```

[Senate Report 111-39]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                        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

                                 REPORT

                         [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

                                CONTENTS

                              ----------                              
                                                                   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
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 Sen- 
  ate............................................................   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

                           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]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         2010 Committee
                                           2009          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               7,092,791          3,046,473
 community development programs...
Title IV: Domestic food programs..         76,905,162         86,085,432
Title V: Foreign assistance and             2,594,405          2,079,499
 related programs.................
Title VI: Related agencies and              2,051,397          2,350,089
 Food and Drug Administration.....
Title VII: General provisions.....           -816,150           -510,404
Other appropriations                       11,734,500  .................
 (discretionary)..................
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total, new budget                   126,962,906        123,993,248
       (obligational) authority...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF THE BILL

    The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bill 
provides funding for a wide array of Federal programs, mostly 
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]. These programs 
include agricultural research, education, and extension 
activities; natural resources conservation programs; farm 
income and support programs; marketing and inspection 
activities; domestic food assistance programs; rural housing, 
economic and community development, and telecommunication and 
electrification assistance; and various export and 
international activities of the USDA.
    The bill also provides funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration [FDA] and allows the use of collected fees for 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA].
    Given the 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.

                                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 
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 field-based 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 organizations 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 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 cost-benefit 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.

                       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.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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 coordination of the administration of civil rights 
laws and regulations for employees of the Department of 
Agriculture and participants in programs of the Department, and 
ensuring compliance with civil rights laws.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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).

                       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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    2010 budget      Committee
                                                                   2009 enacted       request     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

    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. 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.

                        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 program-related audit and investigation 
activities performed by other Department agencies.
    The activities of this Office are designed to assure 
compliance with existing laws, policies, regulations, and 
programs of the Department's agencies, and to provide 
appropriate officials with the means for prompt corrective 
action where deviations have occurred. The scope of audit and 
investigative activities is large and includes administrative, 
program, and criminal matters. These activities are 
coordinated, when appropriate, with various audit and 
investigative agencies of the executive and legislative 
branches of the Government.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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 coordinate 
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.

                       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 
recommendation 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 
nutrition and well-being of the American people; (4) improve 
living in rural America; and (5) strengthen the Nation's 
balance of payments.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,181,632,000 
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 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. 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.
    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 increase 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
Appalachian Fruit Laboratory; Kearneysville, WV.......             2,000
ARS Biotechnology Lab; Lorcom, MS.....................             1,500
ARS Forage-Animal Production Research Facility;                    2,000
 Lexington, KY........................................
ARS Research and Development Center; Auburn, AL.......             3,500
ARS Waste Management Research Facility; Bowling Green,             2,000
 KY...................................................
Dairy Forage Agricultural Research Center; Prairie du              4,000
 Sac, WI..............................................
Jamie Whitten Delta States Research Center;                        4,000
 Stoneville, MS.......................................
National Plant and Genetics Security Center; Columbia,             3,500
 MO...................................................
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 entree 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, 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           49,000
 and West Virginia State University)...................
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
    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                     176
     Disease Resistance (NM)...........................
    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,            1,213
     MO, NV)...........................................
    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              797
     Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and Disease (MS)
    Global Change, UV Monitoring.......................            1,408
    Grain Sorghum (KS).................................            1,000
    Grass Seed Cropping for Sustainable Agriculture                  150
     (OR, WA)..........................................
    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                 188
     Analysis of Sustainable Biomass Energy Systems
     (IN)..............................................
    Invasive Plant Management (MT).....................              270
    Joint U.S.-China Biotechnology Research and                      210
     Extension (UT)....................................
    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               655
     (CO, GA, NY)......................................
    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                  654
     Agriculture (MS)..................................
    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
    Policy Analysis for a National Secure and                        200
     Sustainable Food, Fiber, Forestry, and Energy
     Program  (TX).....................................
    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                       187
     Agriculture (NM)..................................
    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                  250
     Sources (VA)......................................
    Sustainable Production and Processing Research for               200
     Lowbush Specialty Crops (ME)......................
    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                      260
     Foundation Block (WA).............................
    Viticulture Consortium (CA)........................            1,200
    Water Conservation (KS)............................              500
    Wetland Plants (LA)................................              200
    Wheat Genetic Research (KS)........................            1,000
    Wildlife/Livestock Disease Research Partnership                  300
     (WY)..............................................
    Wood Utilization (ID, LA, ME, MI, MN, MS, NC, OR,              4,841
     WV)...............................................
    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,               983
 MT)...................................................
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                  400
     (HI)..............................................
    Agriculture Waste Utilization (WV).................              500
    Animal Health Research and Diagnostics (KY)........              300
    Applied Agriculture and Environmental Research (CA)              350
    Aquaculture (PA)...................................              164
    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                         750
     Development to Expand Markets (IN)................
    Kansas Biobased Polymer Initiative.................              750
    Medicinal and Bioactive Crops (TX).................              300
    Midwest Agribusiness Trade and Information Center                187
     (IA)..............................................
    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                 7,737
     Program...........................................
    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              3,200
     Institutions......................................
    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 
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 low-income people, increase the self-
reliance of communities in providing their own food needs, and 
plan for long-term solutions to address such needs.
    Floriculture and Tropical and Subtropical Research.--The 
Committee provides funding to carry out floriculture research 
in Hawaii and expects priorities of this activity (as defined 
by industry stakeholders) to include the maintenance and 
improvement of germplasm of orchid, anthurium, and protea to 
derive and release new commercial varieties and continue 
research on disease resistance and insect control. The 
Committee also provides funding for tropical and subtropical 
research and supports the current mechanism of solicitation, 
recommendation and distribution of funds through the Pacific 
Basin and Caribbean Basin Administration Groups.
    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 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 long-term national and regional 
challenges.
    The Secretary is authorized to make grants to eligible 
institutions under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c), commonly referred to as 
Special Research Grants. These grants are authorized for the 
purpose of conducting research and related activities to 
facilitate or expand promising breakthroughs in areas of the 
food and agricultural sciences of the United States. The 
authorizing statute directs that these grants be provided 
through State-Federal partnerships to promote excellence of 
such activities on a regional or national level, to promote the 
development of regional research centers, and to generally 
support these activities among the States, the regions, and the 
Nation. In addition, the law requires that these grants can 
only be awarded if the proposed activity has undergone 
scientific peer review and that the grantee submit an annual 
report to the Secretary describing the results of the research 
or related activity and the merits of the results.
    Over the past few years, the Committee has made clear its 
intentions to employ a heightened level of scrutiny to grants 
awarded under 7 U.S.C. 450i(c). These indications have included 
requirements of detailed reports by grantees, in-depth 
explanations of prospective research objectives, and an 
understanding that grantees should not expect indefinite fiscal 
assistance from the Committee under this authority. In 
addition, the Committee has previously expressed concern that 
ongoing, long-term Federal commitments to specific research 
projects may reduce the opportunity to focus on emerging 
important research priorities and result in a less efficient 
Federal investment in agricultural and related research.
    For fiscal year 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 land-
grant institutions (33 tribally controlled colleges). This 
program will enhance educational opportunity for Native 
Americans by building educational capacity at these 
institutions in the areas of student recruitment and retention, 
curricula development, faculty preparation, instruction 
delivery systems, and scientific instrumentation for teaching. 
Income funds are also available for facility renovation, 
repair, construction, and maintenance. On the termination of 
each fiscal year, the Secretary shall withdraw the income from 
the endowment fund for the fiscal year, and after making 
adjustments for the cost of administering the endowment fund, 
distribute the adjusted income as follows: 60 percent of the 
adjusted income from these funds shall be distributed among the 
1994 land-grant institutions on a pro rata basis, the 
proportionate share being based on the Indian student count; 
and 40 percent of the adjusted income shall be distributed in 
equal shares to the 1994 land-grant institutions.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

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

                          EXTENSION ACTIVITIES

Appropriations, 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 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              41,354
 State University......................................
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
    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               4,388
     Systems............................................
    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                    9,830
 Initiative.............................................
                                                         ---------------
      Total, Integrated Activities......................          56,864
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  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.
    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
                                                                 Fiscal year      2010 budget       Committee
                                                                 2009 enacted       request       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
    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 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.

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.

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.
    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.

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 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 responded 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 
Biosecurity Center in the State of Kansas to help protect 
agricultural infrastructure and economy from endemic and 
emerging biological threats.

Wildlife Services Methods Development

    Committee Recommendation.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $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   Veterinary                   $69,000
 Equipment, Delaware Department of   diagnostics.
 Agriculture.
Animal management and control,      Wildlife services            496,000
 APHIS Mississippi.                  operations.
Berryman Institute, Jack Berryman   Wildlife services          1,500,000
 Institute Utah and Mississippi      methods develop-
 Agriculture and Forestry            ment.
 Experiment Station.
Bio-safety and antibiotic           Animal health                240,000
 resistance, University of Vermont.  monitoring and
                                     surveillance.
Blackbird management, APHIS         Wildlife services             94,000
 Louisiana.                          operations.
Blackbird management, APHIS North   Wildlife services            265,000
 and South Dakota.                   operations.
Bovine tuberculosis eradication     Tuberculosis........         248,000
 Michigan, Michigan Department of
 Agriculture.
California county pest detection    Pest detection......         619,000
 augmentation program, California
 Department of Food and
 Agriculture.
California county pest detection    Pest detection......         738,000
 import inspection program,
 California Department of Food and
 Agriculture.
Cogongrass control, Mississippi     Noxious weeds.......         208,000
 Department of Agriculture.
Cooperative livestock protection    Wildlife services            223,000
 program, APHIS Pennsylvania and     operations.
 Pennsylvania Department of
 Agriculture.
Cormorant control, APHIS Michigan.  Wildlife services            139,000
                                     operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS            Wildlife services            223,000
 Mississippi.                        operations.
Cormorant control, APHIS Vermont    Wildlife services            103,000
 and Vermont Fish and Wildlife       operations.
 Department.
Disease prevention, Louisiana       Veterinary                    69,000
 Department of Wildlife and          diagnostics.
 Fisheries.
Disease surveillance in North       Animal health                700,000
 Dakota, North Dakota State          monitoring and
 University and Dickinson State      surveillance.
 University.
Genetically modified products,      Biotechnology                259,000
 Iowa State University.              regulatory services.
Greater Yellowstone Interagency     Brucellosis.........         650,000
 Brucellosis Committee, Idaho
 Department of Agriculture,
 Montana Department of Livestock,
 Wyoming Livestock Board.
Gypsy moth, New Jersey, New Jersey  Gypsy moth..........         250,000
 Department of Agriculture.
Hawaii interline, APHIS Hawaii....  Agricultural               3,000,000
                                     quarantine
                                     inspection.
Hawaii wildlife services            Wildlife services          2,230,000
 activities, APHIS Hawaii.           operations.
Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Tennessee,  Biological control..         500,000
 University of Tennessee.
Integrated predation management     Wildlife services            280,000
 activities, APHIS West Virginia.    operations.
Invasive aquatic species, Lake      Aquaculture.........          94,000
 Champlain Fish and Wildlife
 Management Cooperative, Vermont.
Mormon cricket Nevada, APHIS        Grasshopper.........       1,000,000
 Nevada.
National Agriculture Biosecurity    Veterinary                   500,000
 Center, Kansas State Univers-       diagnostics.
 ity.
National farm animal                Animal health                343,000
 identification and records,         monitoring and
 Holstein Association.               surveillance.
National Wildlife Research          Wildlife services            290,000
 Station, Texas A&M.                 methods develop-
                                     ment.
New Mexico rapid syndrome           Animal health                404,000
 validation program, New Mexico      monitoring and
 State University.                   surveillance.
Nez Perce Bio-control Center, Nez   Noxious weeds.......         176,000
 Perce Tribe.
Noxious weed management, Nevada     Noxious weeds.......         235,000
 Department of Agriculture.
Tri-State predator control, APHIS   Wildlife services            926,000
 Idaho, Montana, and Wyo-  ming.     operations.
Varroa mite suppression, APHIS      Emerging plant pests         469,000
 Hawaii.
Wildlife Services South Dakota,     Wildlife services            519,000
 South Dakota Department of Game,    operations.
 Fish, and Parks.
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL, Animal and Plant       ....................      18,059,000
       Health Inspection Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        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 
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 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  Fiscal year 2009  Fiscal year 2010
                                                                 actual           estimate          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  ................  ................
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 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 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.
    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
                                                                    Fiscal year     2010 budget      Committee
                                                                   2009 enacted       request     recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Safety Inspection:
    Federal.....................................................         871,150         903,067         903,067
    State.......................................................          64,703          65,654          65,654
    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.
    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from    Total, FSA,
                                                                Appropriations      program       salaries, and
                                                                                    accounts         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 
satellite imagery data or products to meet programmatic 
requirements. The acquisition of high resolution satellite 
imagery will also encourage the development of second 
generation imagery satellites, which is key to preparing our 
Nation's agricultural economy to keep pace with 21st century 
technological innovation.
    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.

                        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 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      Fiscal year       Committee
                                                                 2009 enacted     2010 budget     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-             50,201  ...............  ...............
     32......................................................
    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
Boll Weevil Eradication......................................          100,000           60,000          100,000
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total, Farm loans (excluding Public Law 111-5 and              3,427,584        4,109,457        4,149,457
       Public Law 111-32)....................................
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, Farm loans, as provided by Public Law 111-5 and           983,568  ...............  ...............
       Public Law 111-32.....................................
                                                              ==================================================
      Total, Farm loans......................................        4,411,152        4,109,457        4,149,457
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       LOAN SUBSIDIES, GRANTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES LEVELS

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Subsidies                         Administrative expenses
                              ----------------------------------           ---------------------------   Total
                                 Direct   Guaranteed               Grants                    Transfer     ACIF
                                  loan       loan       Total               Appropriations    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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                                                                 2009 enacted     2010 budget     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               1,250  ...............  ...............
         111-32..............................................
        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            147,422          104,122          104,122
       Public Law 111-32.....................................
                                                              ==================================================
      Total loan subsidies provided by Public Law 111-5 and             91,710  ...............  ...............
       Public Law 111-32.....................................
                                                              ==================================================
      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.

                       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.
    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.

                                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:
    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.
    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                       800
 Cooperative Agreement (GA).............................
Gilbert M. Grosvenor Center for Geographic Education                 300
 Watershed Project (TX).................................
Grazing Land Conservation (WI)..........................             732
Great Lakes Basin Program for Soil Erosion and Sediment              404
 Control................................................
Great Plain Riparian Initiative (NE)....................             500
Green River Water Quality and Biological Diversity                   100
 Project (KY)...........................................
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              150
 Irrigation (CA)........................................
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                         545
 Conservation Districts.................................
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.

    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 
multi-purpose 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 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.

                               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         2010 budget     recommendation
                                                                appropriation       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                39,245           39,959           39,959
     Account.................................................
    Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account..............            4,853            4,941            4,941
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total RD salaries and expenses.........................          696,799          709,480          720,730
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 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         2010 budget       Committee
                                                                appropriation       request       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  ...............  ...............
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      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.

              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.

                  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, and grant assistance is limited to persons, or 
families headed by persons who are 62 years of age or older.
    Supervisory and Technical Assistance Grants.--Supervisory 
and technical assistance grants are made to public and private 
nonprofit organizations for packaging loan applications for 
housing assistance under sections 502, 504, 514/516, 515, and 
533 of the Housing Act of 1949. The assistance is directed to 
very low-income families in underserved areas where at least 20 
percent of the population is below the poverty level and at 
least 10 percent or more of the population resides in 
substandard housing. In fiscal year 1994 a Homebuyer Education 
Program was implemented under this authority. This program 
provides low-income individuals and families education and 
counseling on obtaining and/or maintaining occupancy of 
adequate housing and supervised credit assistance to become 
successful homeowners.
    Compensation for Construction Defects.--Compensation for 
construction defects provides funds for grants to eligible 
section 502 borrowers to correct structural defects, or to pay 
claims of owners arising from such defects on a newly 
constructed dwelling purchased with RHS financial assistance. 
Claims are not paid until provisions under the builder's 
warranty have been fully pursued. Requests for compensation for 
construction defects must be made by the owner of the property 
within 18 months after the date financial assistance was 
granted.
    Rural Housing Preservation Grants.--Rural housing 
preservation grants (section 533) of the Housing and Urban-
Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (42 U.S.C. 1490m) authorizes the 
Rural Housing Service to administer a program of home repair 
directed at low- and very low-income people.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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
                                                                  2009 level      2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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                        Committee
                                                                     2009         2010 request    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 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         2010 budget      Committee
                                                                  appropriation      request     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).
    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, 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         2009 budget      Committee
                                                                  appropriation      request     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
                                                                  2009 level      2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 
community development corporations, private nonprofit 
organizations, public agencies, et cetera, for the purpose of 
improving business, industry, community facilities, and 
employment opportunities and diversification of the economy in 
rural areas.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 established the 
program account. Appropriations to this account will be used to 
cover the lifetime subsidy costs associated with the direct 
loans obligated in 2009, as well as for administrative 
expenses.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,405,000 
for the Rural Development Loan Fund Program Account.

            RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                  2009 level      2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 non-Federal sources, except 1994 
institutions, which only need to provide 5 percent. Grants are 
competitive and are awarded based on specific selection 
criteria.
    Cooperative research agreements are authorized by 7 U.S.C. 
2204b. The funds are used for cooperative research agreements, 
primarily with colleges and universities, on critical 
operational, organizational, and structural issues facing 
cooperatives.
    Cooperative agreements are authorized under 7 U.S.C. 2201 
to any qualified State departments of agriculture, university, 
and other State entity to conduct research that will strengthen 
and enhance the operations of agricultural marketing 
cooperatives in rural areas.
    The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas [ATTRA] 
program was first authorized by the Food Security Act of 1985. 
The program provides information and technical assistance to 
agricultural producers to adopt sustainable agricultural 
practices that are environmentally friendly and lower 
production costs.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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:

                                    RURAL MICROENTERPRISE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year                      Committee
                                                                    2009 level     2010 request   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                      Committee
                                                                    2009 level     2010 request   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 construction 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                      Committee
                                                                    2009 level     2010 request   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 revitalizing rural communities. RUS provides 
funding and support service for utilities serving rural areas. 
The public-private partnerships established by RUS and local 
utilities assist rural communities in modernizing local 
infrastructure. RUS programs are also characterized by the 
substantial amount of private investment which is leveraged by 
the public funds invested into infrastructure and technology, 
resulting in the creation of new sources of employment.

             RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT

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:

                                 RURAL WATER AND WASTE DISPOSAL PROGRAM ACCOUNT
                                   [Budget authority in thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2009     2010 budget        Committee
                                                            appropriation\1\       request       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).
    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
                                                                  2009 level      2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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               39,770           39,959           39,959
       Loans Programs Account................................
          (Loan authorization)...............................        7,290,000        7,290,000        7,790,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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
                                                                  2009 level      2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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            63,780           81,691           89,656
       111-5.................................................
                                                              ==================================================
      Total broadband program level, excluding Public Law 111-         448,648          574,895          582,860
       5.....................................................
                                                              ==================================================
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.
    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.

                                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 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.

                        child nutrition programs

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Section 32
                                                           Appropriation        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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Committee
                   Child nutrition programs                     2009 estimate     2010 budget     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 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 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Puerto Rico      TEFAP
                                              Expenses      Amount in   and American    commodity       Total
                                                             reserve        Samoa       purchases
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
    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 breast-
feeding women who have low incomes, and reside in approved 
project areas. In addition, the program operates commodity 
distribution projects directed at low-income elderly persons 60 
years of age or older.
    The foods for CSFP are provided by the Department of 
Agriculture for distribution through State agencies. The 
authorized commodities include: iron-fortified infant formula, 
rice cereal, cheese, canned juice, evaporated milk and/or 
nonfat dry milk, canned vegetables or fruits, canned meat or 
poultry, egg mix, dehydrated potatoes, farina, and peanut 
butter and dry beans. Elderly participants may receive all 
commodities except iron-fortified infant formula and rice 
cereal.
    The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP].--Authorized 
by the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501 et 
seq.), as amended, the program provides nutrition assistance to 
low-income people through prepared meals served on site and 
through the distribution of commodities to low-income 
households for home consumption. The commodities are provided 
by USDA to State agencies for distribution through State-
established networks. State agencies make the commodities 
available to local organizations, such as soup kitchens, food 
pantries, food banks, and community action agencies, for their 
use in providing nutrition assistance to those in need.
    Funds are administered by FNS through grants to State 
agencies which operate commodity distribution programs. 
Allocation of the funds to States is based on a formula which 
considers the States' unemployment rate and the number of 
persons with income below the poverty level.
    The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 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 non-Presidentially declared disasters and for FNS' 
administrative costs in connection with relief for all 
disasters.
    Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.--The Farmers' Market 
Nutrition Program [FMNP] provides WIC or WIC-eligible 
participants with coupons to purchase fresh, nutritious, 
unprepared foods, such as fruits and vegetables, from farmers' 
markets. This benefits both participants and local farmers by 
increasing the awareness and use of farmers' markets by low-
income households.

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $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 
Infrastructure 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 organizations 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.

                                TITLE V

                FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RELATED PROGRAMS

                      Foreign Agricultural Service

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Transfers from
                                                                Appropriations   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 attaches from the Department of State to the 
Foreign Agricultural Service.
    The mission of FAS overseas is to represent U.S. 
agricultural interests, to promote export of domestic farm 
products, improve world trade conditions, and report on 
agricultural production and trade in foreign countries. FAS 
staff are stationed at 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 CCC-owned commodities as export bonuses to provide 
export enhancements to U.S. producers. The Market Access 
Program [MAP] conducts both generic and brand-identified 
promotional programs in conjunction with nonprofit agricultural 
associations and private firms financed through reimbursable 
CCC payments.
    The General Sales Manager was established pursuant to 
section 5(f) of the charter of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
and 15 U.S.C. 714-714p. The funds allocated to the General 
Sales Manager are used for conducting the following programs: 
(1) CCC Export Credit Guarantee Program (GSM-102), including 
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.
    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.

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

                       COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,690,000,000 
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.

  MCGOVERN-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  Guaranteed loan   Administrative
                                                                  levels\1\        subsidy\1\        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 noncommercial risks. The risk to CCC extends from the 
date of export to the end of the deferred payment period 
covered in the export sales contract and covers only that 
portion of the payments agreed to in the assurance agreement. 
Operation of this program is based on criteria which will 
assure that it is used only where it is determined that it will 
develop new market opportunities and maintain and expand 
existing world markets for U.S. agricultural commodities. The 
program encourages U.S. financial institutions to provide 
financing to those areas where the institutions would be 
unwilling to provide financing in the absence of the CCC 
guarantees. CCC also provides facilities financing guarantees.
    The Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 establishes the 
program account. The subsidy costs of the CCC export guarantee 
programs are exempt from the requirement of advance 
appropriations of budget authority according to section 
504(c)(2) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, Public Law 
101-508. Appropriations to this account will be used for 
administrative expenses.

                                TITLE VI

           RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration

    The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] is a scientific 
regulatory agency whose mission is to promote and protect the 
public health and safety of Americans. FDA's work is a 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 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:

                               FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION SALARIES AND EXPENSES
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--
                                                              ----------------------------------    Committee
                                                                 2009 enacted     2010 request    recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
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.
    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 $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 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.
    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 
honey-derived 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 
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 dependent, and to modernize existing farm credit 
law to meet current and future rural credit needs.
    The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 authorized the 
formation of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 
[FAMC] to operate a secondary market for agricultural and rural 
housing mortgages. The Farm Credit Administration, under 
section 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, is 
assigned the responsibility of regulating this entity and 
assuring its safe and sound operation.
    Expenses of the Farm Credit Administration are paid by 
assessments collected from the Farm Credit System institutions 
and by assessments to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage 
Corporation.

                       committee recommendations

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $54,500,000 on 
administrative expenses of the Farm Credit Administration 
[FCA].

                               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.
    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.
    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 
work-force 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.

                     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.

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 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

Sec. 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

Sec. 2497. 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 42--THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE

                   Chapter 13--School Lunch Programs

Sec. 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 1766. Child and adult care food program

(a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

(r) * * *

    (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5) Limitation

            The Secretary shall limit reimbursement under this 
        subsection for meals served under a program to 
        institutions located in [ten] eleven States, of which 
        [eight] 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

Sec. 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.
    [(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 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    Amount  of   Committee    Amount  of
                                                               allocation      bill      allocation      bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
 to its subcommittees of amounts in the Budget Resolution
 for 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                NA       33,914           NA       34,450
 2010.......................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

         DISCLOSURE OF CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS

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

                                                                             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Account                                                            Project                                                    Funding                       Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                $1,500,000  Bennett, Cochran, and Wicker
                                    Experiment Sta-  tion.
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                   $619,000  Feinstein
                                    Agriculture.
APHIS............................  California county pest detection import inspection program, California Department of Food and              $738,000  Boxer and Feinstein
                                    Agriculture.
APHIS............................  Cogongrass control, Mississippi Department of Agriculture........................................          $208,000  Cochran
APHIS............................  Cooperative livestock protection program, APHIS Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Department of                $223,000  Casey and Specter
                                    Agriculture.
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                    $700,000  Conrad and Dorgan
                                    University.
APHIS............................  Genetically modified products, Iowa State University.............................................          $259,000  Grassley and Harkin
APHIS............................  Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee, Idaho Department of Agriculture, Montana            $650,000  Barrasso, Baucus, Crapo, Enzi, Risch,
                                    Department of Livestock, Wyoming Livestock Board.                                                                    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
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
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                $950,000  Kohl
                                    Institutions.
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
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               $295,000  Collins and Snowe
                                    University of Maine.
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
NIFA/SRG.........................  Animal Science Food Safety Consortium, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Iowa State        $1,000,000  Grassley, Harkin, Lincoln, Pryor, and
                                    University, Kansas State University.                                                                                 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                $400,000  Murray
                                    Washington.
NIFA/SRG.........................  Cool season legume research, North Dakota State University, University of Idaho, Washington State          $350,000  Cantwell, Conrad, Crapo, Dorgan, Murray,
                                    Universi- ty.                                                                                                        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              $575,000  Bingaman, Cornyn, Hutchison, Tom Udall
                                    AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
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
NIFA/SRG.........................  Genetically Enhanced Plants for Micro-nutrients and Genomics for Southern Crop Stress and                  $797,000  Cochran and Wicker
                                    Disease, Mississippi State University.
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               $150,000  Merkley, Murray, and Wyden
                                    State Univer-  sity.
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,           $188,000  Lugar
                                    Purdue University.
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                     $655,000  Chambliss, Bennet and Schumer
                                    University, University of Georgia.
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,              $200,000  Hutchison
                                    Texas AgriLife Research, College Station, TX.
NIFA/SRG.........................  Potato research, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, Washington State University,              $1,037,000  Cantwell, Collins, Crapo, Merkley,
                                    University of  Maine.                                                                                                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
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
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           $200,000  Bingaman
                                    Soil and Water Conservation Districts.
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                  $545,000  Bunning and McConnell
                                    Conservation.
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
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,             $2,800,000  Baucus, Feinstein, Harkin, Johnson,
                                    Butte, MT.                                                                                                           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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                        Senate Committee recommendation
                                                                                                                            compared with (+ or -)
                             Item                                     2009         Budget estimate      Committee    -----------------------------------
                                                                  appropriation                      recommendation         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   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      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                  609               895               895              +286   ................
 Economics....................................................
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               1,222,157         1,166,761         1,305,977           +83,820          +139,216
       Extension Service......................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory                  737               895               895              +158   ................
 Programs.....................................................

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)
    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                   (62,888)          (64,583)          (64,583)          (+1,695)  ................
     collected)...............................................
    Permanent, Section 32.....................................        1,169,000         1,300,000         1,300,000          +131,000   ................
    Funds for strengthening markets, income, and supply                  17,270            20,056            20,056            +2,786   ................
     (transfer from section 32)...............................
        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                          646               895               895              +249   ................
 Agricultural Services........................................

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)  ................
    (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)

        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   ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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                     758               895               895              +137   ................
 Environment..................................................

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
                                                               =========================================================================================
      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)  ................  ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              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   ................
        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)

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)  ................
        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   ................  ................
            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            39,770            39,959            39,959              +189   ................
           Loans Program Account..............................
              (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
            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              610               813               813              +203   ................
 Services.....................................................

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,        6,860,000         7,777,000         7,552,000          +692,000          -225,000
     and children [WIC].......................................
        Emergency appropriations..............................          500,000   ................  ................         -500,000   ................
    Supplemental nutrition assistance program:
        Expenses..............................................       48,843,897        56,105,314        56,105,314        +7,261,417   ................
            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   ................
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          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                100,000           199,500           199,500           +99,500   ................
 nutrition program grants.....................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      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)
        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                (49,000)          (54,500)          (54,500)          (+5,500)  ................
 expenses)....................................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      Total, title VI, Related Agencies and Food and Drug             2,051,397         2,350,089         2,350,089          +298,692   ................
       Administration.........................................
                                                               =========================================================================================
                 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         ................          -49,885   ................  ................          +49,885
 (rescission).................................................
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
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            ................          -30,000   ................  ................          +30,000
 Prevention program...........................................
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)  ................
                                                               =========================================================================================
      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                      2,594,405         2,079,499         2,079,499          -514,906   ................
 (discretionary)..............................................
Title VI--Related agencies and Food and Drug Administration           2,051,397         2,350,089         2,350,089          +298,692   ................
 (discretionary)..............................................
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


```