▶ 0:01:53Good morning. I want to thank all of you for coming to today's hearing to receive testimony from our colleagues. I look forward to hearing more about the projects and programs in the A appropriations bill that are important to your district and to communities across the country. Your input will be critical as we work to fund the agencies under this subcommittee's jurisdiction. I look forward to working with Ranking Member Bishop and our subcommittee colleagues to accommodate these priorities as best we can as the FY26 appropriations process moves forward.
▶ 0:02:19Thank you again for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak with us today and bring these issues that are important to your community to our attention. Ranking member Bishop, I yield to you for any opening remarks you'd like to make. Thank you, Chairman Harris. I'm looking forward to hearing testimony from Representative Hman and Representative Flood. Uh, as I've often noted, the agencies in our bill conduct vital work that touch the lives of every single American every day.
▶ 0:02:45Uh, we look forward to hearing your thoughts on the programs and issues that affect your constituents. And your input, of course, is very valuable as we draft the FY26 bill. So, I want to thank you for taking your time uh to speak to us today and we appreciate your interest in the work of our subcommittee. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you very much.
▶ 0:03:08Uh, Representative Hagman, you're Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. As you begin the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process, I encourage you to block the USDA from enforcing its recent regulation mandating electronic identification or eid ear tags on cattle and bison moving interstates.
▶ 0:03:32Ending this unlawful mandate and destructive policy is one of my constituents top priorities along with thousands of ranchers and cattlemen across America, especially those independent and family-owned operations that make up the heart of the American West and our nation's food supply. On number November 5th, 2024, the animal and plant health inspection services final rule use of electronic identification ear tags as official identification in cattle and bison went into effect.
▶ 0:04:02The rule amends the 2013 animal disease traceability rule to mandate eid ear tags for cattle and bison that move across state lines. Not only does USDA lack the authority to enforce such a mandate, but it ignored the devastating repercussions of this flawed policy and failed to follow the proper regulatory process. Such repercussions include the destruction of thousands of small businesses and accelerated vertical integration of our food supply.
▶ 0:04:29For states like Wyoming that lack major meat processing facilities, most livestock will be moved across state lines at some point during the life cycle to access the the market. This subjects my constituents to this rule while arbitrarily excluding their competitors in those states with packing operations. In its 2013 ADT rule, the USDA estimated that the cost of a nationwide RFID system would be between 1.2 2 and 1.9 billion.
▶ 0:04:59Yet, USDA estimates that the current rule would cost just 26.1 million annually. This slide of hand was achieved by considering only the cost of the year tags themselves, ignoring all related compliance costs, including for wands, software, hardware, retrofitting of infrastructure, and labor to implement a functioning .ID system.
▶ 0:05:20They also included only 11% of the regulated community thereby nullifying their claim that this rule is about disease traceability with USDA itself admitting that it must have 70% compliance for it to work for that purpose. I appreciate that over the last two years this subcommittee has sought to shield US ranchers from the cost burden of this rule by providing $15 million to the agency for implementation.
▶ 0:05:46Unfortunately, those efforts have not protected the rancher by no fault of this subcommittee. The underlying policy itself is flawed, and there is simply no means to match the end to its purported achievements. In November, as the regulated community was preparing for the rule to take effect, state veterinarians were already reporting a shortage of eid tags. This shortage continues to plague the system, forcing ranchers to buy more expensive tags or be non-compliant with the rule.
▶ 0:06:14Throughout the rulemaking process, including in response to comments received about the proposed rule, USDA assured the regulated community that the ear tag manufacturers were prepared to meet this mandate. Yet, the shortage persists with states as recently as last week running out of tags and having to create backord lists for producers who are now in violation. Government mandates never result in decreasing the cost or increasing the supply of the mandated product and the EID situation is no exception.
▶ 0:06:45Tag prices have skyrocketed, meaning the faulty 26.1 million cost estimate is even more absurd as compared to the true cost. If all this weren't bad enough, I reiterate that the USDA does not possess the authority for such a rule. The EID final rule cites the Animal Health Protection Act. Congress, however, did not empower USDA to use the AHPA to impose such a mandate.
▶ 0:07:09The law also includes no provision allowing the USDA to impose criminal or civil penalties regarding violations of AHPA regulations, meaning it does not have the authority to implement the rule other than through the most extreme for of enforcement possible, which is denying Zach access to the interstate cattle and bison markets, thereby essentially forcing bankruptcy for non-compliance. For this very reason and others, the rule is under an active legal challenge.
▶ 0:07:37These policy shortcomings are a result of a regulatory development malpractice. After determining the rule to be significant for regulatory flexibility purposes and and and and that a majority of the regulated community would be small businesses, the USDA dismissed the rules impact on small businesses based on outdated data and failed to conduct the legally required RFA analysis.
▶ 0:08:01It failed entirely to conduct a federalism analysis even though states have their own laws regarding animal traceability and rigged the cost analysis. As I discussed earlier, these legal and good governance violations are endemic to the rule. A rule, mind you, that is a solution in search of a problem. The US produces the healthiest and highest quality livestock and meat in the world. At its core, this rule was advocated for and drafted by Big A, the packers, and the ear tag manufacturing companies.
▶ 0:08:30those corporate interests with the most to gain from this government mandate and who wanted federal subsidies to implement a system that the independent and small producers do not want and cannot afford. The result, massive harm to the American cattleman, further perpetuating distrust of Washington DC and the USDA. In the face of the rule's continued operational failure, now is the time to act and I urge your subcommittee to address this issue in the fiscal year 26 appropriations bill. Thank you and I would wait any questions.
▶ 0:09:01Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for the testimony. So, let me ask a couple of uh things. One is is the uh when you said it includes 11% of the regulated communities, that's because is that all that travels interstate or why where does that in part? Yes, it is because in states like Kansas, Texas, Ohio, Iowa, Nebraska, they have packers. In states like Wyoming, we do not have any big packers. Right? So, this is all for uh protection against disease.
▶ 0:09:26But in essence, and I know from training as a physician, if you want to protect against disease, you have to go, you have to protect the entire community. And what you're saying is they're only targeting 11%. And it's in states where some of the states like yours where there are no packers where you have to go interstate. That's exactly right. It's incre incrementalism at its best. They knew that the cost of this would be so astronomical. As I said over a decade ago, they estimated the cost to be between at that time 1.2 2 to 1.9 billion dollar.
▶ 0:09:57They knew that that would absolutely shock the conscience of everybody involved in the industry. So what they've done is they've tried to slice it and dice it so that they can minimize what the cost is. So even by their own numbers, if they covered 100% of the market, it's a $250 million regulation because they say for 11% it's 26.1 million. That doesn't even cover the cost right now and we already have a shortage of the ear tags. And so by their own numbers, it's quarter million dollar.
▶ 0:10:25It's quarter billion dollar bill or regulation. And now they're going to start trying to ramp it up and try to cover more so that they actually get the the disease traceability mechanism in place. Right. And and now pardon my ignorance on this, but don't most cattle have an ear tag already? They already have ear tags. We have back tags. We have tattoos. We have brands. Our disease traceability system. That's what I thought. So you could trace it. It's just that it will involve something other than electronic. That's exactly immediate trace. Right. Right.
▶ 0:10:53But we already have an incredibly effective disease traceability system in place and we have for well over 100 years. And finally, uh, well, from what I read, beef production is kind of at an at a low beef prices and I due to grocery shopping. Yes. Are pretty darn high. Yes. And what it sounds like is that this rule would actually decrease beef production further because some cattlemen would go out of business and increase prices even more. vertical integration is what they're after.
▶ 0:11:22And as I've indicated when I've been involved in this at rulemaking actually for uh over six years now. So I'm intimately familiar with how this came to be. The main drivers are your ear tag manufacturing companies as you can expect the packers and the big guys. And Michigan has already adopted an eid mandate and they are substantially ahead of the rest of the country in terms of reducing their small what they refer to as their small uh producers.
▶ 0:11:49They define a small producer as 500 cattle or less and they have h their uh cattle industry has just really cratered since they adopted an eid mandate because they're vertically integrating because of the additional costs associated with the eid requirements and and finally is the uh current administration actually enforcing this at this point? Well, you can't they're red tagging cattle.
▶ 0:12:13So it's it's it's almost automatic because when you're trying to sell your cattle across or your bison across state line, they're red tagging cattle. So yes, and then there's the shortage of the year tags. One of the other wrinkles in this because it does cover bison. Tribes are some of our biggest producers of bison in the in the United States. Our tribes, especially out west, this is one of their economic drivers. They don't view bison as as livestock. They view them as wildlife.
▶ 0:12:41And so this actually applies to bison as well. I I would challenge some of the folks here in Washington DC who adopted this rule to go out on in on the ranches in Wyoming and try to tag some of the years on those bison. Um you know it's it you don't handle them the way that you do cattle. Yet this rule applies to our bison industry as well. So, our tribal members have also uh opposed this this regulation because of what it does to them, what it does to their mandate in terms of of running their operations.
▶ 0:13:12And I know that's true because we had a bison producer in my district and they had to bring their cattle to Pennsylvania to be slaughtered because we didn't have a local. So, they would be and finally the um how can we solve this problem in the short term? Because if we put this in an appropriations bill, let's be honest, we're probably not going to get action until the fall. Uh but it sounds like it's an immediate problem right now. So what what can be done immediately?
▶ 0:13:38So I have introduced bills to nullify the rule as well to as standalone bills, but we also want to stop them from having the financing available to implement this regulation. So, I am continuing to push back against this and I'm also working with the administration to see if we can get some relief from this regulation because it is astronomically expensive and also just handling the cattle. You know, having to run them through the chute. You can tell from reading this that the people who put this together do not handle livestock.
▶ 0:14:09They don't know how we brand. They don't know how we, you know, when we put our cattle through the chute. We don't handle our cattle very often. You know, they're out in the pasture. This is not something where you're running cattle through your chute every day so that you have the ability to do this. Once you branch your cattle when they're young, you don't generally handle them again until you're going to ship them for the next stage. So, we're a cow.
▶ 0:14:29I grew up on a cow calf operation and you you you'll do your your work in the spring after they cal and then you don't handle them again until you ship them in the fall when they go out on pasture or go into a a feed lot. So even that they're adding steps to the entire process of of of livestock and meat production. Well, thank you very much. Thank you for your passion on that. Uh ranking member Bishop, do you have a question?
▶ 0:14:55No, I appreciate uh your passion uh for u but uh you agree that the motive behind the regulation was the health, safety and welfare of the consuming public to be able to track uh uh cattle in the event of uh disease. Well, I'm not sure that I can agree with that. I I'm not sure that I can agree with that.
▶ 0:15:20And the reason that I say that is because I know what has happened in other countries that adopted an eid mandate. An example is in Denmark, they adopted an eid mandate and a year ago they imposed a $100 ahead tax on all cattle, not because of a disease outbreak, but because of global warming. Um what? Because of global warming, climate change. And then the same thing happened in Ireland.
▶ 0:15:45In Ireland a couple of years ago, they adopted an eid mandate and as of August of 2023, they issued an order. They didn't follow through with it, but they issued an order that they had to slaughter 41,000 head of cattle in Ireland, not because of a disease outbreak, but again because of climate change. So, uh, I have real concerns that, you know, there was such an outcry over that they didn't What does the the ID have to do with climate change? The methane production is what they claim, methane production.
▶ 0:16:14And so there's that issue. The the ID would help them to number the cattle for so you in order to to issue an order like that, you have to know where the cattle are and you have to know your percentages. So let's say Harriet Hegman runs 500 head of cattle. They need to know that and they need to know where they are so that they can say you have to reduce your herd by 10%. And they have to know how many I have and this is the way that they do that.
▶ 0:16:41So, we already have a very robust disease traceability system in place. In fact, you're talking sometimes 24 hours. Um, in addition to which our cattle producers and bison producers pay very close attention to their herds because it's their livelihood. Uh, so what I'm concerned about is this is a mechanism that can be used for nefarious purposes. Other issues associated with it are the fact that we don't know how the data is going to be protected.
▶ 0:17:09All of this information is potentially subject to FOYA because USDA cannot exempt itself from the from the Freedom of Information Act. Is there any reason why it should be protected? Uh yes, because there are people who want to put ranchers out of business and again for the climate change uh ideas and to try to prevent especially out west. So where I come 48% of our surface estate is owned by the federal government. We have a lot of grazing on BLM and forest service lands.
▶ 0:17:38There are people who would love to remove all cattle uh off of our uh BLM and forest service lands. They say, you know, it used to be cattle free by 93. Reason they want us they want to control what we eat, huh? They want to make sure we don't eat beef. Yeah. So there they there are some aspirational reasons for the rule. I get that and disease traceability could be one. But again, this is a problem in or this is a solution in search of a problem because we've already solved the traceability issue largely.
▶ 0:18:06This is concentrating the market vertical integration and I think it will have a very negative impact on our independent cattle producers. I share your concern about the vertical integration. Yeah. Um but I'm just I I I I really am concerned that we have full traceability uh because of the possible outbreak of disease and somehow we need to be able to balance those two. We do.
▶ 0:18:32One of the things I would like to see is less imports from countries that we know have problems. And I think that if we start addressing it from that standpoint, we could actually be more effective at preventing the importation of some of the diseases that we eradicated in the United States many many years ago. So I think that we need to be looking at our entire food supply chain in that regard. But the imports can also be a problem. Absolutely.
▶ 0:18:58And uh of course we've got to have the personnel there to be able to conduct u screening to when they come in. Mhm. Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Appreciate you appearing before the subcommittee. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Underwood. Well, thank you, uh, Congresswoman Hgman for coming in today.
▶ 0:19:20I just found the discussion about protecting data to be so interesting given the way that uh we've seen data accessed in other agencies and there doesn't seem to be that same kind of passion or outcry not necessarily specific to you but just in general and so I hope that as we have the opportunity to protect all patient data we take the opportunity to do that whether it's our reproductive data as within this committee's jurisdiction or otherwise I yel back. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.
▶ 0:19:51Mr. Flood, you're recognized. Chairman Harris, Ranking Member Bishop, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to share exciting updates about an important project to my district and the next generation of United States agriculture. Specifically, I would like to call your attention to a project that should be very familiar to the subcommittee.
▶ 0:20:17The United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service National Center for Resilient and Regenerative Precision Agriculture. This colllocated facility at the University of Nebraska Lincoln and adjacent public private a tech accelerator will anchor a national network comprised of ARS and land grant universities committed to addressing one of the most critical science gaps to advancing innovation in American agriculture.
▶ 0:20:42I want to begin by thanking the subcommittee for their support of this project in previous appropriations packages. I was extremely pleased to see the subcommittee meet the full funding ask and recognize the important need for investments in cutting edge agriculture. Uh now we must keep the momentum to secure a significant construction funds in fiscal year 26 in light of prior continuing resolutions and as inflationary escalation costs continue to rise.
▶ 0:21:08Congress appropriated 11.2 $2 million for planning and design in FY21, 20 million for construction in FY22, 25 million for construction in FY24, and an additional 16 million was included in FY25. The first phase of construction slated to begin in uh was slated to begin in 2024.
▶ 0:21:28Uh that is now building 15,000 square ft of greenhouse and 10,000 square ft of headhouse space and connect with the existing greenhouse innovation center. The second phase of construction uh which will commence when Congress appropriates all funds will go towards constructing a 120,000 uh square foot uh four-story laboratory and office building on the Nebraska Innovation Campus in Lincoln, Nebraska.
▶ 0:21:55uh ARS will utilize these new facilities for scientists and staff in the two existing research units on u the agrio system management and on wheat sorghum and forage and two new research units on water climate and resilience and on precision production. Ultimately USDA expects to double its science and support staff presence in Lincoln at this new complex. Last May the University of Nebraska hosted a groundbreaking ceremony for phase one which I enjoyed uh attending.
▶ 0:22:24Members of the Nebraska congressional delegation were there, university leadership, stakeholders, everybody was there to support this facility. Precision a is a key piece of Nebraska's a fabric and it makes sense that this project has found its home in the Corn Husker state. A January 2024 GAO report showed Nebraska is at the forefront of utilization and adoption of precision egg technology and practices.
▶ 0:22:46And the report showed Nebraska is second in the nation in the use of precision agriculture practices by US farms with 55% of Nebraska producers using a tools. I could go on and on and on about the benefits of this program. I want to thank the subcommittee for its past support. This was started by my predecessor, Congressman Foronberry. It was very important to him and uh by virtue of uh his efforts and leadership on this, I wanted to continue this and see this through.
▶ 0:23:14And with that, I thank you for the opportunity to present to you. Thank you very much. Uh what's the total uh budget uh going to be for that second phase? Like how close are we to getting to the uh total before they build the construction of it? I think we are technically at 60 million now and we're on our way to 120 million and then there's state funds on top of that. So we're really $60 million away. That's 60 million.
▶ 0:23:42And um last year uh that that uh 16 million that was included uh obviously was deferred I guess because of the continuing resolution. So that 60 million would include uh last year's or no it does it would not include that. You're at 1125. So we got 25 million in FY24, right? And 20 million in 22 and 11.2 in 21. So you'd be about halfway there.
▶ 0:24:09And you and what what's the uh cost share with the other uh funders that you indicated? I believe the University of Nebraska and the state government is in at $30 million. Okay. So, we're getting there. All right. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming in support of the project. I'm familiar with it. Uh worked uh for some time with Mr. to Fort andberry uh to try to get it get it funded.
▶ 0:24:39Uh it's very important to him and to the area and to the industry. So we we certainly have been supportive of it. Uh I am hopeful that uh the reconciliation process and as we craft the budget uh that uh it will not be among those items that are cut uh because I think it was a a worthwhile project and I hope that we can continue to fund it to completion. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Flood.
▶ 0:25:10Mr. Bishop, do you have any closing? No comments. Yes. Uh, I just want to thank uh Representative Hedgeman and Flood for testifying before the subcommittee today. I appreciate the time that they took to come and share with us and we appreciate the information is vital as we craft our bill. So, thank you very much. Yeah. Uh, thank you. And uh just I want to thank everybody who attended today uh tell us more about the programs important to the state and the district.
▶ 0:25:40Uh I will say that I I know that we're going to get requests for a lot of funding and I wish more members had come and and uh as Mr. Flood and Miss Hagaman have done and and uh you know inform the committee as we make uh those decisions. Uh but it's certainly been helpful information. We certainly keep your comments and priorities in mind as we move through the FY26 appropriations process. The subcommittee stands