authority back. Currently, FDA is paying HHS for a service 

that is not being provided as contractually agreed, and is outsourcing additional human resource activities to OPM in order to fill the 

gap left by the Rockville HR Center. The Committee has invested 

significant resources at FDA so the agency can backfill positions 
108 

and hire new staff to meet increasing agency demands. The Committee believes FDA will be better serviced by a fully functioning 

human resource operation. Therefore, the Committee directs HHS 

and FDA to come to a resolution that ensures FDA is being serviced by a fully functioning HR center and report to the Committee 

on the measures that are being taken to meet FDA’s hiring needs. 

Infant Formula.—The Committee is aware that, in recent years, 

infant formula manufacturers have increasingly added new ingredients to infant formulas, such as long chain polyunsaturated fatty 

acids, prebiotics, and probiotics. The stated goal of such food ingredient additions is to obtain certain beneficial outcomes with respect 

to infant health and nutrition. These products are heavily marketed as offering specific health and developmental advantages 

through nutrition but at the same time cost more than traditional 

infant formulas. Without a doubt, all infants should have access to 

infant formulas that promote healthy growth and development. 

However, the Committee is concerned that product development in 

the infant formula industry is outpacing FDA’s regulatory actions 

with respect to new infant formulas and the claims associated with 

them. The Committee directs the FDA to submit to Congress, within 120 days of enactment, a report containing a list of new infant 

formulas introduced into interstate commerce in the last decade; 

information on the agency’s efforts to issue structure/function claim 

guidance for infant formulas; the health claim petitions (either 

statutory or qualified) pertaining to infant growth, development or 

nutrition received by FDA; and actions taken by FDA in response 

to the petitions for these claims for infant formula, including the 

number of rejections and the reasons for each rejection. 

Mammography.—The Committee is aware that the Mammography Quality Standards Act [MQSA] has resulted in improved 

quality of mammography to make mammograms a more reliable 

tool to detect breast cancers. Appropriated funds pay for inspections in Government entities and in facilities where at least 50 percent of mammograms performed are funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer 

Early Detection Program, as well as other important activities. The 

Committee recommends no less than $5,296,000 in appropriated 

funds, as well as $19,318,000 in user fee collections, for activities 

related to MQSA. 

Neglected Diseases.—The Committee is concerned about the challenge of increasing the number of approved treatments for diseases 

that, although not necessarily rare, may have few if any therapeutic options. The Committee recognizes that the definition of a 

rare disease or condition under the Orphan Drug Act includes 

many tropical diseases or conditions that affect more than 200,000 

persons in the United States. 

Because the Orphan Drug Act already embraces therapies to 

treat many tropical diseases, the Committee urges FDA to take active steps to stimulate orphan status and support their development. Where appropriate, FDA should engage in partnerships and 

collaborations to identify compounds that may be suitable to treat 

this subset of orphan diseases and work in a proactive way to identify compounds to treat such diseases. 
109 

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 $6,000,000 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. 

Packaged Ice Manufacturing.—The Committee recognizes that 

ice is a food product produced in the United States for both interstate and intrastate commerce, and has been made aware of concerns regarding individual retail outlets that manufacture and bag 

ice. The Committee directs FDA to work to educate manufacturers 

regarding safe production of ice, including the issuance of a Food 

Facts sheet informing the public about existing FDA regulations 

that apply to ice manufacturers. Further, the Committee directs 

FDA to consider whether or not formal regulations regarding the 

safe handling, processing, and packaging of packaged ice sold for 

human consumption would be an appropriate measure. 

Pediatric Cancer.—The Committee continues to note the lack of 

new therapies associated with high-risk neuroblastoma. Unlike 

other pediatric cancers, 5-year survival rates for this devastating 

disease have remained unchanged at approximately 20 percent for 

decades. The Committee encourages FDA to continue to give priority attention to new therapies and treatment protocols for Stage 

IV neuroblastoma patients. 

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. 

Standards of Identity.—The Committee recognizes that honey is 

produced in the United States, traded internationally and consumed as both a packaged food and as a food ingredient, and believes FDA needs to work to prevent misbranded honey and honeyderived products from entering the U.S. market. The Committee is 

aware that the FDA has been in receipt of a proposed standard of 

identity for honey for 3 years, and directs FDA to respond to this 

proposal and, if deemed appropriate, begin working toward a U.S. 

standard of identity for honey. 

Tobacco Regulation.—On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking 

Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was signed into law giving 

FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. The tobacco program 

will be fully supported by user fees. However, in the interim period 

before FDA starts collecting fees, the law permits the agency to use 

appropriated funds for start up costs. The Committee expects that 

start up costs funded with appropriations will be minimal and that 

the agency will work diligently to initiate collection of the fee so appropriated funds will no longer be necessary for operation of the tobacco program. The Committee instructs FDA to report quarterly 

on tobacco program implementation. These reports should include 

significant milestones in implementing the tobacco program, the 
110 

amount of appropriated funds used for tobacco regulation by program, the specific activities from which appropriated funds are 

taken, and the impact this reduction in funds will have on the activity, if any. The Committee notes that at the time of the writing 

of this bill the specific U.S.C. citation for collection of the tobacco 

fee was not available. The Committee will authorize collection of 

this fee in fiscal year 2010. 

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

Appropriations, 2009 ............................................................................. $12,433,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 12,433,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 12,433,000 

FDA maintains offices and staff in 49 States and in the District 

of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including field laboratories and specialized facilities, as well as the National Center for Toxicological 

Research complex. Repairs, modifications, improvements, and construction to FDA headquarters and field facilities must be made to 

preserve the properties, ensure employee safety, meet changing 

program requirements, and permit the agency to keep its laboratory methods up to date. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,433,000 for 

FDA buildings and facilities. This funding shall be used to upgrade 

FDA facilities and laboratories which are currently below public 

safety standards and incapable of performing agency requirements. 

INDEPENDENT AGENCY 

FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, 2009 ..................................................................................... $49,000,000 

Budget estimate, 2010 ........................................................................... 54,500,000 

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 54,500,000 

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 depend-
111 

ent, 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 $54,500,000 on administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration [FCA]. 
(112) 

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 provides the Secretary of Agriculture 

with needed transfer authorities for the Rural Development Disaster Assistance Fund. 

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 places conditions on the closing or relocation of Rural Development State Offices. 

Section 715. This section prohibits the closing of the Food and 

Drug Administration’s St. Louis, Missouri laboratory. 
113 

Section 716. This section provides program funding for remote 

rural communities suffering from extreme outmigration. 

Section 717. This section limits the amount of funding available 

to reimburse the Commodity Credit Corporation for the release of 

commodities under the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. 

Section 718. 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 719. This section makes funds for certain conservation 

programs available until expended to disburse certain obligations 

made in the current fiscal year. 

Section 720. This section prohibits funds to carry out certain sections of Public Law 110–246. 

Section 721. This section makes certain former Rural Utilities 

Service borrowers eligible for the Rural Economic Development 

loan and grant program. 

Section 722. 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 723. This section provides for grants to develop and field 

test new food products designed to cost-effectively improve the nutritional delivery and functional form of food assistance products. 

Section 724. This section provides for processing of Rural Development documents. 

Section 725. This section makes selected communities eligible for 

certain Rural Development programs, pending receipt of the 2010 

Census. 

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. The section includes language amending the Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act. 

Section 730. This section modifies matching requirements for certain research grants. 

Section 731. This section provides funds for Rural Development 

and the Farm Service Agency information technology expenses. 

Section 732. This section allows for exemptions of combat pay for 

WIC eligibility. 

Section 733. This section clarifies lack of access to risk management products. 

Section 734. This section provides funding for the purpose of 

evaluating program performance in the WIC program. 

Section 735. This section provides for certain funding activities 

in the WIC program. 
114 

Section 736. This section requests information regarding humanitarian food assistance. 

Section 737. This section provides funding for food bank infrastructure grants as authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

Section 738. This section provides funding for the Geographically 

Disadvantaged Farmers Program as authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

Section 739. This section provides funding for the Durum Wheat 

Quality Program as authorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. 

Section 740. This section provides funding for a grant for workforce development initiatives to address out-migration in rural 

areas. 

Section 741. This section provides funding to carry out a pilot 

program for hardwood trees. 

Section 742. This section clarifies certain program eligibility criteria. 

Section 743. This section includes language regarding reconstituted infant formula. 

Section 744. This section includes language regarding poultry imports. 
(115) 

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY 

During fiscal year 2010, 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, Food and Drug Administration, 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, 2010, and the accompanying Senate Report. 

If a sequestration order is necessary, in implementing the Presidential order, departments and agencies shall apply any percentage 

reduction required for fiscal year 2010 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 2010 

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 does not recommend funding for programs which 

currently lack authorization for fiscal year 2010. 
116 

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

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE 

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 7, 2009, the 

Committee ordered reported en bloc an original bill (S. 1406) making appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2010, and an original bill (S. 1407) 

making appropriations for military construction, the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 

September 30, 2010, with each subject to amendment and subject 

to the budget allocations, and authorized the chairman of the committee or the chairman of the subcommittee to offer the text of the 

Senate-reported bill as a committee amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to the House companion measure, by a recorded vote of 

30–0, a quorum being present. The vote was as follows: 

Yeas Nays 

Chairman Inouye 

Mr. Byrd 

Mr. Leahy 

Mr. Harkin 

Ms. Mikulski 

Mr. Kohl 

Mrs. Murray 

Mr. Dorgan 

Mrs. Feinstein 

Mr. Durbin 

Mr. Johnson 

Ms. Landrieu 

Mr. Reed 

Mr. Lautenberg 

Mr. Nelson 

Mr. Pryor 

Mr. Tester 

Mr. Specter 

Mr. Cochran 

Mr. Bond 

Mr. McConnell 

Mr. Shelby 

Mr. Gregg 

Mr. Bennett 

Mrs. Hutchison 

Mr. Brownback 

Mr. Alexander 

Ms. Collins 

Mr. Voinovich 

Ms. Murkowski 

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 
117 

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of 

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and 

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by 

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which 

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form 

recommended by the committee.’’ 

In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing 

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing 

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is 

printed in italics; and existing law in which no change is proposed 

is shown in roman. 

TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE 

CHAPTER 36—CROP INSURANCE

§ 1531. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(7) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) Lack of access 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 

the Secretary may provide assistance (including multiyear 

assistance) under this section to eligible producers on a 

farm that— 

(i) suffered a production loss or multiyear production losses due to a natural cause during the 2008 crop 

year; and 

TITLE 19—CUSTOMS DUTIES 

CHAPTER 12—TRADE ACT OF 1974 

§ 2497. Supplemental agricultural disaster assistance 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(g) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 
118 

(7) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(F) Lack of access 

Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, 

the Secretary may provide assistance (including multiyear 

assistance) under this section to eligible producers on a 

farm that— 

(i) suffered a production loss or multiyear production losses due to a natural cause during the 2008 crop 

year; and 

TITLE 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE 

CHAPTER 13—SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS

§ 1758. Program requirements 

(a) * * * 

(1)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(14) COMBAT PAY.— (A) DEFINITION OF COMBAT PAY.—In this paragraph, 

the term ‘‘combat pay’’ means any additional payment 

under chapter 5 of title 37, United States Code, or otherwise designated by the Secretary to be appropriate for exclusion under this paragraph, that is received by or from 

a member of the United States Armed Forces deployed to 

a designated combat zone, if the additional pay— 

(i) is the result of deployment to or service in a 

combat zone; and 

(ii) was not received immediately prior to serving 

in a combat zone. 

(B) EXCLUSION.—Combat pay shall not be considered 

to be income for the purpose of determining the eligibility 

for free or reduced price meals of a child who is a member 

of the household of a member of the United States Armed 

Forces. 

* * * * * * * 

§ 1766. Child and adult care food program 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(r) * * * 

(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) Limitation 
119 

The Secretary shall limit reimbursement under this subsection for meals served under a program to institutions located in øten¿ eleven States, of which øeight¿ nine States shall 

be Wisconsin, Vermont, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Delaware, and Michigan and two States shall be approved by the 

Secretary through a competitive application process. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 13A—CHILD NUTRITION

§ 1786. Special supplemental nutrition program for women, 

infants, and children 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(2)(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(B) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) COMBAT PAY.—For the purpose of determining income eligibility under this section, a State agency shall exclude from income 

any additional payment under chapter 5 of title 37, United States 

Code, or otherwise designated by the Secretary to be appropriate for 

exclusion under this subparagraph, that is received by or from a 

member of the United States Armed Forces deployed to a designated 

combat zone, if the additional pay— 

(i) is the result of deployment to or service in a combat 

zone; and 

(ii) was not received immediately prior to serving in a combat zone. 

ø(C)¿ (D) * * * 

CONSOLIDATED SECURITY, DISASTER ASSISTANCE, AND 

CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2009, PUBLIC 

LAW 110–329 

DIVISION B—DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 

TITLE I—RELIEF AND RECOVERY FROM NATURAL 

DISASTERS 

GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

SEC. 10101. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) PURPOSE AND AVAILABILITY OF FUND.—Subject to subsection (d), amounts in the Rural Development Disaster Assistance 
120 

Fund shall be available to the Secretary of Agriculture, until expended, to provide additional amounts for authorized activities of 

agencies of the Rural Development Mission Area in areas affected 

by a disaster declared by the President or the Secretary of Agriculture. Amounts so provided shall be in addition to any other 

amounts available to carry out the activity. In carrying out this section, the Secretary may transfer funds into existing or new accounts 

as determined by the Secretary. 

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL 

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED 

[In millions of dollars] 

Budget authority Outlays 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Committee 

allocation 

Amount 

of bill 

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations 

to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution 

for 2010: Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, 

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies: 

Mandatory ............................................................................ 100,179 100,179 89,627 1 89,627 

Discretionary ........................................................................ 23,050 23,050 24,886 1 24,886 

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation: 

2010 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 2 97,683 

2011 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,856 

2012 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,104 

2013 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 253 

2014 and future years ........................................................ .................... .................... .................... 193 

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 

2010 ......................................................................................... NA 33,914 NA 34,450 

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. 

NA: Not applicable. 

DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING 

ITEMS 

The Constitution vests in the Congress the power of the purse. 

The Committee believes strongly that Congress should make the 

decisions on how to allocate the people’s money. 

As defined in Rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the 

term ‘‘congressional directed spending item’’ means a provision or 

report language included primarily at the request of a Senator, providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, 

or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific 

State, locality or congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative, formula-driven, or competitive award process. 

For each item, a Member is required to provide a certification 

that neither the Member nor the Senator’s immediate family has 

a pecuniary interest in such congressionally directed spending 

item. Such certifications are available to the public on the website 

of the Senate Committee on Appropriations 

(www.appropriations.senate.gov/senators.cfm). 
121 

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. 
122 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS 

Account Project Funding Member 

APHIS .......................................... Agriculture Compliance Laboratory Equipment, Delaware Department of Agriculture ............................................ $69,000 Carper and Kaufman APHIS .......................................... Animal management and control, APHIS Mississippi .............................................................................................. $496,000 Cochran APHIS .......................................... Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman Institute Utah and Mississippi Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station. $1,500,000 Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker APHIS .......................................... Bio-safety and antibiotic resistance, University of Vermont .................................................................................... $240,000 Leahy APHIS .......................................... Blackbird management, APHIS Louisiana ................................................................................................................. $94,000 Landrieu APHIS .......................................... Blackbird management, APHIS North and South Dakota ......................................................................................... $265,000 Conrad, Dorgan, and Johnson APHIS .......................................... Bovine tuberculosis eradication Michigan, Michigan Department of Agriculture .................................................... $248,000 Klobuchar, Levin, and Stabenow APHIS .......................................... California county pest detection augmentation program, California Department of Food and Agriculture ........... $619,000 Feinstein APHIS .......................................... California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and Agriculture ..... $738,000 Boxer and Feinstein APHIS .......................................... Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture .................................................................................... $208,000 Cochran APHIS .......................................... Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ...... $223,000 Casey and Specter APHIS .......................................... Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan .......................................................................................................................... $139,000 Levin and Stabenow APHIS .......................................... Cormorant control, APHIS Mississippi ....................................................................................................................... $223,000 Cochran APHIS .......................................... Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont and Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department ..................................................... $103,000 Leahy APHIS .......................................... Disease prevention, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries ...................................................................... $69,000 Landrieu APHIS .......................................... Disease surveillance in North Dakota, North Dakota State University and Dickinson State University ................. $700,000 Conrad and Dorgan APHIS .......................................... Genetically modified products, Iowa State University .............................................................................................. $259,000 Grassley and Harkin APHIS .......................................... Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana Department 

of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.

$650,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, Risch, and 

Tester 

APHIS .......................................... Gypsy moth, New Jersey, New Jersey Department of Agriculture ............................................................................. $250,000 Lautenberg and Menendez APHIS .......................................... Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii ................................................................................................................................. $3,000,000 Akaka and Inouye APHIS .......................................... Hawaii wildlife services activities, APHIS Hawaii .................................................................................................... $2,230,000 Akaka and Inouye APHIS .......................................... Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee, University of Tennessee .................................................................................. $500,000 Alexander APHIS .......................................... Integrated predation management activities, APHIS West Virginia ......................................................................... $280,000 Byrd APHIS .......................................... Invasive aquatic species, Lake Champlain Fish and Wildlife Management Cooperative, Vermont ........................ $94,000 Leahy APHIS .......................................... Mormon crickets, APHIS Nevada ............................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Reid APHIS .......................................... National Agriculture Biosecurity Center, Kansas State University ........................................................................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts APHIS .......................................... National farm animal identification and records, Holstein Association .................................................................. $343,000 Leahy APHIS .......................................... National Wildlife Research Station, Texas A&M ....................................................................................................... $290,000 Hutchison APHIS .......................................... New Mexico rapid syndrome validation program, New Mexico State University ...................................................... $404,000 Bingaman and Udall, Tom APHIS .......................................... Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez Perce Tribe ......................................................................................................... $176,000 Crapo and Risch APHIS .......................................... Noxious weed management, Nevada Department of Agriculture ............................................................................. $235,000 Reid APHIS .......................................... Tri-State predator control, APHIS Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming ........................................................................... $926,000 Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, Risch, and 

Tester 

APHIS .......................................... Varroa mite suppression, APHIS Hawaii ................................................................................................................... $469,000 Akaka and Inouye 
123 

APHIS .......................................... Wildlife Services South Dakota, South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks .......................................... $519,000 Johnson ARS/BF ....................................... Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, MD ............................................................................................................ $3,000,000 Cardin and Mikulski ARS/BF ....................................... Agricultural Research Center, Logan, UT .................................................................................................................. $4,527,000 Bennett ARS/BF ....................................... Agricultural Research Center, Pullman, WA ............................................................................................................. $3,740,000 Cantwell and Murray ARS/BF ....................................... Animal Bioscience Facility, Bozeman, MT ................................................................................................................. $2,500,000 Baucus and Tester ARS/BF ....................................... Appalachian Fruit Laboratory, Kearneysville, WV ...................................................................................................... $2,000,000 Byrd ARS/BF ....................................... ARS Biotechnology Lab, Lorcom, MS ......................................................................................................................... $1,500,000 Cochran ARS/BF ....................................... ARS Forage-Animal Production Research Facility, Lexington, KY ............................................................................. $2,000,000 McConnell ARS/BF ....................................... ARS Research and Development Center, Auburn, AL ............................................................................................... $3,500,000 Shelby ARS/BF ....................................... ARS Waste Management Research Facility, Bowling Green, KY .............................................................................. $2,000,000 McConnell ARS/BF ....................................... Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center, Prairie du Sac, WI ............................................................................... $4,000,000 Kohl ARS/BF ....................................... Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center, Stoneville, MS .................................................................................. $4,000,000 Cochran ARS/BF ....................................... National Plant and Genetics Security Center, Columbia, MO .................................................................................. $3,500,000 Bond ARS/BF ....................................... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center, Hilo, HI ............................................................................................... $5,000,000 Akaka and Inouye ARS/BF ....................................... Sugarcane Research Facility, Houma, LA ................................................................................................................. $2,000,000 Landrieu and Vitter ARS/BF ....................................... Systems Biology Research Facility, Lincoln, NE ....................................................................................................... $3,760,000 Ben Nelson ARS/S&E ..................................... Anthropod-Borne Animal Diseases Research Laboratory, ARS, Manhattan, KS ....................................................... $1,500,000 Brownback ARS/S&E ..................................... Aquaculture Fisheries Center, ARS, Harry K. Dupree National Acquaculture Center, AR ........................................ $519,000 Lincoln and Pryor ARS/S&E ..................................... Aquaculture Initiatives, Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, ARS, Stuttgart, AR ............................................ $1,597,000 Martinez ARS/S&E ..................................... Biomass Crop Production, ARS, Brookings, SD ........................................................................................................ $1,250,000 Johnson and Thune ARS/S&E ..................................... Biomedical Materials in Plants, ARS, Beltsville, MD ............................................................................................... $1,700,000 Cardin and Mikulski ARS/S&E ..................................... Bioremediation Research, ARS, Beltsville, MD ......................................................................................................... $111,000 Cardin ARS/S&E ..................................... Biotechnology Research and Development Corporation, ARS, Washington, DC ....................................................... $2,750,000 Durbin ARS/S&E ..................................... Center for Agroforestry, ARS, Booneville, AR ............................................................................................................ $660,000 Bond ARS/S&E ..................................... Computer Vision Engineer, ARS, Kearneysville, WV .................................................................................................. $400,000 Byrd ARS/S&E ..................................... Dairy Forage Research Center, ARS, Marshfield, WI ................................................................................................ $2,500,000 Kohl ARS/S&E ..................................... Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, ARS, Booneville, AR ........................................................................ $1,805,000 Lincoln and Pryor ARS/S&E ..................................... Diet Nutrition and Obesity Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ................................................................................... $623,000 Landrieu and Vitter ARS/S&E ..................................... Endophyte Research, ARS, Booneville, AR ................................................................................................................ $994,000 Lincoln and Pryor ARS/S&E ..................................... Forage Crop Stress Tolerance and Virus Disease Management, ARS, Prosser, WA ................................................. $200,000 Murray ARS/S&E ..................................... Formosan Subterranean Termites Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ........................................................................ $3,490,000 Landrieu ARS/S&E ..................................... Foundy Sand By-Products Utilization, ARS, Beltsville, MD ....................................................................................... $638,000 Cardin ARS/S&E ..................................... Genomics, ARS, University of Minnesota .................................................................................................................. $200,000 Klobuchar ARS/S&E ..................................... Human Nutrition Research, ARS, Boston, MA ........................................................................................................... $350,000 Kennedy and Kerry ARS/S&E ..................................... Human Nutrition Research, ARS, Houston, TX .......................................................................................................... $300,000 Hutchison ARS/S&E ..................................... Improved Crop Production Practices, ARS, Auburn, AL ............................................................................................ $1,293,000 Sessions ARS/S&E ..................................... Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, ARS, Washington, DC ............................................................................................ $111,000 Cardin ARS/S&E ..................................... National Bio and Agro Defense Facility, ARS, Manhattan, KS ................................................................................. $1,500,000 Brownback ARS/S&E ..................................... National Center for Agricultural Law, ARS, Beltsville, MD ....................................................................................... $654,000 Harkin, Lincoln, and Pryor ARS/S&E ..................................... New England Plant, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, ARS, Orono, ME ........................................................... $2,249,000 Collins 
124 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

ARS/S&E ..................................... North Carolina Human Nutrition Center, ARS, Kannapolis, NC ................................................................................ $1,000,000 Burr and Hagan ARS/S&E ..................................... Northern Great Plains Research Laboratory, ARS, Mandan, ND ............................................................................... $543,000 Conrad and Dorgan ARS/S&E ..................................... Northwest Center for Small Fruits Research, ARS, Corvallis, OR ............................................................................ $275,000 Merkley, Murray, and Wyden ARS/S&E ..................................... Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center Staffing, ARS, Hilo, HI ........................................................................ $700,000 Akaka and Inouye ARS/S&E ..................................... Phytoestrogen Research, ARS, New Orleans, LA ....................................................................................................... $1,750,000 Landrieu ARS/S&E ..................................... Potato Diseases, ARS, Beltsville, MD ........................................................................................................................ $40,000 Cardin ARS/S&E ..................................... Poultry Diseases, ARS, Beltsville, MD ....................................................................................................................... $408,000 Cardin and Mikulski ARS/S&E ..................................... Seismic and Acoustic Technologies in Soils Sedimentation Laboratory, ARS, Oxford, MS ...................................... $332,000 Cochran ARS/S&E ..................................... Sorghum Research, ARS, Little Rock, AR ................................................................................................................. $135,000 Lincoln and Pryor ARS/S&E ..................................... Termite Species in Hawaii, ARS, New Orleans, LA ................................................................................................... $200,000 Akaka and Inouye ARS/S&E ..................................... Tropical Aquaculture Feeds, ARS, Hilo, HI ................................................................................................................ $1,438,000 Akaka and Inouye ARS/S&E ..................................... Water Management Research Laboratory, ARS, Brawley, CA ................................................................................... $340,000 Boxer and Feinstein ARS/S&E ..................................... Water Use Reduction, ARS, Dawson, GA ................................................................................................................... $657,000 Chambliss and Isakson ARS/S&E ..................................... Wild Rice, ARS, St. Paul, MN .................................................................................................................................... $300,000 Klobuchar General Provision ....................... Agricultural pest facility, APHIS Hawaii ................................................................................................................... $2,600,000 Akaka and Inouye General Provision ....................... Market Development, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Foods, and Markets ............................................................. $1,000,000 Leahy General Provision ....................... Market Development, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection .............................. $2,000,000 Kohl General Provision ....................... Phase II construction, National Center for Natural Products Research, Oxford, Mississippi .................................. $3,497,000 Cochran and Wicker General Provision ....................... Speciality Markets, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection ................................. $350,000 Kohl General Provision ....................... Workforce development and out-migration, Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation ........................................................ $250,000 Brownback NIFA/Extension ............................ Childhood Farm Safety, Farm Safety 4 Just Kids, Urbandale, IA ............................................................................ $75,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/Extension ............................ Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin Extension .................................................................... $376,000 Kohl NIFA/Extension ............................ Dairy education, Iowa State University ..................................................................................................................... $175,000 Harkin NIFA/Extension ............................ E-commerce, Mississippi State University ................................................................................................................ $231,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/Extension ............................ Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ............................ $475,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, and Hutchison NIFA/Extension ............................ Extension specialist, Mississippi State University .................................................................................................... $98,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/Extension ............................ Food Production Education, Vermont Community Foundation, Middlebury, VT ........................................................ $120,000 Sanders NIFA/Extension ............................ Health education leadership, University of Kentucky Research Foundation ............................................................ $590,000 McConnell NIFA/Extension ............................ Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, University of Wisconsin-Madison .................................................................. $400,000 Kohl NIFA/Extension ............................ Invasive Phragmites Control and Outreach, Ducks Unlimited ................................................................................. $155,000 Levin and Stabenow NIFA/Extension ............................ Iowa Vitality Center, Iowa State University .............................................................................................................. $250,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/Extension ............................ Maine Cattle Health Assurance Program, Maine Department of Agriculture .......................................................... $700,000 Collins NIFA/Extension ............................ National Center for Farm Safety, Northeast Iowa Community College .................................................................... $170,000 Harkin NIFA/Extension ............................ Nutrition enhancement, University of Wisconsin Extension and Wisconsin Department of Public Institutions ...... $950,000 Kohl NIFA/Extension ............................ Ohio-Israel Agriculture Initiative, The Negev Foundation, OH .................................................................................. $700,000 Brown and Voinovich NIFA/Extension ............................ Pilot technology transfer, Mississippi State University, Oklahoma State University ............................................... $209,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker 
125 

NIFA/Extension ............................ Potato Integrated Pest Management—Late Blight, University of Maine ................................................................. $450,000 Collins and Snowe NIFA/Extension ............................ Range improvement, New Mexico State University ................................................................................................... $223,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/Extension ............................ Urban horticulture and marketing, Chicago Botanic Garden, Glencoe, IL ............................................................... $175,000 Durbin NIFA/Extension ............................ Urban horticulture, University of Wisconsin Extension and Growing Power ............................................................ $376,000 Kohl NIFA/Extension ............................ Veterinary Technology Satellite Program, Colby Community College ....................................................................... $1,000,000 Brownback NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Agriculture based industrial lubricants, University of Northern Iowa ...................................................................... $405,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Agriculture development in the American Pacific, University of Hawaii ................................................................. $400,000 Akaka and Inouye NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Agriculture waste utilization, West Virginia State University ................................................................................... $500,000 Byrd NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Animal Health Research and Diagnostics, Murray State University ........................................................................ $300,000 McConnell NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Applied Agriculture and Environment Research, California State University .......................................................... $350,000 Boxer and Feinstein NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Aquaculture, Cheyney University, PA ......................................................................................................................... $164,000 Specter NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Biotechnology Research, Alcorn State University, MS .............................................................................................. $480,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Centers for Dairy and Beef Excellence, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture ................................................... $340,000 Specter NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Clemon University Veterinary Institute, SC ............................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Graham NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Cotton research, Texas Tech University .................................................................................................................... $200,000 Cornyn and Hutchison NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Council for Agriculture Science and Technology, Ames, IA ...................................................................................... $110,000 Harkin NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Ethnobotanicals, Frostburg State University, MD ..................................................................................................... $550,000 Cardin NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Farmland Preservation, The Ohio State University ................................................................................................... $160,000 Brown NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Florida Biomass to Biofuels Conversion Program, University of Central Florida ..................................................... $300,000 Martinez and Bill Nelson NIFA/RE/FA ................................. International Center for Food Technology Development to Expand Markets, Purdue University ............................. $750,000 Lugar NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Kansas Biobased Polymer Initiative, Kansas Bioscience Authority .......................................................................... $750,000 Brownback NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Medicinal and Bioactive Crops, Stephen S. Austin State University ....................................................................... $300,000 Hutchison NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center MATRIC, Iowa State University ............................................ $187,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Mississippi Valley State University ........................................................................................................................... $1,002,000 Cochran NIFA/RE/FA ................................. NE Center for Invasive Plants, University of Connecticut, the University of Vermont, and the University of 

Maine.

$295,000 Collins and Snowe 

NIFA/RE/FA ................................. PM–10 air quality study, Washington State University ............................................................................................ $150,000 Murray NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Polymer Research, Pittsburg State University, KS .................................................................................................... $2,000,000 Brownback NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Rural systems, Jackson State University, MS ........................................................................................................... $215,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Shrimp aquaculture, University of Southern Mississippi ......................................................................................... $300,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, Michigan Department of Natural Resources .......................................................... $150,000 Levin and Stabenow NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia, University of Toledo, OH .......................................................................................... $500,000 Brown and Voinovich NIFA/RE/FA ................................. Water pollutants, Marshall University, WV ............................................................................................................... $500,000 Byrd NIFA/SRG .................................... Advanced genetic technologies, University of Kentucky Research Foundation ........................................................ $650,000 McConnell NIFA/SRG .................................... Advancing Biofuel Production, Baylor University, TX ................................................................................................ $300,000 Hutchison NIFA/SRG .................................... Aegilops cylindrica/Biomass (jointed goatgrass), Washington State University ...................................................... $200,000 Cantwell and Murray NIFA/SRG .................................... Agricultural Diversification, University of Hawaii ..................................................................................................... $153,000 Akaka and Inouye NIFA/SRG .................................... Agricultural Entrepreneurial Alternatives, Pennsylvania State University ................................................................ $248,000 Specter NIFA/SRG .................................... Agricultural Science, The Ohio State University ....................................................................................................... $450,000 Voinovich NIFA/SRG .................................... Air quality, Kansas State University; Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ............................................... $300,000 Cornyn, Hutchison, and Roberts 
126 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State University, 

Kansas State University.

$1,000,000 Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor, and Roberts 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Aquaculture product & marketing development, West Virginia University .............................................................. $550,000 Byrd NIFA/SRG .................................... Aquaculture, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center ................................................................................... $150,000 Landrieu and Vitter NIFA/SRG .................................... Aquaculture, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station .................................................................. $361,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/SRG .................................... Avian bioscience, University of Delaware ................................................................................................................. $150,000 Carper and Kaufman NIFA/SRG .................................... Barley for Rural Development, Montana State University, University of Idaho ....................................................... $547,000 Baucus, Crapo, Risch and Tester NIFA/SRG .................................... Bio Energy Production and Carbon Sequestration, University of Tennessee ........................................................... $1,000,000 Alexander NIFA/SRG .................................... Biodesign and Processing, Virginia Tech University ................................................................................................ $223,000 Warner and Webb NIFA/SRG .................................... Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma State University, Mississippi State University ................................... $839,000 Cochran, Inhofe, and Wicker NIFA/SRG .................................... Brucellosis Vaccine, Montana State University ........................................................................................................ $305,000 Baucus and Tester NIFA/SRG .................................... Cataloging Genes Associated with Drought and Disease Resistance, New Mexico State University ...................... $176,000 Bingaman and Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Center for One Medicine ........................................................................................................................................... $500,000 Burris and Durbin NIFA/SRG .................................... Center for rural studies, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ..................................... $350,000 Leahy NIFA/SRG .................................... Childhood obesity and nutrition, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ........................ $250,000 Leahy NIFA/SRG .................................... Citrus canker/Greening, University of Florida ........................................................................................................... $200,000 Martinez NIFA/SRG .................................... Competitiveness of agricultural products, Washington State University and the University of Washington ......... $400,000 Murray NIFA/SRG .................................... Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University. $350,000 Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Murray, and Risch NIFA/SRG .................................... Cotton insect management and Fiber Quality, University of Georgia ...................................................................... $346,000 Chambliss and Isakson NIFA/SRG .................................... Cranberry/Blueberry disease & breeding, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey .......................................... $550,000 Lautenberg and Menendez NIFA/SRG .................................... Cranberry/Blueberry, University of Massachusetts ................................................................................................... $160,000 Kennedy and Kerry NIFA/SRG .................................... Crop integration and production, South Dakota State University ............................................................................ $400,000 Johnson and Thune NIFA/SRG .................................... Dairy and meat goat research, Prairie View A&M University ................................................................................... $200,000 Hutchison NIFA/SRG .................................... Dairy farm profitability, Pennsylvania State University ............................................................................................ $372,000 Casey and Specter NIFA/SRG .................................... Delta revitalization project, Mississippi State University ......................................................................................... $176,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/SRG .................................... Drought mitigation, University of Nebraska ............................................................................................................. $600,000 Ben Nelson NIFA/SRG .................................... Efficient irrigation, New Mexico State University, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas AgriLife Research, 

College Station, TX.

$575,000 Bingaman, Cornyn, Hutchison, Tom Udall 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Emerald Ash Borer, The Ohio State University ......................................................................................................... $550,000 Voinovich NIFA/SRG .................................... Environmentally safe products, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences .......................... $250,000 Leahy NIFA/SRG .................................... Floriculture, University of Hawaii .............................................................................................................................. $300,000 Akaka and Inouye NIFA/SRG .................................... Food & Fuel Initiative, Iowa State University ........................................................................................................... $298,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/SRG .................................... Food and Agriculture Policy Institute ........................................................................................................................ $1,213,000 Bond, Grassley, Harkin, Isakson, Reid NIFA/SRG .................................... Forages for Advancing Livestock Production, University of Kentucky ...................................................................... $473,000 McConnell NIFA/SRG .................................... Fresh Produce Food Safety, University of California ................................................................................................ $750,000 Boxer and Feinstein 
127 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease, Mississippi State University. $797,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/SRG .................................... Grain sorghum, Kansas State University .................................................................................................................. $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts NIFA/SRG .................................... Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, Oregon State University, Washington State University. $150,000 Merkley, Murray, and Wyden NIFA/SRG .................................... High Performance Computing, Utah State University .............................................................................................. $263,000 Bennett NIFA/SRG .................................... Human nutrition, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA ........................................................ $526,000 Landrieu and Vitter NIFA/SRG .................................... Infectious disease research, Colorado State University ........................................................................................... $650,000 Bennet and Mark Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Inland Marine Aquaculture, Virginia Tech University ............................................................................................... $400,000 Warner and Webb NIFA/SRG .................................... Institute for Food Science and Engineering, University of Arkansas ....................................................................... $500,000 Lincoln and Pryor NIFA/SRG .................................... Integrated Economic, Environmental and Technical Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems, Purdue 

University.

$188,000 Lugar 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Invasive Plant Management, Montana State University ........................................................................................... $270,000 Baucus and Tester NIFA/SRG .................................... Joint U.S. China Biotechnology Research and Extension, Utah State University ..................................................... $210,000 Bennett NIFA/SRG .................................... Leopold Center hypoxia project, Iowa State University ............................................................................................. $105,000 Harkin NIFA/SRG .................................... Livestock & dairy policy, Cornell University, NY ....................................................................................................... $200,000 Gillibrand and Schumer NIFA/SRG .................................... Maple research, University of Vermont College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ................................................... $165,000 Leahy NIFA/SRG .................................... Midwest Center for Bioenergy Grasses, Purdue University ....................................................................................... $188,000 Lugar NIFA/SRG .................................... Midwest poultry consortium, Iowa State University .................................................................................................. $250,000 Grassley, Harkin and Klobuchar NIFA/SRG .................................... Milk safety, Pennsylvania State University ............................................................................................................... $821,000 Casey and Specter NIFA/SRG .................................... National beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, Colorado State University, Cornell University, University of 

Georgia.

$655,000 Chambliss, Bennet and Schumer 

NIFA/SRG .................................... National Center for Soybean Technology, University of Missouri-Columbia ............................................................. $690,000 Bond NIFA/SRG .................................... Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico State University ................................................................ $209,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Nevada arid rangelands initiative, University of Nevada Reno ............................................................................... $500,000 Reid NIFA/SRG .................................... New Century Farm, Iowa State University ................................................................................................................ $350,000 Grassley and Harkin NIFA/SRG .................................... New crop opportunities, Lexington, KY ..................................................................................................................... $525,000 McConnell NIFA/SRG .................................... New Satellite and Computer-Based Technology for Agriculture, Mississippi State University ................................ $654,000 Cochran and Wicker NIFA/SRG .................................... Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico State University .............................................................................. $176,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Organic cropping, Oregon State University ............................................................................................................... $149,000 Merkley and Wyden NIFA/SRG .................................... Organic cropping, Washington State University ....................................................................................................... $264,000 Cantwell and Murray NIFA/SRG .................................... Organic waste utilization, New Mexico State University .......................................................................................... $69,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Pierce’s disease, University of California ................................................................................................................. $2,000,000 Boxer and Feinstein NIFA/SRG .................................... Policy Analyses for a National Secure & Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry and Energy Program, Texas AgriLife 

Research, College Station, TX.

$200,000 Hutchison 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University, University of 

Maine.

$1,037,000 Cantwell, Collins, Crapo, Merkley, Murray, 

Risch, Snowe, Wyden 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Precision agriculture, University of Kentucky Research Foundation ........................................................................ $671,000 McConnell NIFA/SRG .................................... Preharvest food safety, Kansas State University ...................................................................................................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts NIFA/SRG .................................... Protein utilization, Iowa State University .................................................................................................................. $600,000 Grassley and Harkin 
128 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Rangeland Ecosystems Dynamics, University of Idaho ............................................................................................ $300,000 Crapo and Risch NIFA/SRG .................................... Renewable Energy and Products, North Dakota State University ............................................................................ $1,000,000 Conrad and Dorgan NIFA/SRG .................................... Ruminant nutrition consortium, South Dakota State University .............................................................................. $563,000 Johnson and Thune NIFA/SRG .................................... Rural Policies Research Institute .............................................................................................................................. $889,000 Harkin NIFA/SRG .................................... Russian wheat aphid, Colorado State University ..................................................................................................... $250,000 Bennet and Mark Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Seed technology, South Dakota State University ...................................................................................................... $350,000 Johnson and Thune NIFA/SRG .................................... Small fruit research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University ......................... $300,000 Cantwell, Crapo, Merkley, Murray, Risch, 

Wyden 

NIFA/SRG .................................... Soil-Borne Disease Prevention in Irrigated Agriculture, New Mexico State University ............................................ $187,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Southern Great Plains Dairy Consortium, New Mexico State University .................................................................. $350,000 Bingaman and Tom Udall NIFA/SRG .................................... Soybean Cyst Nematode, University of Missouri ....................................................................................................... $556,000 Bond NIFA/SRG .................................... Soybean research, National Soybean Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois ......................................... $400,000 Burris and Durbin NIFA/SRG .................................... Specialty Crops, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture .............................................................................. $175,000 Lincoln and Pryor NIFA/SRG .................................... Sustainable agriculture & natural resources, Pennsylvania State University ......................................................... $142,000 Specter NIFA/SRG .................................... Sustainable beef supply, Montana State University ................................................................................................. $200,000 Baucus NIFA/SRG .................................... Sustainable Engineered Materials from Renewable Resources, Virginia Tech ........................................................ $250,000 Warner and Webb NIFA/SRG .................................... Sustainable Production and Processing Research for Lowbush Specialty Crops, University of Maine ................... $200,000 Collins and Snowe NIFA/SRG .................................... Tillage, Silviculture, Waste Management, Louisiana State University ..................................................................... $200,000 Landrieu NIFA/SRG .................................... Tropical and subtropical research/T STAR, University of Hawaii ............................................................................. $800,000 Akaka and Inouye NIFA/SRG .................................... Virtual plant database enhancement project, Missouri Botanical Garden .............................................................. $588,000 Bond NIFA/SRG .................................... Virus-free Wine Grape Cultivars, Wine Grape Foundation Block, Washington State University .............................. $260,000 Cantwell and Murray NIFA/SRG .................................... Viticulture consortium, University of California ........................................................................................................ $1,200,000 Boxer NIFA/SRG .................................... Water conservation, Kansas State University ........................................................................................................... $500,000 Brownback and Roberts NIFA/SRG .................................... Wetland plants, Louisiana State University .............................................................................................................. $200,000 Landrieu NIFA/SRG .................................... Wheat genetic research, Kansas State University .................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts NIFA/SRG .................................... Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership, WY .............................................................................................. $300,000 Barrasso NIFA/SRG .................................... Wood utilization (ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR, WV) .......................................................................................... $4,841,000 Burr, Byrd, Cochran, Collins, Crapo, Klobuchar, Landrieu, Levin, Risch, Snowe, 

Stabenow, Wicker, and Wyden 

NIFA/SRG .................................... World Food and Health Initiative (IL) ....................................................................................................................... $250,000 Burris and Durbin NRCS/CO .................................... Accelerated Soil Mapping Survey, NRCS Wyoming ................................................................................................... $200,000 Enzi NRCS/CO .................................... Agricultural Development and Resource Conservation, Hawaii RC&D Councils ...................................................... $1,400,000 Akaka and Inouye NRCS/CO .................................... Agricultural Wildlife Conservation Center, MS .......................................................................................................... $939,000 Cochran NRCS/CO .................................... Appropriate Wetland and Wet-Mesic Species, Tallgrass Prairie Center, University of Northern Iowa .................... $134,000 Grassley and Harkin NRCS/CO .................................... Center for Invasive Species Eradication, Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX ......................................... $1,000,000 Hutchison NRCS/CO .................................... Certified Environmental Management Systems for Agriculture, Iowa Soybean Association .................................... $288,000 Grassley and Harkin 
129 

NRCS/CO .................................... Chenier Plain Sustainability Initiative, McNeese State University ........................................................................... $500,000 Landrieu NRCS/CO .................................... Conservation Fuels Management and Restoration, Wildfire Support Group, NV ..................................................... $269,000 Reid NRCS/CO .................................... Conservation Internships, Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Association .................................................... $120,000 Kohl NRCS/CO .................................... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS New Jersey ............................................................................................. $236,000 Lautenberg and Menendez NRCS/CO .................................... Conservation Technical Assistance, NRCS Tennessee .............................................................................................. $1,000,000 Alexander NRCS/CO .................................... Conservation Technology Transfer, University of Wisconsin ..................................................................................... $516,000 Kohl NRCS/CO .................................... Delta Conservation Demonstration, Washington County, MS ................................................................................... $376,000 Cochran NRCS/CO .................................... Delta Water Study, NRCS Mississippi ....................................................................................................................... $235,000 Cochran NRCS/CO .................................... Farm Viability Program, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board ....................................................................... $300,000 Leahy NRCS/CO .................................... Georgia Soil and Water Conservation Commission Cooperative Agreement ............................................................ $800,000 Chambliss NRCS/CO .................................... Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education Watershed Project, Texas State University ....................... $300,000 Hutchison NRCS/CO .................................... Grazing Land Conservation Initiative, NRCS Wisconsin ........................................................................................... $732,000 Kohl NRCS/CO .................................... Great Lakes Basin Soil and Erosion Control, Great Lakes Commission .................................................................. $404,000 Levin, Stabenow, and Voinovich NRCS/CO .................................... Great Plain Riparian Initiative, National Wild Turkey Federation ............................................................................ $500,000 Ben Nelson NRCS/CO .................................... Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity Project, Western Kentucky Research Foundation .................... $100,000 McConnell NRCS/CO .................................... Hungry Canyons Alliance, IA ..................................................................................................................................... $282,000 Grassley and Harkin NRCS/CO .................................... Illinois Conservation Initiative, Illinois Department of Natural Resources .............................................................. $576,000 Durbin NRCS/CO .................................... Kentucky Soil Erosion Control, NRCS Kentucky ......................................................................................................... $724,000 Bunning and McConnell NRCS/CO .................................... Mississippi Conservation Initiative, NRCS Mississippi ............................................................................................. $2,000,000 Cochran NRCS/CO .................................... Municipal Water District of Orange County for Efficient Irrigation, CA ................................................................... $150,000 Boxer and Feinstein NRCS/CO .................................... Nitrate Pollution Reduction, NRCS Rhode Island ..................................................................................................... $155,000 Reed NRCS/CO .................................... Operation Oak Program, National Wild Turkey Federation ....................................................................................... $100,000 Chambliss, Cochran, and Graham NRCS/CO .................................... Phosphorous Loading in Lake Champlain, Poultney Conservation District .............................................................. $179,000 Leahy NRCS/CO .................................... Phosphorous Reduction Cooperative Agreement, Kansas Livestock Foundation ...................................................... $1,000,000 Brownback NRCS/CO .................................... Potomac River Tributary Strategy, NRCS West Virginia ........................................................................................... $168,000 Byrd NRCS/CO .................................... Riparian Restoration along the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian Rivers, New Mexico Association of Soil and 

Water Conservation Districts.

$200,000 Bingaman 

NRCS/CO .................................... Risk Management Initiative, NRCS West Virginia .................................................................................................... $673,000 Byrd NRCS/CO .................................... Soil Phosphorus Studies, NRCS West Virginia .......................................................................................................... $202,000 Byrd NRCS/CO .................................... Soil Surveys, NRCS Rhode Island ............................................................................................................................. $134,000 Reed NRCS/CO .................................... Technical Assistance Grants to Kentucky Soil Conservation Districts, Kentucky Division of Conservation ............ $545,000 Bunning and McConnell NRCS/CO .................................... UMASS-Amherst Ecological Conservation Initiative, MA ........................................................................................... $140,000 Kennedy and Kerry NRCS/CO .................................... Utah Conservation Initiative, NRCS Utah ................................................................................................................. $2,500,000 Bennett NRCS/CO .................................... Watershed Demonstration Project, Iowa Soybean Association ................................................................................. $134,000 Grassley and Harkin NRCS/CO .................................... Watershed Planning Staff, NRCS Pacific Island Area .............................................................................................. $500,000 Akaka and Inouye NRCS/CO .................................... Yankee Tank Dam, NRCS Kansas ............................................................................................................................. $1,000,000 Brownback and Roberts NRCS/WFPO ................................ Ashley Valley Flood Control, Uintah County, UT ....................................................................................................... $300,000 Hatch NRCS/WFPO ................................ Dry Creek Watershed, City of Rocklin, CA ................................................................................................................ $500,000 Feinstein NRCS/WFPO ................................ Dunloup Creek Watershed Project, NRCS West Virginia ........................................................................................... $1,500,000 Byrd NRCS/WFPO ................................ DuPage County Watershed, IL ................................................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Durbin 
130 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS—Continued 

Account Project Funding Member 

NRCS/WFPO ................................ Lahaina Watershed, NRCS Hawaii ............................................................................................................................ $1,000,000 Akaka and Inouye NRCS/WFPO ................................ Lost River, NRCS West Virginia ................................................................................................................................ $4,000,000 Byrd NRCS/WFPO ................................ Lower Hamakua Ditch Watershed, NRCS Hawaii ...................................................................................................... $1,800,000 Akaka and Inouye NRCS/WFPO ................................ Missouri Watershed Projects, NRCS Missouri ........................................................................................................... $2,000,000 Bond NRCS/WFPO ................................ Pocasset River Watershed, NRCS Rhode Island ....................................................................................................... $2,000,000 Reed NRCS/WFPO ................................ Upcountry Maui Watershed, NRCS Hawaii ................................................................................................................ $2,000,000 Akaka and Inouye NRCS/WFPO ................................ Upper Clark Fork Watershed, Watershed Restoration Coalition, MT ........................................................................ $200,000 Tester NRCS/WFPO ................................ Wailuku-Alenaio, NRCS Hawaii ................................................................................................................................. $250,000 Akaka and Inouye RCDG .......................................... Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, National Center for Appropriate Technology, Butte, MT ........... $2,800,000 Baucus, Feinstein, Harkin, Johnson, Lincoln, 

Pryor, Specter, and Tester 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMS 

Production, Processing, and Marketing 

Office of the Secretary ............................................................................................................................................... 5,174 5,285 5,285 ∂111 ............................Office of Tribal Relations ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,000 1,000 ∂1,000 ............................Executive Operations: 

Office of Chief Economist ................................................................................................................................. 10,651 16,732 13,032 ∂2,381 ¥3,700 National Appeals Division ................................................................................................................................. 14,711 15,559 15,219 ∂508 ¥340 Office of Budget and Program Analysis ........................................................................................................... 9,054 9,436 9,436 ∂382 ............................Office of Homeland Security ............................................................................................................................. 974 2,994 1,859 ∂885 ¥1,135 Office of Advocacy and Outreach ..................................................................................................................... ............................ 3,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. 17,527 63,579 63,579 ∂46,052 ............................Office of the Chief Financial Officer ................................................................................................................ 5,954 6,566 6,566 ∂612 ............................
131 

Total, Executive Operations .......................................................................................................................... 58,871 117,866 109,691 ∂50,820 ¥8,175 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights ..................................................................................................... 871 895 895 ∂24 ............................Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 21,551 23,922 23,422 ∂1,871 ¥500 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................................................................................................ 687 806 806 ∂119 ............................Agriculture buildings and facilities and rentalpayments .......................................................................................... (268,244 ) (346,182 ) (274,482 ) (∂6,238 ) (¥71,700 ) 

Payments to GSA ............................................................................................................................................... 168,901 237,901 168,901 ............................ ¥69,000 Department of Homeland Security .................................................................................................................... 13,500 13,500 13,500 ............................ ............................Building operations and maintenance .............................................................................................................. 61,843 94,781 92,081 ∂30,238 ¥2,700 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 24,000 ............................ ............................ ¥24,000 ............................

Hazardous materials management ............................................................................................................................ 5,100 5,125 5,125 ∂25 ............................Departmental administration ..................................................................................................................................... 27,011 43,319 41,319 ∂14,308 ¥2,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations ................................................................................. 3,877 3,968 3,968 ∂91 ............................Office of Communications .......................................................................................................................................... 9,514 9,922 9,722 ∂208 ¥200 Office of the Inspector General .................................................................................................................................. 85,766 88,781 88,025 ∂2,259 ¥756 

Emergency appropriations ................................................................................................................................. 22,500 ............................ ............................ ¥22,500 ............................

Office of the General Counsel .................................................................................................................................... 41,620 44,651 43,551 ∂1,931 ¥1,100 Office of the Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics .................................................................. 609 895 895 ∂286 ............................Economic Research Service ........................................................................................................................................ 79,500 82,478 82,078 ∂2,578 ¥400 National Agricultural Statistics Service ..................................................................................................................... 151,565 161,830 161,830 ∂10,265 ............................

Census of Agriculture ........................................................................................................................................ (37,265 ) (37,908 ) (37,908 ) (∂643 ) ............................

Agricultural Research Service: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,140,406 1,153,368 1,181,632 ∂41,226 ∂28,264 Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 46,752 ............................ 47,027 ∂275 ∂47,027 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 176,000 ............................ ............................ ¥176,000 ............................

Total, Agricultural Research Service ................................................................................................... 1,363,158 1,153,368 1,228,659 ¥134,499 ∂75,291 

National Institute of Food and Agriculture: 

Research and education activities ................................................................................................................... 691,043 622,892 757,821 ∂66,778 ∂134,929 Native American Institutions Endowment Fund ................................................................................................ (11,880 ) (11,880 ) (11,880 ) ............................ ............................Extension activities ........................................................................................................................................... 474,250 487,005 491,292 ∂17,042 ∂4,287 Integrated activities .......................................................................................................................................... 56,864 56,864 56,864 ............................ ............................

Total, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service ....................................................... 1,222,157 1,166,761 1,305,977 ∂83,820 ∂139,216 

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs ................................................................... 737 895 895 ∂158 ............................Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 876,675 872,423 911,394 ∂34,719 ∂38,971 

Inspections (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA .............................................................................................. ............................ (20,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥20,000 ) 
132 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Buildings and facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 4,712 4,712 4,712 ............................ ............................

Total, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ..................................................................................... 881,387 877,135 916,106 ∂34,719 ∂38,971 

Agricultural Marketing Service: 

Marketing Services ............................................................................................................................................ 86,711 90,848 90,848 ∂4,137 ............................

Standardization (user fees) (leg. proposal) NA ....................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

(Limitation on administrative expenses, from fees collected) ......................................................................... (62,888 ) (64,583 ) (64,583 ) (∂1,695 ) ............................Permanent, Section 32 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,169,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 ∂131,000 ............................Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply (transfer from section 32) ........................................ 17,270 20,056 20,056 ∂2,786 ............................

Commodity purchases support system .................................................................................................... (10,000 ) (20,000 ) (20,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................

Payments to States and possessions ............................................................................................................... 1,334 1,334 1,334 ............................ ............................

Total, Agricultural Marketing Service program ............................................................................................ 1,347,203 1,496,821 1,496,821 ∂149,618 ............................

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 40,342 41,964 41,564 ∂1,222 ¥400 Limitation on inspection and weighing services .............................................................................................. (42,463 ) (42,463 ) (42,463 ) ............................ ............................

Office of the Under Secretary for Food Safety ........................................................................................................... 613 813 813 ∂200 ............................Food Safety and Inspection Service ........................................................................................................................... 971,566 1,018,520 1,018,520 ∂46,954 ............................

Lab accreditation fees ...................................................................................................................................... (1,000 ) (1,000 ) (1,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Production, Processing, and Marketing .............................................................................................. 6,536,735 6,608,619 6,776,866 ∂240,131 ∂168,247 

Farm Assistance Programs 

Office of the Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services .............................................................. 646 895 895 ∂249 ............................Farm Service Agency: 

Salaries and expenses ...................................................................................................................................... 1,170,273 1,253,777 1,253,777 ∂83,504 ............................

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................

(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (348 ) (355 ) (355 ) (∂7 ) ............................
133 

(Transfer from Public Law 480) ........................................................................................................................ (2,736 ) (2,812 ) (2,812 ) (∂76 ) ............................(Transfer from ACIF) .......................................................................................................................................... (309,403 ) (318,173 ) (313,173 ) (∂3,770 ) (¥5,000 ) 

Subtotal, transfers from program accounts ................................................................................................. (312,487 ) (321,340 ) (316,340 ) (∂3,853 ) (¥5,000 ) Total, Salaries and expenses ........................................................................................................................ (1,532,760 ) (1,575,117 ) (1,570,117 ) (∂37,357 ) (¥5,000 ) 

State mediation grants ..................................................................................................................................... 4,369 4,369 4,369 ............................ ............................Grassroot source water protection program ..................................................................................................... 5,000 5,000 5,000 ............................ ............................Dairy indemnity program ................................................................................................................................... 1,700 930 930 ¥770 ............................

Subtotal, Farm Service Agency ..................................................................................................................... 1,231,342 1,264,076 1,264,076 ∂32,734 ............................

Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (222,298 ) (392,990 ) (392,990 ) (∂170,692 ) ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. (360,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥360,000 ) ............................

Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (1,238,768 ) (1,500,000 ) (1,500,000 ) (∂261,232 ) ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (1,461,066 ) (1,892,990 ) (1,892,990 ) (∂431,924 ) ............................

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (575,095 ) (700,000 ) (700,000 ) (∂124,905 ) ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. (573,367 ) ............................ ............................ (¥573,367 ) ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (1,017,497 ) (1,150,000 ) (1,150,000 ) (∂132,503 ) ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. (50,201 ) ............................ ............................ (¥50,201 ) ............................

Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... (269,986 ) (144,467 ) (144,467 ) (¥125,519 ) ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. (1,862,578 ) (1,994,467 ) (1,994,467 ) (∂131,889 ) ............................

Indian tribe land acquisition loans ................................................................................................ (3,940 ) (2,000 ) (2,000 ) (¥1,940 ) ............................Conservation loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (∂75,000 ) ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. ............................ (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (∂75,000 ) ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. ............................ (150,000 ) (150,000 ) (∂150,000 ) ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .......................................................................................... ............................ (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (∂10,000 ) ............................Boll weevil eradication loans .......................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (60,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ (∂40,000 ) 

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (3,427,584 ) (4,109,457 ) (4,149,457 ) (∂721,873 ) (∂40,000 ) 
134 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan subsidies: 

Farm ownership loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 12,715 16,034 16,034 ∂3,319 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 22,860 ............................ ............................ ¥22,860 ............................

Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 4,088 5,550 5,550 ∂1,462 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 39,663 21,584 21,584 ¥18,079 ............................

Farm operating loans: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 67,804 33,180 33,180 ¥34,624 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 67,600 ............................ ............................ ¥67,600 ............................

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 25,336 26,910 26,910 ∂1,574 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 1,250 ............................ ............................ ¥1,250 ............................

Subsidized guaranteed ........................................................................................................... 37,231 20,312 20,312 ¥16,919 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. 199,221 80,402 80,402 ¥118,819 ............................

Indian tribe land acquisition .......................................................................................................... 248 ............................ ............................ ¥248 ............................

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ 1,065 1,065 ∂1,065 ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. ............................ 278 278 ∂278 ............................

Subtotal .............................................................................................................................. ............................ 1,343 1,343 ∂1,343 ............................

Indian Highly Fractionated Land Loans .......................................................................................... ............................ 793 793 ∂793 ............................Individual Development Accounts ................................................................................................... ............................ 5,000 ............................ ............................ ¥5,000 

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 239,132 109,122 104,122 ¥135,010 ¥5,000 

ACIF expenses: 

Salaries and expense (transfer to FSA) .......................................................................................... 309,403 318,173 313,173 ∂3,770 ¥5,000 Administrative expenses .................................................................................................................. 7,920 7,920 7,920 ............................ ............................
135 

Total, ACIF expenses ................................................................................................................... 317,323 326,093 321,093 ∂3,770 ¥5,000 Total, Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund .................................................................................. 556,455 435,215 425,215 ¥131,240 ¥10,000 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (3,427,584 ) (4,109,457 ) (4,149,457 ) (∂721,873 ) (∂40,000 ) 

Total, Farm Service Agency ........................................................................................................ 1,787,797 1,699,291 1,689,291 ¥98,506 ¥10,000 

Risk Management Agency, Administrative and operating expenses ......................................................................... 77,177 80,325 79,425 ∂2,248 ¥900 

Total, Farm Assistance Programs ................................................................................................................. 1,865,620 1,780,511 1,769,611 ¥96,009 ¥10,900 

Corporations 

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation: 

Federal crop insurance corporation fund .......................................................................................................... 6,582,945 7,502,601 7,502,601 ∂919,656 ............................

Commodity Credit Corporation Fund: 

Reimbursement for net realized losses ............................................................................................................ 11,106,324 13,878,054 13,878,054 ∂2,771,730 ............................Hazardous waste management (limitation on expenses) ................................................................................. (5,000 ) (5,000 ) (5,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Corporations ........................................................................................................................................ 17,689,269 21,380,655 21,380,655 ∂3,691,386 ............................Total, title I, Agricultural Programs ............................................................................................................. 26,091,624 29,769,785 29,927,132 ∂3,835,508 ∂157,347 

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (312,487 ) (321,340 ) (316,340 ) (∂3,853 ) (¥5,000 ) (Loan authorization) ............................................................................................................................. (3,427,584 ) (4,109,457 ) (4,149,457 ) (∂721,873 ) (∂40,000 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) ............................................................................................. (110,351 ) (112,046 ) (112,046 ) (∂1,695 ) ............................

TITLE II—CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment ................................................................... 758 895 895 ∂137 ............................Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Conservation operations .................................................................................................................................... 853,400 867,197 949,577 ∂96,177 ∂82,380 Watershed and flood prevention operations ..................................................................................................... 24,289 ............................ 24,394 ∂105 ∂24,394 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 290,000 ............................ ............................ ¥290,000 ............................

Watershed rehabilitation program .................................................................................................................... 40,000 40,161 40,161 ∂161 ............................

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ............................

Resource conservation and development .......................................................................................................... 50,730 ............................ ............................ ¥50,730 ............................

Total, Natural Resources Conservation Service ............................................................................................ 1,308,419 907,358 1,014,132 ¥294,287 ∂106,774 
136 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, title II, Conservation Programs .......................................................................................................... 1,309,177 908,253 1,015,027 ¥294,150 ∂106,774 

TITLE III—RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Rural Development ............................................................................................... 646 895 895 ∂249 ............................Rural Development: 

Rural development expenses: 

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................. 192,484 195,987 207,237 ∂14,753 ∂11,250 (Transfer from RHIF) ................................................................................................................................ (460,217 ) (468,593 ) (468,593 ) (∂8,376 ) ............................(Transfer from RDLFP) .............................................................................................................................. (4,853 ) (4,941 ) (4,941 ) (∂88 ) ............................(Transfer from RETLP) .............................................................................................................................. (39,245 ) (39,959 ) (39,959 ) (∂714 ) ............................

Subtotal, Transfers from program accounts ....................................................................................... (504,315 ) (513,493 ) (513,493 ) (∂9,178 ) ............................Total, Rural development expenses ..................................................................................................... (696,799 ) (709,480 ) (720,730 ) (∂23,931 ) (∂11,250 ) 

Rural Housing Service: 

Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Single family direct (sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... (1,121,488 ) (1,121,488 ) (1,226,501 ) (∂105,013 ) (∂105,013 ) 

Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... (6,223,859 ) (6,204,444 ) (12,000,000 ) (∂5,776,141 ) (∂5,795,556 ) 

Subtotal, Single family ...................................................................................................... (7,345,347 ) (7,325,932 ) (13,226,501 ) (∂5,881,154 ) (∂5,900,569 ) 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... (34,410 ) (34,412 ) (34,412 ) (∂2 ) ............................Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. (69,512 ) (69,512 ) (69,512 ) ............................ ............................Site loans (sec. 524) ....................................................................................................................... (5,045 ) (5,045 ) (5,045 ) ............................ ............................Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. (129,090 ) (129,090 ) (129,090 ) ............................ ............................Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... (1,447 ) (1,448 ) (1,448 ) (∂1 ) ............................Single family housing credit sales ................................................................................................. (10,000 ) (10,000 ) (10,000 ) ............................ ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... (4,970 ) (4,970 ) (4,970 ) ............................ ............................
137 

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (7,599,821 ) (7,580,409 ) (13,480,978 ) (∂5,881,157 ) (∂5,900,569 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Single family direct (sec. 502) ....................................................................................................... 75,364 40,710 44,522 ¥30,842 ∂3,812 

Emergency appropriations ...................................................................................................... 67,000 ............................ ............................ ¥67,000 ............................Unsubsidized guaranteed ....................................................................................................... 79,043 89,624 172,800 ∂93,757 ∂83,176 

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 133,000 ............................ ............................ ¥133,000 ............................

Subtotal, Single family ............................................................................................. 354,407 130,334 217,322 ¥137,085 ∂86,988 

Housing repair (sec. 504) ............................................................................................................... 9,246 4,422 4,422 ¥4,824 ............................Rental housing (sec. 515) .............................................................................................................. 28,611 18,935 18,935 ¥9,676 ............................Multi-family housing guarantees (sec. 538) .................................................................................. 8,082 1,485 1,485 ¥6,597 ............................Multi-family housing credit sales ................................................................................................... 523 556 556 ∂33 ............................Self-help housing land develop. (sec. 523) ................................................................................... 82 ............................ ............................ ¥82 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies .................................................................................................................. 400,951 155,732 242,720 ¥158,231 ∂86,988 

RHIF administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ....................................................................................... 460,217 468,593 468,593 ∂8,376 ............................

Total, Rural Housing Insurance Fund program ................................................................................... 861,168 624,325 711,313 ¥149,855 ∂86,988 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (7,599,821 ) (7,580,409 ) (13,480,978 ) (∂5,881,157 ) (∂5,900,569 ) 

Rental assistance program: 

Rental assistance (Sec. 521) ................................................................................................................... 891,112 1,080,042 968,612 ∂77,500 ¥111,430 Eligible households (Sec. 502(c)(5)(D)) ................................................................................................... 5,958 5,958 5,958 ............................ ............................New construction (Sec. 515) .................................................................................................................... 2,030 2,030 2,030 ............................ ............................New construction (Farm Labor Housing) ................................................................................................. 3,400 3,400 3,400 ............................ ............................

Total, Rental assistance program ....................................................................................................... 902,500 1,091,430 980,000 ∂77,500 ¥111,430 

Rural housing voucher program ....................................................................................................................... 4,965 4,965 18,000 ∂13,035 ∂13,035 Multifamily housing revitalization program account ........................................................................................ 19,860 19,860 19,860 ............................ ............................Multifamily housing preservation revolving loans ............................................................................................ 2,889 1,791 1,791 ¥1,098 ............................

Total, Multifamily housing revitalization ...................................................................................................... 27,714 26,616 39,651 ∂11,937 ∂13,035 

Mutual and self-help housing grants ............................................................................................................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ............................ ............................Rural housing assistance grants ...................................................................................................................... 41,500 41,500 41,500 ............................ ............................Farm labor housing program account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (21,678 ) (21,677 ) (21,677 ) (¥1 ) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 9,135 7,834 7,834 ¥1,301 ............................
138 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 9,134 9,134 9,134 ............................ ............................

Total, Farm Labor Housing Program Account ..................................................................................... 18,269 16,968 16,968 ¥1,301 ............................

Rural community facilities program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Community facility: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... (294,948 ) (294,962 ) (294,962 ) (∂14 ) ............................Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. (206,425 ) (206,417 ) (206,417 ) (¥8 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (501,373 ) (501,379 ) (501,379 ) (∂6 ) ............................

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Community facility: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 16,871 3,864 3,864 ¥13,007 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 67,000 ............................ ............................ ¥67,000 ............................

Guaranteed ............................................................................................................................. 6,358 6,626 6,626 ∂268 ............................Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 20,373 20,373 20,373 ............................ ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 63,000 ............................ ............................ ¥63,000 ............................

Rural community development initiative ........................................................................................ 6,256 6,256 6,256 ............................ ............................Economic impact initiative grants .................................................................................................. 10,000 13,902 13,902 ∂3,902 ............................Tribal college grants ....................................................................................................................... 3,972 3,972 3,972 ............................ ............................

Total, RCP Loan subsidies and grants ...................................................................................... 193,830 54,993 54,993 ¥138,837 ............................Subtotal, grants and payments .................................................................................................. 292,326 152,188 152,188 ¥140,138 ............................Total, Rural Housing Service ...................................................................................................... 2,083,708 1,894,559 1,883,152 ¥200,556 ¥11,407 

(Loan authorization) ........................................................................................................... (8,122,872 ) (8,103,465 ) (14,004,034 ) (∂5,881,162 ) (∂5,900,569 ) 
139 

Rural Business—Cooperative Service: 

Rural Business Program Account: 

(Guaranteed business and industry loans) ............................................................................................. (993,000 ) (993,002 ) (993,002 ) (∂2 ) ............................Loan subsidies and grants: 

Guaranteed business and industry subsidy ................................................................................... 43,196 52,927 52,927 ∂9,731 ............................

Emergency appropriations ...................................................................................................... 130,000 ............................ ............................ ¥130,000 ............................

Grants: 

Rural business enterprise ...................................................................................................... 38,727 38,727 38,727 ............................ ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 20,000 ............................ ............................ ¥20,000 ............................

Rural business opportunity .................................................................................................... 2,483 2,483 2,483 ............................ ............................Delta regional authority ......................................................................................................... 2,979 2,979 2,979 ............................ ............................

Total, RBP loan subsidies and grants .............................................................................. 237,385 97,116 97,116 ¥140,269 ............................

Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (33,536 ) (33,536 ) (33,536 ) ............................ ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 14,035 8,464 8,464 ¥5,571 ............................Administrative expenses (transfer to RD) ................................................................................................ 4,853 4,941 4,941 ∂88 ............................

Total, Rural Development Loan Fund .................................................................................................. 18,888 13,405 13,405 ¥5,483 ............................

Rural Economic Development Loans Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (33,077 ) (33,077 ) (33,077 ) ............................ ............................

Rural cooperative development grants: 

Cooperative development ......................................................................................................................... 4,424 10,424 10,424 ∂6,000 ............................Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas ...................................................................................... 2,582 2,582 2,800 ∂218 ∂218 Cooperative research agreement .............................................................................................................. 300 300 300 ............................ ............................Value-added agricultural product market development .......................................................................... 3,867 21,867 21,867 ∂18,000 ............................Grants to assist minority producers ........................................................................................................ 1,463 3,463 3,463 ∂2,000 ............................

Total, Rural Cooperative development grants ..................................................................................... 12,636 38,636 38,854 ∂26,218 ∂218 

Rural Microenterprise Investment Program Account: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. ............................ (51,522 ) (51,522 ) (∂51,522 ) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ 11,000 11,000 ∂11,000 ............................Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... ............................ 11,000 11,000 ∂11,000 ............................

Total, Rural Microenterprise Investment ............................................................................................. ............................ 22,000 22,000 ∂22,000 ............................

Rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants ...................................................................... 8,130 ............................ ............................ ¥8,130 ............................Rural energy for America: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. (28,379 ) (246,334 ) (246,334 ) (∂217,955 ) ............................
140 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ 2,750 33,600 33,600 ∂30,850 ............................Grants ....................................................................................................................................................... 2,750 34,530 34,530 ∂31,780 ............................

Total, Renewable energy program ....................................................................................................... 5,500 68,130 68,130 ∂62,630 ............................

Biorefinery Assistance Program: 

(Loan authorization) ................................................................................................................................. ............................ (48,884 ) (48,884 ) (∂48,884 ) ............................Loan subsidy ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ 17,339 17,339 ∂17,339 ............................

Total, Biorefinery Assistance Program ................................................................................................. ............................ 17,339 17,339 ∂17,339 ............................Total, Rural Business—Cooperative Service ....................................................................................... 282,539 256,626 256,844 ¥25,695 ∂218 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (1,087,992 ) (1,406,355 ) (1,406,355 ) (∂318,363 ) ............................

Rural Utilities Service: 

Rural water and waste disposal program account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Direct ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ (1,022,163 ) (1,022,163 ) (∂1,022,163 ) ............................Guaranteed ...................................................................................................................................... (75,000 ) (75,000 ) (75,000 ) ............................ ............................

Total, Loan authorization ............................................................................................................ 75,000 1,097,163 1,097,163 ∂1,022,163 ............................

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Subsidy and grants ......................................................................................................................... 537,278 ............................ ............................ ¥537,278 ............................

Emergency appropriations ...................................................................................................... 968,000 ............................ ............................ ¥968,000 ............................

Direct subsidy .................................................................................................................................. ............................ 77,071 77,071 ∂77,071 ............................

Emergency appropriations ...................................................................................................... 412,000 ............................ ............................ ¥412,000 ............................

Water and waste grants ................................................................................................................. ............................ 464,228 469,228 ∂469,228 ∂5,000 Solid waste management grants .................................................................................................... ............................ 3,441 3,441 ∂3,441 ............................Water and waste financing revolving fund .................................................................................... 497 497 497 ............................ ............................Water well system grants ............................................................................................................... 993 993 993 ............................ ............................
141 

High energy cost grants .................................................................................................................. 17,500 ............................ 17,500 ............................ ∂17,500 

Total, Water loan subsidies and grants ..................................................................................... 1,936,268 546,230 568,730 ¥1,367,538 ∂22,500 

Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account: 

Loan authorizations: 

Electric: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (100,000 ) (100,000 ) (100,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (6,500,000 ) (6,500,000 ) (6,500,000 ) ............................ ............................Guaranteed underwriting ........................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ (500,000 ) (∂500,000 ) (∂500,000 ) 

Subtotal, Electric ............................................................................................................... (6,600,000 ) (6,600,000 ) (7,100,000 ) (∂500,000 ) (∂500,000 ) 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, 5 percent .................................................................................................................... (145,000 ) (145,000 ) (145,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... (250,000 ) (250,000 ) (250,000 ) ............................ ............................Direct, FFB .............................................................................................................................. (295,000 ) (295,000 ) (295,000 ) ............................ ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... (690,000 ) (690,000 ) (690,000 ) ............................ ............................Total, Loan authorizations ................................................................................................. (7,290,000 ) (7,290,000 ) (7,790,000 ) (∂500,000 ) (∂500,000 ) 

Loan subsidies: 

Telecommunications: 

Direct, Treasury rate ............................................................................................................... 525 ............................ ............................ ¥525 ............................

Subtotal, Telecommunications ........................................................................................... 525 ............................ ............................ ¥525 ............................

RETLP administrative expenses (transfer to RD) .................................................................................... 39,245 39,959 39,959 ∂714 ............................

Total, Rural Electrification and Telecommunications Loans Program Account .................................. 39,770 39,959 39,959 ∂189 ............................

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (7,290,000 ) (7,290,000 ) (7,790,000 ) (∂500,000 ) (∂500,000 ) 

Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband program: 

Loan authorizations: 

Broadband telecommunications ...................................................................................................... (400,487 ) (531,699 ) (531,699 ) (∂131,212 ) ............................

Total, Loan authorizations .......................................................................................................... (400,487 ) (531,699 ) (531,699 ) (∂131,212 ) ............................

Loan subsidies and grants: 

Distance learning and telemedicine: 

Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 34,755 29,790 37,755 ∂3,000 ∂7,965 
142 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Broadband telecommunications: 

Direct ...................................................................................................................................... 15,619 38,495 38,495 ∂22,876 ............................Grants ..................................................................................................................................... 13,406 13,406 13,406 ............................ ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................. 2,500,000 ............................ ............................ ¥2,500,000 ............................

Total, Loan subsidies and grants ............................................................................ 2,563,780 81,691 89,656 ¥2,474,124 ∂7,965 

Broadband loans (rescission) .................................................................................................................. ¥6,404 ............................ ............................ ∂6,404 ............................

Total, Rural Utilities Service ................................................................................................................ 4,533,414 667,880 698,345 ¥3,835,069 ∂30,465 

(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (7,765,487 ) (8,918,862 ) (9,418,862 ) (∂1,653,375 ) (∂500,000 ) 

Total, title III, Rural Development Programs ....................................................................................... 7,092,791 3,015,947 3,046,473 ¥4,046,318 ∂30,526 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................ (504,315 ) (513,493 ) (513,493 ) (∂9,178 ) ............................(Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (16,976,351 ) (18,428,682 ) (24,829,251 ) (∂7,852,900 ) (∂6,400,569 ) 

TITLE IV—DOMESTIC FOOD PROGRAMS 

Office of the Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services .............................................................. 610 813 813 ∂203 ............................Food and Nutrition Service: 

Child nutrition programs ................................................................................................................................... 8,496,109 10,044,369 10,046,707 ∂1,550,598 ∂2,338 

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................... 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ............................

Competitive grants ................................................................................................................................... ............................ 5,000 5,000 ∂5,000 ............................Transfer from section 32 ......................................................................................................................... 6,455,802 6,747,877 6,747,877 ∂292,075 ............................

Total, Child nutrition programs ........................................................................................................... 15,051,911 16,797,246 16,799,584 ∂1,747,673 ∂2,338 

Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children [WIC] ......................................... 6,860,000 7,777,000 7,552,000 ∂692,000 ¥225,000 

Emergency appropriations ........................................................................................................................ 500,000 ............................ ............................ ¥500,000 ............................

Supplemental nutrition assistance program: 

Expenses ................................................................................................................................................... 48,843,897 56,105,314 56,105,314 ∂7,261,417 ............................
143 

Indian reservations [FDPIR] ............................................................................................................ 114,914 112,656 112,656 ¥2,258 ............................

Reserve ..................................................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 ............................ ............................Nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico and Samoa .................................................................................... 1,760,435 1,880,626 1,880,626 ∂120,191 ............................The emergency food assistance program ................................................................................................ 250,000 253,250 253,250 ∂3,250 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................... 150,000 ............................ ............................ ¥150,000 ............................

Total, Food stamp program ........................................................................................................ 54,119,246 61,351,846 61,351,846 ∂7,232,600 ............................

Commodity assistance program: 

Commodity supplemental food program .................................................................................................. 160,430 162,818 162,818 ∂2,388 ............................Farmers market nutrition program .......................................................................................................... 19,800 20,000 20,000 ∂200 ............................Emergency food assistance program ....................................................................................................... 49,500 49,500 49,500 ............................ ............................Pacific island and disaster assistance ................................................................................................... 1,070 1,070 1,070 ............................ ............................

Total, Commodity assistance program ................................................................................................ 230,800 233,388 233,388 ∂2,588 ............................

Nutrition programs administration ................................................................................................................... 142,595 150,139 147,801 ∂5,206 ¥2,338 

Total, Food and Nutrition Service ................................................................................................................. 76,904,552 86,309,619 86,084,619 ∂9,180,067 ¥225,000 Total, title IV, Domestic Food Programs ....................................................................................................... 76,905,162 86,310,432 86,085,432 ∂9,180,270 ¥225,000 

TITLE V—FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ............................................................................................................. 165,436 180,367 180,367 ∂14,931 ............................

(Transfer from export loans) ............................................................................................................................. (4,985 ) (6,465 ) (6,465 ) (∂1,480 ) ............................

Total, Salaries and expenses program level ................................................................................................ (170,421 ) (186,832 ) (186,832 ) (∂16,411 ) ............................

Public Law 480 Program and Grant Accounts: 

Title II—Commodities for disposition abroad: 

Program level ........................................................................................................................................... (1,225,900 ) (1,690,000 ) (1,690,000 ) (∂464,100 ) ............................Appropriation ............................................................................................................................................ 1,225,900 1,690,000 1,690,000 ∂464,100 ............................

Emergency appropriations ............................................................................................................... 395,000 ............................ ............................ ¥395,000 ............................Overseas contingency operations .................................................................................................... 700,000 ............................ ............................ ¥700,000 ............................

Salaries and expenses: 

Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 2,736 2,812 2,812 ∂76 ............................

Subtotal ................................................................................................................................................ 2,736 2,812 2,812 ∂76 ............................
144 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Total, Public Law 480: 

Program level .............................................................................................................................. (1,225,900 ) (1,690,000 ) (1,690,000 ) (∂464,100 ) ............................Appropriation ............................................................................................................................... 1,228,636 1,692,812 1,692,812 ∂464,176 ............................

Commodity Credit Corporation Export Loans Program Account (administrative expenses): 

Salaries and expenses (Export Loans): 

General Sales Manager (transfer to FAS) ................................................................................................ 4,985 6,465 6,465 ∂1,480 ............................Farm Service Agency (transfer to FSA) .................................................................................................... 348 355 355 ∂7 ............................

Total, CCC Export Loans Program Account ......................................................................................... 5,333 6,820 6,820 ∂1,487 ............................

McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition program grants ............................................. 100,000 199,500 199,500 ∂99,500 ............................

Total, title V, Foreign Assistance and Related Programs ............................................................................ 2,594,405 2,079,499 2,079,499 ¥514,906 ............................

(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... (4,985 ) (6,465 ) (6,465 ) (∂1,480 ) ............................

TITLE VI—RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

Food and Drug Administration 

Salaries and expenses, direct appropriation ............................................................................................................. 2,038,964 2,337,656 2,337,656 ∂298,692 ............................

Prescription drug user fee act .......................................................................................................................... (510,665 ) (578,162 ) (578,162 ) (∂67,497 ) ............................Medical device user fee act .............................................................................................................................. (52,547 ) (57,014 ) (57,014 ) (∂4,467 ) ............................Animal drug user fee act .................................................................................................................................. (15,260 ) (17,280 ) (17,280 ) (∂2,020 ) ............................Generic animal drug user fees ......................................................................................................................... (4,831 ) (5,106 ) (5,106 ) (∂275 ) ............................

Subtotal (including user fees) ...................................................................................................................... (2,622,267 ) (2,995,218 ) (2,995,218 ) (∂372,951 ) ............................

New User Fees (Legislative proposals) (NA): 

Generic drug user fees ............................................................................................................................. ............................ (36,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥36,000 ) Food and Feed Export Certification .......................................................................................................... ............................ (4,152 ) ............................ ............................ (¥4,152 ) 
145 

Reinspection fees ..................................................................................................................................... ............................ (25,848 ) ............................ ............................ (¥25,848 ) 

Subtotal, New User fees (NA) .............................................................................................................. ............................ (66,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥66,000 ) 

Food Facility Registration and Inspection ............................................................................................... ............................ (75,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥75,000 ) 

Mammography clinics user fees (outlay savings) ............................................................................................ (19,318 ) (19,318 ) (19,318 ) ............................ ............................Export and color certification ............................................................................................................................ (10,300 ) (10,400 ) (10,400 ) (∂100 ) ............................

Buildings and facilities .............................................................................................................................................. 12,433 12,433 12,433 ............................ ............................

Total, Food & Drug Administration (w/user fees) ........................................................................................ (2,664,318 ) (3,037,369 ) (3,037,369 ) (∂373,051 ) ............................Total, Food and Drug Administration ........................................................................................................... 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 ∂298,692 ............................

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 

Farm Credit Administration (limitation on administrative expenses) ....................................................................... (49,000 ) (54,500 ) (54,500 ) (∂5,500 ) ............................

Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug Administration ......................................................... 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 ∂298,692 ............................

TITLE VII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Denali Commission ..................................................................................................................................................... 434 ............................ ............................ ¥434 ............................Section 32 (rescission) ............................................................................................................................................... ¥293,530 ¥43,000 ¥52,000 ∂241,530 ¥9,000 Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and facilities (rescission) ........................................................................ ............................ ¥49,885 ............................ ............................ ∂49,885 Nat’l Center for Natural Products Research (Sec. 725) ............................................................................................ 3,497 ............................ 3,497 ............................ ∂3,497 Hawaii APHIS facility (Sec. 726) ................................................................................................................................ 469 ............................ 2,600 ∂2,131 ∂2,600 Hardwoods Trees (Sec. 728) ...................................................................................................................................... 794 ............................ 800 ∂6 ∂800 Hunger Fellowships (Sec. 731) .................................................................................................................................. 2,347 ............................ 3,000 ∂653 ∂3,000 Market development (WI, VT) (Sec. 732) ................................................................................................................... 1,877 ............................ 3,000 ∂1,123 ∂3,000 Rural Community Out Migration ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 499 ∂499 ∂499 Food Aid Products ...................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 4,000 ∂4,000 ∂4,000 Food Bank Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 7,000 ∂7,000 ∂7,000 Graham Avenue business improvement district (Sec. 732) ...................................................................................... 94 ............................ ............................ ¥94 ............................Geographic Disadvantaged ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ 2,600 ∂2,600 ∂2,600 Product Access ........................................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 1,000 ∂1,000 ∂1,000 Durum Wheat .............................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ 4,000 ∂4,000 ∂4,000 Kansas Farm Bureau Foundation ............................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 250 ∂250 ∂250 Specialty market (Sec. 732) ....................................................................................................................................... 338 ............................ 350 ∂12 ∂350 Farm Bill Administration (emergency appropriations) ............................................................................................... 4,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 ............................Limit Environmental Quality Incentives program ...................................................................................................... ¥270,000 ¥250,000 ¥250,000 ∂20,000 ............................Limit Agriculture management assistance (sec. 1524) ............................................................................................ ............................ ¥5,000 ............................ ............................ ∂5,000 Limit wildlife habitat incentives program ................................................................................................................. ............................ ¥43,000 ............................ ............................ ∂43,000 Limit farmland protection program ........................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 
146 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010—Continued 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Item 2009 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation 

Senate Committee recommendation compared with (∂ or ¥) 

2009 appropriation Budget estimate 

Limit Section 32 (Sec. 723) ....................................................................................................................................... ¥52,470 ............................ ............................ ∂52,470 ............................Limit fruit and vegetable program (Sec. 723) .......................................................................................................... ¥49,000 ............................ ¥76,000 ¥27,000 ¥76,000 Limit healthy forests reserve program ....................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥5,000 ............................ ............................ ∂5,000 Limit Wetlands Reserve program ............................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥184,000 ............................ ............................ ∂184,000 Limit Plant Pest and Disease Management and Disaster Prevention program ....................................................... ............................ ¥30,000 ............................ ............................ ∂30,000 Limit National Clean Plant Network .......................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥5,000 ............................ ............................ ∂5,000 Limit Dam Rehab ....................................................................................................................................................... ¥165,000 ¥30,000 ¥165,000 ............................ ¥135,000 

Total, title VII, General provisions ................................................................................................................ ¥816,150 ¥674,885 ¥510,404 ∂305,746 ∂164,481 

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS 

SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 (PUBLIC LAW 110–252) 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Foreign Agricultural Service 

Public Law 480 Title II Grants (emergency) .............................................................................................................. 395,000 ............................ ............................ ¥395,000 ............................

DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY SUPPLEMENTAL (PUBLIC LAW 110–329) 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

General Provision 

Sec. 20001. Bill Emerson humanitarian trust (emergency) ...................................................................................... 10,000 ............................ ............................ ¥10,000 ............................

AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT, 2009 (PUBLIC LAW 111–5) 

TITLE I—AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, & RURAL DEVELOPMENT 

Department of Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................... 11,329,500 ............................ ............................ ¥11,329,500 ............................Rural Housing Service Loan authorizations ............................................................................................................... (11,472,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥11,472,000 ) ............................
147 

Total, Other appropriations ........................................................................................................................... 11,734,500 ............................ ............................ ¥11,734,500 ............................Grand total .................................................................................................................................................... 126,962,906 123,759,120 123,993,248 ¥2,969,658 ∂234,128 

Appropriations ............................................................................................................................. (108,615,130 ) (123,852,005 ) (124,045,248 ) (∂15,430,118 ) (∂193,243 ) Emergency Appropriations .......................................................................................................... (17,947,710 ) ............................ ............................ (¥17,947,710 ) ............................Overseas contingency operations ............................................................................................... (700,000 ) ............................ ............................ (¥700,000 ) ............................Rescissions ................................................................................................................................. (¥299,934 ) (¥92,885 ) (¥52,000 ) (∂247,934 ) (∂40,885 ) (By transfer) ................................................................................................................................ (821,787 ) (841,298 ) (836,298 ) (∂14,511 ) (¥5,000 ) (Loan authorization) .................................................................................................................... (31,875,935 ) (22,538,139 ) (28,978,708 ) (¥2,897,227 ) (∂6,440,569 ) (Limitation on administrative expenses) .................................................................................... (159,351 ) (166,546 ) (166,546 ) (∂7,195 ) ............................

RECAPITULATION 

Title I—Agricultural programs ................................................................................................................................... 26,091,624 29,769,785 29,927,132 ∂3,835,508 ∂157,347 

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (18,877,239 ) (22,701,641 ) (22,701,641 ) (∂3,824,402 ) ............................Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (7,214,385 ) (7,068,144 ) (7,225,491 ) (∂11,106 ) (∂157,347 ) 

Title II—Conservation programs (discretionary) ....................................................................................................... 1,309,177 908,253 1,015,027 ¥294,150 ∂106,774 Title III—Rural development programs (discretionary) ............................................................................................. 7,092,791 3,015,947 3,046,473 ¥4,046,318 ∂30,526 Title IV—Domestic food programs ............................................................................................................................ 76,905,162 86,310,432 86,085,432 ∂9,180,270 ¥225,000 

Mandatory .......................................................................................................................................................... (68,921,157 ) (78,144,092 ) (78,146,430 ) (∂9,225,273 ) (∂2,338 ) Discretionary ...................................................................................................................................................... (7,984,005 ) (8,166,340 ) (7,939,002 ) (¥45,003 ) (¥227,338 ) 

Title V—Foreign assistance and related programs (discretionary) .......................................................................... 2,594,405 2,079,499 2,079,499 ¥514,906 ............................Title VI—Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration (discretionary) ...................................................... 2,051,397 2,350,089 2,350,089 ∂298,692 ............................Title VII—General provisions (discretionary) ............................................................................................................. ¥816,150 ¥674,885 ¥510,404 ∂305,746 ∂164,481 Other appropriations (discretionary) .......................................................................................................................... 11,734,500 ............................ ............................ ¥11,734,500 ............................

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 126,962,906 123,759,120 123,993,248 ¥2,969,658 ∂234,128 

Æ