Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies: Transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation

Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies: Transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation

Order Code RL32504
Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies:
Transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation
Updated October 19, 2005
name redacted
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Resouces, Science, and Industry Division
name redacted
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resouces, Science, and Industry Division

Funding Plant and Animal Health Emergencies:
Transfers from the Commodity Credit Corporation
Summary
The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to transfer funds from the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) for emergency control programs. The Secretary’s use of this
authority has increased in recent years, and has become an issue within government
concerning the method for funding plant and animal health programs.
The authority to transfer money for plant and animal health emergencies is
found both in annual appropriations acts and in authorizing statutes. Discretion rests
with the Secretary of Agriculture, who is subject to limited review when making
transfers.
The definition and use of the word “emergency” have caused particular concern.
Some parties interpret emergency to include only the initial occurrence of an
outbreak. Others interpret emergency to include any outbreak that “threatens
agricultural production” for which officials deem appropriations insufficient.
CCC transfers represent a significant source of funding for APHIS activities.
Nearly all CCC to APHIS transfers go to the pest and disease management function.
Such CCC transfers rose from $31 million in FY1998 to a high of $378 million in
FY2003, an increase of 1,100% in six years, before declining to $168 million in
FY2005. From FY1998 to FY2005, CCC transfers averaged $211 million annually,
almost 10 times as much as over the FY1990-FY1998 period.
In recent years, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been
concerned over the frequent use of CCC transfers for the eradication of plant and
animal pests and diseases, which OMB has said should be funded through regular
appropriations after the initial outbreak. However, congressional appropriations
committees have consistently reiterated that the Secretary should use the authority to
transfer CCC funds, and USDA has continued its past practice of using the funds.
Analysis of CCC transfers for plant and animal health emergencies from
FY1998 to FY2005 leads to several observations. First, the number and value of
CCC transfers rose substantially from FY1998 to FY2003. Second, several
eradication programs were short-term and funded only by CCC transfers, while other
programs consistently have received CCC transfers in addition to appropriations.
Finally, some programs receive large, initial CCC transfers followed by progressively
smaller transfers as appropriations gradually take their place.
Examples of pest and disease programs receiving CCC transfers in recent years
include Asian longhorned beetle, avian influenza, bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(“mad cow disease”), citrus canker, emerald ash borer, glassy-winged sharpshooter,
plum pox, and sudden oak death.
This report will be updated if significant developments ensue.

Contents
Federal Sources for Plant and Animal Health Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Importance of CCC Transfers to APHIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Authority for CCC Transfers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In Appropriations Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In Statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
For Plant Pests and Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
For Animal Pests and Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Secretarial Discretion and Limited Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Debate Between Congress and the Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Appropriations Committee Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Administration Positions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
CCC Transfers Since 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Growth in Size and Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
One-Time Crises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Ongoing Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Relation to Budget Requests and Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Transfers That Decline Over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Figures
Figure 1. CCC Transfers and APHIS Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
List of Tables
Table 1. CCC Transfers and APHIS Appropriations, FY1998-2005 . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. APHIS Programs Receiving CCC Transfers: Budget
Requests, Appropriations, and CCC Transfers, FY1998-FY2005 . . . . . . . . 12

Funding Plant and Animal
Health Emergencies: Transfers
from the Commodity Credit Corporation
Federal Sources for Plant and Animal Health Funds
The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to transfer funds from the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) for emergency control programs. The Secretary’s use of this
authority increased in recent years, becoming an issue within government concerning
the method for funding plant and animal health programs.
Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), APHIS is responsible for
protecting U.S. agriculture from foreign pests and diseases, responding to domestic
animal and plant health problems, and facilitating agricultural trade through science-
based standards.1
APHIS receives an annual appropriation from Congress for pest and disease
management, including many allocations for specific outbreaks.2 This annual
appropriation is granted by Congress as new budget authority, typically as part of
USDA’s regular appropriation measure for any given fiscal year. But in emergencies,
such as unforseen disease outbreaks or when resources for existing eradication
programs are deemed not to be sufficient, the Secretary of Agriculture may transfer
funds from the CCC (or other USDA accounts) to supplement these annually
appropriated funds.
The CCC is a wholly owned government corporation with the authority to have
up to $30 billion in outstanding debt to the U.S. Treasury.3 These borrowed funds
are used widely throughout USDA to finance farm commodity programs, various
conservation and trade programs, and emergency spending. The CCC repays the
funds it borrows from the Treasury through a periodic congressional appropriation
1 The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) transferred most of the agricultural
border inspection function (including about 2,680 inspectors) from APHIS to the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Most of APHIS was left intact because of its
scientific expertise and importance to agriculture in general. APHIS retains a presence in
border security through pre-inspections abroad, inspecting passengers and cargo entering
the mainland from Hawaii and Puerto Rico, and cooperating with DHS to determine border
inspection practices. For more information, see CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism:
Threats and Preparedness, by (name redacted).
2 See for example CRS Report RL32904, Agriculture and Related Agencies: Appropriations
for FY2006, coordinated by (name redacted).
3 The CCC Charter Act can be viewed at [http://www.fsa.usda.gov/ccc/ccc_charter.htm].

CRS-2
so that its $30 billion debt limit is not depleted. Congress generally provides this
infusion through the regular annual USDA appropriation. Because of the difficulty
in estimating its funding needs due to uncontrollable variables such as crop and
weather conditions, the CCC receives a “current indefinite appropriation,” which
allows the CCC to receive “such sums as are necessary” during the fiscal year.
Importance of CCC Transfers to APHIS
The Secretary of Agriculture has had the authority since 1948 to supplement
APHIS appropriations for plant and animal pest and disease eradication programs by
transferring money from other USDA accounts.
From FY1990 to FY1998, CCC transfers to APHIS averaged $22 million
annually and addressed one or two emergencies per year.4 From FY1998 to FY2005,
CCC transfers averaged $211 million annually, almost 10 times as much, and have
addressed as many as 11 emergencies per year. Specifically, CCC transfers rose from
$31 million in FY1998 to a high of $378 million in FY2003 (see Figure 1, Table 1),
an increase of 1,100% in six years. They declined to $218 million and 10
emergencies in FY2004, and then to $168 million and five emergencies in FY2005.
Figure 1. CCC Transfers and APHIS Appropriations
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Fiscal year
Regular APHIS appropriation
CCC transfer
Source: CRS.
4 CRS Report RL31466, Homeland Security Department: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Issues, by (name redacted).

CRS-3
Over the FY1998-FY2005 period, the $1.69 billion of CCC transfers matched
the $1.69 billion amount appropriated for pest and disease management, and were
27% of the total available to APHIS from appropriations and the CCC (see Table 1).
In recent years, pest and disease management has become the largest line item
in the APHIS budget, rising from a $101 million appropriation in FY1998 to $361
million in FY2005. As a share of APHIS regular salary and expense appropriation,
pest and disease management now accounts for 46% of APHIS activity, up from 23%
in FY1999. If CCC transfers are counted with regularly appropriated pest and
disease management, the share amounts to 55% to 65% of total APHIS spending
(appropriations and CCC transfers) over the past three years.
Table 1. CCC Transfers and APHIS Appropriations, FY1998-
2005
($ million)
Fiscal year
Total
1998-
APHIS Activity
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
2005
CCC Transfers
168
218
378
200
335
217
143
31
1,690
APHIS Salaries & Expenses (S&E):
Pest and Disease
361.0
331.1
317.2
225.2
166.2
95.0
93.6
100.7
1,690
Management
Pest and Disease
151.1
151.6
146.5
229.4
211.2
200.5
195.1
190.8
1,476
Exclusion
Monitoring and
193.0
138.5
132.9
89.9
84.5
79.1
75.7
73.7
867
Surveillance
Animal Care
17.0
16.8
16.8
15.6
12.5
10.5
9.5
9.5
108
Scientific, Technical
Services
75.4
70.1
61.0
60.4
55.0
53.0
51.9
52.9
480
Subtotal: S&E*
791
712
679
625
535
446
430
431
4,648
Total: CCC+ S&E
959
930
1,057
825
870
663
573
462
6,339
Percent
Pest and Disease
Management as % of
46%
46%
47%
36%
31%
21%
22%
23%
36%
Salaries and Expenses
CCC + Pest and
Disease Management
55%
59%
66%
52%
58%
47%
41%
29%
53%
as % of total
CCC Transfers as % of
Pest and Disease
47%
66%
119%
89%
202%
229%
153%
31%
100%
Management
CCC Transfers as % of
18%
23%
36%
24%
39%
33%
25%
7%
27%
total
Source: Compiled by CRS using APHIS budget office spreadsheets (7/13/2004 and 10/7/2005).
* Includes some additional miscellaneous expenses not reflected in above categories.

CRS-4
CCC transfers now represent a significant source of funding for APHIS
activities, especially compared to annually appropriated funds. Nearly all CCC
transfers go to the pest and disease management function since those programs
address eradication and control issues directly.
The CCC account is considered, for congressional scorekeeping purposes, to be
mandatory (entitlement) spending. This is in contrast to APHIS’s annual
appropriation for salaries and expenses, which is considered, for scorekeeping
purposes, to be discretionary spending. The Appropriations Committees write the
spending levels for discretionary programs, which, in the case of APHIS, comes
annually as part of the regular fiscal year appropriation bill for USDA. (Mandatory
spending levels are generally determined by multi-year authorizing laws, which
generally are handled by the authorizing committees, including the House and Senate
Agriculture Committees.) To the extent that funds for an activity can be drawn from
an account like the CCC on the mandatory side of the federal budget, the money
won’t have to be taken from the discretionary side of the budget (i.e., annual
appropriations).
Authority for CCC Transfers
The authority to transfer money for plant and animal health emergencies is
found both in annual appropriations acts and in the authorizing statutes for animal
and plant health programs. Such authorities date back to 1948.
In Appropriations Acts
The pending FY2006 USDA appropriation (H.R. 2744, both the House- and
Senate-passed versions) includes the following language regarding transfers from
other USDA accounts to APHIS. Identical or similar language has appeared in
appropriations from previous years, including the FY2004 and the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Acts (P.L. 108-199 and P.L. 108-447):
Provided further, That, in addition, in emergencies which threaten any segment
of the agricultural production industry of this country, the Secretary may transfer
from other appropriations or funds available to the agencies or corporations of
the Department such sums as may be deemed necessary, to be available only in
such emergencies for the arrest and eradication of contagious or infectious
disease or pests of animals, poultry, or plants, and for expenses in accordance
with sections 10411 and 10417 of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
8310 and 8316) and sections 431 and 442 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C.
7751 and 7772), and any unexpended balances of funds transferred for such
emergency purposes in the preceding fiscal year shall be merged with such
transferred amounts.
In Statute
The Plant Protection Act (P.L. 106-224, Title IV, Section 402, June 20, 2000)
and the Animal Health Protection Act (P.L. 107-171, Title X, Section 10402, May
13, 2002) provide the authorities for APHIS to conduct animal and plant health

CRS-5
monitoring and surveillance, and to regulate and enforce such programs, including
pest and disease management and eradication. These acts replace previous
authorities dating back several decades, and combine such authorities into a more
unified framework.
For Plant Pests and Diseases. Transfers for plant pests and diseases are
addressed in 7 U.S.C. 7772 (Title 7: Agriculture, Chapter 104: Plant Protection,
Subchapter IV: Authorization of Appropriations):
7 U.S.C. 7772
(a) Authority to transfer certain funds. In connection with an emergency in
which a plant pest or noxious weed threatens any segment of the agricultural
production of the United States, the Secretary may transfer from other
appropriations or funds available to the agencies or corporations of the
Department of Agriculture such amounts as the Secretary considers necessary to
be available in the emergency for the arrest, control, eradication, and prevention
of the spread of the plant pest or noxious weed and for related expenses.
(b) Availability. Any funds transferred under this section shall remain available
for such purposes without fiscal year limitation.
(c) Secretarial discretion. The action of any officer, employee, or agent of the
Secretary in carrying out this Act,1 including determining the amount of and
making any payment authorized to be made under this chapter, shall not be
subject to a review of longer than 60 days by any officer or employee of the
Federal Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
(Pub. L. 106-224, title IV, Sec. 442, June 20, 2000, 114 Stat. 455; Pub. L.
107-171, title VII, Sec. 7504(b), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 466.)
1 This Act, referred to in (c), probably should read “this title” meaning title IV
of Pub. L. 106-224, June 20, 2000, known as the Plant Protection Act.
For Animal Pests and Diseases. Using similar language, transfers for
animal pests and diseases are addressed in 7 U.S.C. 8316 (Title 7: Agriculture,
Chapter 109: Animal Health Protection, Sec. 8316: Authorization of Appropriations):
7 U.S.C. 8316
(b) Transfer of funds.
(1) In general. In connection with an emergency under which a pest or disease
of livestock threatens any segment of agricultural production in the United
States, the Secretary may transfer from other appropriations or funds available
to the agencies or corporations of the Department of Agriculture such funds as
the Secretary determines are necessary for the arrest, control, eradication, or
prevention of the spread of the pest or disease of livestock and for related
expenses.
(2) Availability. Any funds transferred under this subsection shall remain
available until expended, without fiscal year limitation.
(3) Reviewability. The action of any officer, employee, or agent of the Secretary
in carrying out this section (including determining the amount of and making any
payment authorized to be made under this chapter) shall not be subject to review
of longer than 60 days by any officer or employee of the Federal Government
other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
(c) Use of funds. In carrying out this chapter, the Secretary may use funds made
available to carry out this chapter for (1) the employment of civilian nationals in
foreign countries; and (2) the construction and operation of research laboratories,
quarantine stations, and other buildings and facilities for special purposes.

CRS-6
(Pub. L. 107-171, title X, Sec. 10417, May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 507.)
Secretarial Discretion and Limited Review
Discretion over the need for and size of CCC transfers rests with the Secretary
of Agriculture, and the Secretary’s decision is subject to limited review (a maximum
of 60 days) by others in the government. For plants, this discretion is discussed in
paragraph (c) of 7 U.S.C. 7772; for animals, in paragraph (b)(3) of 7 U.S.C. 8316.
The time limit is intended to ensure a rapid government response to agricultural
health issues. Such review became important in the spring of 2004, for example,
when the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delayed the
release of funds for emerald ash borer (OMB’s position is discussed in the next
section). USDA announced a $28.2 million transfer on March 23, 2004, but
administrative issues with OMB were cleared only on May 28, 2004.5
Debate Between Congress and the Administration
The definition and use of the word “emergency” have caused particular concern,
especially given the word’s use in both statute and appropriations acts to authorize
such transfers. Some parties interpret the term to include only the initial occurrence
of an outbreak. Others read the authorization more generally, interpreting an
emergency to mean any outbreak that “threatens agricultural production” for which
officials deem current appropriations are insufficient for eradication and control.
Appropriations Committee Position
In report language, Congressional appropriations committees have consistently
reiterated that the Secretary should use the authority to transfer CCC funds for animal
and plant health emergencies. The reports repeatedly reject attempts by the
Administration to change the authority or ongoing process for funding emergency
eradication efforts. For the FY2002 appropriation, the House report contained more
extensive comments than usual for the justification to transfer CCC funds. Typically,
such report language is limited to the first sentence below.
The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to use the
authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases
that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the
Committee is enhancing the work that has begun to combat emergency outbreaks.
The Committee notes that funds appropriated in this bill are subject to obligation
within the fiscal year for which they are appropriated while funds transferred
from the CCC are available until expended. For example, according to USDA’s
fiscal year 2002 budget justifications, there is about $65,000,000 in CCC funds
5 The Detroit News, “Federal funds to fight ash borer coming, USDA promises,” May 29,
2004 [http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0405/30/metro-167621.htm].

CRS-7
that was transferred in fiscal year 2000 that was still available for obligation as
of April 9, 2001. If those funds had been appropriated, they would not have been
available in fiscal year 2001. The use of the Secretary’s emergency authority
places the Department in a better position to respond to emergencies, more so
than the annual budget and appropriations cycle that takes about 18 months to
complete. (H.Rept. 107-116, to accompany H.R. 2330.)
More recently, both the House and Senate reports accompanying the FY2006
USDA appropriation (H.R. 2744) again express similar views on use of the CCC, as
follows.
The Committee expects the Secretary of Agriculture to continue to use the
authority provided in this bill to transfer funds from the Commodity Credit
Corporation for the arrest and eradication of animal and plant pests and diseases
that threaten American agriculture. By providing funds in this account, the
Committee is enhancing, but not replacing, the use of Commodity Credit
Corporation funding for emergency outbreaks. (H.Rept. 109-102)
The Committee encourages the Secretary to continue use of contingency funding
from Commodity Credit Corporation monies, as in past fiscal years, to cover
needs as identified in the President’s budget and any additional emergencies as
the Secretary determines necessary. (S.Rept. 109-92).
Administration Positions
In past years, OMB has expressed concern about the continuing and growing use
of CCC funds for the eradication of plant and animal pests and diseases, which OMB
has said should be funded through regular appropriations after the initial outbreak.
The FY2004 Budget requested full funding for a number of important pest
eradication programs, such as the Asian Longhorned Beetle, Citrus Canker, and
tropical bont tick. Because the Committee’s failure to provide the requested
funding will result in a need to transfer mandatory funding from the Commodity
Credit Corporation, the Administration has included these additional costs in its
scoring of the Committee bill. (OMB Statement of Administrative Policy on S.
1427, November 5, 2003)
OMB has called the use of CCC funds for anything but unforeseen emergencies,
and especially ongoing eradication programs beyond the first or second year,
“backdoor financing” that avoids the discipline of the budget process.
The FY2002 Budget proposed that ongoing projects to combat plant pest and
disease infestations be funded through the normal discretionary appropriations
process. The Committee chose not to accept this approach and instead
recommended that the majority of the funding be provided through transfer from
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Authority to transfer funding from
CCC is intended for use in emergency situations. Using this emergency authority
for eradication efforts, which can be predicted, planned for, and will continue for
several years, is inconsistent with the clear intent of the provision authorizing
these transfers. Therefore, using emergency funding for anything other than truly
unforeseen crises can be viewed as backdoor financing that avoids the discipline
of the discretionary budget caps. (OMB, Statement of Administrative Policy on
S. 1191, October 25, 2001, and H.R. 2330, June 27, 2001)

CRS-8
In the past few years, USDA itself has taken several positions. In its FY2002
budget request, USDA proposed creating a large, appropriated emergency fund for
ongoing plant and animal health emergencies. The request included $196 million in
appropriations for ongoing emergencies that were previously funded by CCC
transfers.6 The request was not funded by Congress.
Since the 2002 budget, USDA has not proposed such a large emergency fund,
although it has proposed more modest increases in appropriations for several pest and
disease programs, purportedly to reduce CCC transfers. With current budgetary
pressures, OMB has signaled in recent comments about the FY2005 budget that it
may be less interested in a large contingency fund for plant and animal health.
Consistent with the need for responsible spending restraint, the Administration
urges the Congress to fully fund unavoidable obligations and not to include any
emergency funding, including contingent emergencies. (OMB Statement of
Administrative Policy on H.R. 4766, July 13, 2004)
Other Administration efforts to change the policy for CCC transfers were
attempted in FY2003 and FY2004. For FY2003, the Administration proposed
deleting the authority in appropriations language for emergency transfers and putting
new criteria into the Agricultural Risk Protection Act.7 Although appropriators
rejected that proposal, USDA again proposed appropriations language for FY2004
that did not include the usual authority for making emergency transfers.8 Again,
Congress rejected the proposal.
In the FY2005 budget request, USDA proposed addressing the definition of
emergency by deleting “in emergencies” and replacing it with “for sudden, urgent,
and unforeseen circumstances.”9 The final version of the FY2005 agriculture
appropriations bill (P.L. 108-447) does not adopt this newer language.
The FY2006 budget request proposed the same language change.10 As before,
neither the House nor Senate-passed version of the FY2006 USDA appropriations
bill (H.R. 2744) contains the proposal.
Despite these past Administration positions to reduce CCC transfers, USDA has
continued to use its authority and has even drawn more heavily upon the CCC. This
6 Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2002 Budget Request, pp. 14-17. This request
differed from the contingency fund of about $4 million annually that APHIS has had for
many years, and that Congress continues to provide via annual appropriations. The
contingency fund is used for initial surveys or administrative work on new outbreaks, and
is not large enough, or intended, for the actual eradication efforts and producer
compensation programs, which can cost tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
7 Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2003 Budget Request, pp. 14-17.
8 Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2004 Budget Request, pp. 14-16.
9 Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2005 Budget Request, pp. 15-22.
10 Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2006 Budget Request, pp. 15-37. As of this
writing, H.R. 2744 was awaiting House-Senate conference.

CRS-9
might suggest, in part, that even within the Administration, USDA and OMB can
have conflicting positions on the delivery of programs, even when the
Administration’s official budgetary and legislative requests appear more unified. It
also likely reflects the fact that Congress (through annual appropriations and its
instructions in accompanying report language) ultimately controls federal spending.
As already noted, congressional appropriations committees have consistently
reiterated that the Secretary should use the authority to transfer CCC funds, and the
Secretary has done so.
CCC Transfers Since 1998
Table 2 presents all CCC transfers for plant and animal health emergencies
from FY1998 to FY2005. The table includes any eradication effort having a CCC
transfer during the period, and is thus a subset of all APHIS pest and disease
management programs. To help compare the importance of CCC activity for a
particular eradication program, the table includes the budget request and the
congressionally appropriated amount. (For FY2006 only, the table shows the
Administration request and, respectively, the amounts in the House/Senate-passed
bills.)
Table 2 reveals several examples that relate to Congressional and
Administration positions. These are summarized below and then discussed in detail.
! The number and value of CCC transfers had risen substantially since 1998
through 2003.
! Each year, a significant amount of the total transferred goes to just one or
two emergencies (e.g., BSE in 2004, Exotic Newcastle in 2003, avian
influenza in 2002).
! Several control programs were short-term and funded only by CCC transfers
(e.g., Belgian sheep TSE, Exotic Newcastle, hog cholera, Mormon cricket).
! Some programs consistently have received CCC transfers (e.g., Asian
longhorned beetle, citrus canker, fruit fly).
! Some programs receive large CCC transfers followed by progressively
smaller transfers as appropriators have time to respond through the budget
cycle and formal budget requests come from the Administration (e.g.,
Pierce’s disease, Asian longhorned beetle, and citrus canker, and possibly
sudden oak death and emerald ash borer).
Growth in Size and Number
As mentioned above, CCC transfers to APHIS grew from $31 million in
FY1998 to $378 million in FY2003. In the eight fiscal years from October 1, 1998
to September 30, 2005, CCC transfers exceeded $1.6 billion. This is 100% of the
cumulative APHIS appropriation for pest and disease management (see Table 1).

CRS-10
The number of transfers and programs has grown also. In 1998, CCC transfers
assisted with two eradication programs. In FY2003, CCC transfers supplemented 11
programs (see end of Table 2).
Programs to compensate producers for plants and animals that are destroyed are
one reason that CCC transfers are particularly large in certain years. Compensation
programs quickly amount to tens and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars.
Each year, the majority of the CCC transfers go to just a few emergency
programs. In FY2005 the largest transfers were for citrus canker and for BSE. In
FY2004, the largest transfers were for BSE and the associated animal ID issue. In
FY2003, it was for Exotic Newcastle disease; in FY2002, for avian influenza; in
FY2000-FY2001, for citrus canker.
One-Time Crises
Some eradication efforts have received CCC funding for one-time crises, and
do not have ongoing appropriations or budget requests (e.g., Belgian sheep TSE,
Exotic Newcastle disease, hog cholera, and Mormon cricket).
Ongoing Programs
A few ongoing eradication programs (such as Asian longhorned beetle, citrus
canker, and fruit fly) have consistently received CCC transfers annually with
appropriated funds. These longer-term programs are some examples of the OMB
criticism of backdoor financing.
Relation to Budget Requests and Appropriations. Continuing the
example, USDA budget requests for Asian longhorned beetle and citrus canker have
exceeded Congressional appropriations, but CCC transfers have more than made up
the difference. Although some may conclude that Congressional underfunding has
precipitated the need for CCC transfers, this is not necessarily the case.
The time line of budget requests for a future fiscal year (e.g., a request for
FY2005 that is placed in February 2004) may occur before CCC transfers are
initiated for the current fiscal year (e.g., March-September 2004). Thus an apparent
“underfunding” in FY2005 appropriations may have been due to reasonable
adjustments made during the appropriations process after CCC transfers occurred.
Consequently, the reality of the lengthy budget process may be used in support
of the timeliness argument that Congress has made for CCC transfers, especially
during rapidly evolving outbreaks. However, for outbreaks that are known and not
evolving in size and control methods, continuing CCC transfers could indicate that
requests or appropriations were not forecast adequately.
As noted earlier, to the extent that funds are taken from a mandatory spending
account like the CCC, the money won’t have to be taken from the discretionary side
of the budget. This could be viewed as effectively “freeing up” discretionary funds
that could be used by appropriators for other purposes, some have contended.

CRS-11
Another longstanding appropriations issue is Congress’s use of earmarks. For
example, APHIS requests, and receives in its annual appropriation, money for a
program called emerging plant pests (EPP). Congress provided $101 million for this
program in FY2005, and a similar level is in both the pending House and Senate-
passed appropriations for FY2006 (H.R. 2744). (USDA-APHIS requested nearly
$127 million for the program in FY2006.) The accompanying House and Senate
reports each stipulate how much APHIS should devote from this program to several
specific pests, such as the Asian long-horned beetle, sudden oak death, the glassy-
winged sharpshooter, and emerald ash borer.
APHIS likely would be spending (and in fact has proposed) such money on
eradication and control of most, if not all, of these pests — even if Congress had not
required it. Nonetheless the earmarks, which consume the lion’s share of the total
emerging plant pests program level, in effect can limit the agency’s future discretion
in how to allocate the EPP appropriation. Indeed, the committees have addressed the
need for any additional pest or disease funding by expressly asking the Secretary to
use the CCC account (see pp. 6-7).
Transfers That Decline Over Time. Some eradication programs receive
large CCC transfers in the early years, with smaller transfers in subsequent years. For
example, initial control activity for Pierce’s disease (a.k.a., glassy-winged
sharpshooter/GWSS) was funded with large CCC transfers in FY2000, followed by
small and growing appropriations, and subsequently larger budget requests after
FY2002. Half of the total CCC transfers occurred in the first year, with subsequent
CCC transfers being much smaller and more activity being supported by
appropriations. Even programs with large and ongoing transfers (such as Asian
longhorned beetle and citrus canker) have seen transfers decline.
Similar examples may include sudden oak death and emerald ash borer. USDA
did not make a specific budget request for sudden oak death until FY2005, even
though Congress appropriated funds in both FY2003 and FY2004. Following a rapid
geographic spread of sudden oak death in the spring of 2004, the Secretary
transferred a large amount from CCC in FY2004, without needing to wait for the
appropriations process. With emerald ash borer, CCC transfers occurred for two
years before the Administration included a request.
In conclusion, depending on which eradication programs are chosen, examples
of CCC transfers for plant and animal health emergencies may be used in support of
opposing opinions about the efficacy of transfers. Certainly, the total number and
value of CCC transfers has risen substantially since 1998, although most of the
amount transferred each year goes to just one or two emergencies.
CCC transfers have been particularly effective for several one-time, short-term
emergency responses that have been funded with only CCC transfers, before
appropriations could have been enacted. However, some longer-term eradication
programs continue to receive ongoing CCC transfers, raising the issue of budget
requests and appropriations. Finally, some programs receive large initial CCC
transfers followed by progressively smaller transfers as appropriations gradually take
their place — a more likely outcome as response needs evolve and become known.

CRS-12
Table 2. APHIS Programs Receiving CCC Transfers:
Budget Requests, Appropriations, and CCC Transfers, FY1998-FY2005
($ million)
Fiscal year
Total
APHIS Programs with CCC
transfers
FY2006*
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
FY1998
FY1998-FY2005
Asian Longhorned Beetle
Request
14.4
9.3
39.8
49.2
51.8
4.6
2.1
156.8
Appropriation
15.3/23.9
28.9
30.0
26.2
16.9
2.1
2.1
0.0
1.3 a
107.5
CCC Transfer
tbd
7.0
27.6
49.6
14.1
6.9
105.2
Avian Influenza (lo)
Request
22.8
12.8
2.0
14.8
Appropriation
22.8/11.8
22.8
1.0
23.8
CCC Transfer
tbd
13.7
-16.8 b
85.2
82.1
Avian Influenza (hi)
CCC Transfer
-1.0d
4.9
3.9
Belgian Sheep TSE
CCC Transfer
1.6
2.1
3.7
Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy
c
c
c
c
c
Request
17.2
17.6
8.4
8.4
34.4
c
c
c
c
c
Appropriation
17.2/17.2
17.0
8.4
8.4
33.8
CCC Transfer
tbd
42.1
74.9
117.0
Chronic Wasting Disease
Request
16.9
20.1
15.0
7.2
42.3

CRS-13
Fiscal year
Total
APHIS Programs with CCC
transfers
FY2006*
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
FY1998
FY1998-FY2005
Appropriation
16.9/18.8
18.7
18.5
14.8
52.1
CCC Transfer
tbd
10.4
12.2
2.7
25.2
Citrus Canker
Request
39.2
52.5
56.1
59.4
37.0
20.5
225.5
Appropriation
36.6/40
36.3
33.4
25.6
9.1
0.0
104.5
CCC Transfer
tbd
93.8
13.3
30.4
23.1
117.5
90.8
25.0
393.9
Emerald Ash Borer
Request
30.0
12.5
12.5
Appropriation
14/6
5.0
1.5
6.5
CCC Transfer
tbd
18.8
43.4
14.6
76.7
Exotic Newcastle
CCC Transfer
-6.0d
-2.0
220.2
212.2
Hog Cholera
CCC Transfer
4.1
5.3
9.4
Infectious Salmon Anemia
Request
1.0
1.0
Appropriation
0.0
CCC Transfer
8.3
8.3
Karnal Bunt
Request
2.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
3.1
Appropriation
2.8/
0.9
0.9
0.9
2.6
CCC Transfer
tbd
0.6
4.3
7.3
18.6
30.8
Fruit Fly Exclusion
Request
60.0
63.5
61.3
64.0
56.0
55.1
25.2
22.3
21.0
368.4
Appropriation
60/58.4
57.9
56.7
61.7
39.0
32.5
25.5
23.0
21.0
317.3

CRS-14
Fiscal year
Total
APHIS Programs with CCC
transfers
FY2006*
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
FY1998
FY1998-FY2005
CCC Transfer
tbd
18.9
9.8
20.4
14.1
33.6
21.1
25.7
12.4
156.1
Mormon Cricket
Request
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
12.9
Appropriation
4.4/5.6
5.5
5.5
4.3
15.3
CCC Transfer
tbd
20.0
20.0
National Animal ID
Request
33.3
33.2
33.2
Appropriation
33.3/32.9
33.2
33.2
CCC Transfer
tbd
18.8
18.8
Pierce’s Disease (Glassy-
winged Sharpshooter)
Request
20.8
24.0
8.5
8.5
4.0
45.0
Appropriation
24/24.5
23.0
22.1
17.5
8.5
0.4 a
71.5
CCC Transfer
tbd
5.2
8.8
8.7
22.3
45.0
Plum Pox
Request
2.2
3.5
3.5
5.6
12.5
Appropriation
2.2./2.2
3.4
3.5
4.0
10.9
CCC Transfer
tbd
2.1
16.9
19.0
Pseudorabies
Request
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.5
34.6
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.5
65.4
Appropriation
4.4/4.4
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
4.0
4.6
4.6
4.5
34.6
CCC Transfer
tbd
-6.4d
56.3
40.0
80.0
169.9
Rabies
Request
25.6
21.4
19.8
25.5
16.5
83.1
Appropriation
25.6/21.6
23.1a
21.1
19.8
11.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.3
81.4
CCC Transfer
tbd
4.9
6.6
4.2
15.7

CRS-15
Fiscal year
Total
APHIS Programs with CCC
transfers
FY2006*
FY2005
FY2004
FY2003
FY2002
FY2001
FY2000
FY1999
FY1998
FY1998-FY2005
Scrapie
Request
19.3
20.9
17.1
22.6
21.0
8.0
3.0
3.2
2.9
98.7
Appropriation
19.3/19
17.8
15.6
15.4
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
63.8
CCC Transfer
tbd
-0.7d
6.0
10.0
15.3
Spring Viremia (Carp)
CCC Transfer
11.7
11.7
Sudden Oak Death
Request
1.4
1.5
2.0
3.5
Appropriation
3/3.1
3.0
3.1
1.7
0.8 a
8.6
CCC Transfer
tbd
9.5
15.5
25.0
Tuberculosis (bov.)
Request
16.7
20.9
15.1
20.1
18.6
5.0
4.9
5.0
4.9
94.5
Appropriation
15/15
14.8
14.8
14.8
8.7
5.5
4.9
4.9
4.9
73.4
CCC Transfer
tbd
65.9
60.2
126.1
White Spot Syndrome
CCC Transfer
-0.1d
0.7
0.6
Subtotal of selected
programs above
Requests
324
258
276
239
97
40
35
33
1,303
Appropriations
316
240
215
102
49
42
37
36
1,037
CCC Transfers
168
218
378
200
335
217
143
31
1,690
Number of programs with
5
10
11
11
10
8
5
2
22
CCC transfers
Source: Compiled by CRS using APHIS budget office spreadsheets (7/13/2004 and 10/7/2005) and Explanatory Notes for the President’s FY2006 Budget. FY2006: House and Senate
report language, respectively; final action was pending as of this writing.

CRS-16
a. Transferred from the appropriated contingency fund (see note 6 on page 8). FY2005, $1.5 million of total represents such a transfer from this contingency fund.
b. Balance moved from Avian Influenza to Exotic Newcastle Disease.
c. Before FY2003, BSE was funded from APHIS Health Monitoring and Surveillance function without specific requests or allocations.
d. In FY2005, APHIS redirected $1 million from High Pathogen (hi) Avian Influenza, $4.2 million from Exotic Newcastle Disease, and $2.75 million from pseudorabies to BSE testing.
Also in FY2005, APHIS redirected an additional $1.7 million from Exotic Newcastle Disease, $3.7 million from pseudorabies, $689,000 from scrapie, and $91,000 from white
spot syndrome to citrus canker.

EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to al Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentional y made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.