Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration - Member Day

House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

2025-04-29

Loading video...

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies received testimony from two representatives regarding important programs and projects for the upcoming FY26 appropriations bill.[ 00:02:38-00:02:51 ] The subcommittee members expressed appreciation for the input, which will be critical in funding agencies under their jurisdiction.[ 00:02:51-00:02:56 ]

Themes

Opposition to USDA's Electronic Identification (EID) Mandate

Representative Hageman voiced strong opposition to the USDA's recent mandate requiring electronic identification (EID) ear tags for cattle and bison moving interstate, urging the subcommittee to block its enforcement. She argued that the mandate is unlawful, destructive, and ignored devastating repercussions and proper regulatory processes. The policy disproportionately affects independent and family-owned operations, particularly in states like Wyoming that lack major meat processing facilities, forcing livestock to cross state lines.

Hageman contended that USDA's cost estimates of $26.1 million annually are a "sleight of hand," as they only account for the tags and ignore other compliance costs, such as hardware, software, and labor, making the true cost closer to $250 million if applied broadly. Furthermore, she highlighted a persistent shortage of EID tags, which has caused prices to skyrocket and forced ranchers into non-compliance. The representative stated that the USDA lacks the authority under the Animal Health Protection Act to impose such a mandate and that it faces an active legal challenge.

Concerns were also raised that the rule, advocated by "big ag," packers, and ear tag manufacturers, is a "solution in search of a problem" and is leading to the vertical integration of the food supply, driving small producers out of business. Hageman pointed out that an effective disease traceability system already exists and worried that the EID system could be misused for "nefarious purposes" such as climate change-related herd reduction, similar to policies in Denmark and Ireland, and raises data protection issues potentially exposing ranchers to hostile groups. She proposed nullifying the rule and withholding financing for its implementation as immediate solutions.

Funding for the National Center for Resilient and Regenerative Precision Agriculture

Representative Flood presented an update on the USDA Agricultural Research Service National Center for Resilient and Regenerative Precision Agriculture in Nebraska, thanking the subcommittee for its past appropriations support. He emphasized the importance of securing significant construction funds in FY26 to complete the facility, noting previous appropriations totaling $72.2 million for planning, design, and initial construction phases. The project, which includes greenhouse, head house, laboratory, and office space, will double USDA's science and support staff in Lincoln and foster innovation in agriculture.

Nebraska's leadership in precision agriculture makes it an ideal location for the center, with 55% of its producers already utilizing advanced tools. The total federal funding goal is $120 million, with an additional $30 million committed by the University of Nebraska and the state government.[ 00:23:50-00:23:56 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Both Chairman Harris and Ranking Member Bishop expressed their support for the project's continued funding, recognizing its long-term significance to the industry and the region.

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was primarily professional and appreciative, with both Chairman Harris and Ranking Member Bishop expressing gratitude for the representatives' testimony and acknowledging the value of their input for the FY26 appropriations process.[ 00:02:32-00:03:01 ] There was an evident concern for the impact of policies and funding decisions on the agricultural sector and food supply chain. Representative Hageman's testimony was delivered with passion and strong criticism of the EID mandate, prompting engaged questioning from the committee members regarding its implications. Representative Flood's remarks, conversely, conveyed an informative and optimistic outlook regarding the precision agriculture research center.[ 00:23:19-00:23:19 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
 Overall, the meeting reflected a diligent effort by the subcommittee to gather essential information for upcoming legislative decisions, with a shared focus on balancing economic realities, regulatory impacts, and the future of American agriculture.[ 00:02:46-00:02:56 ]

Participants

Transcript

Good 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 Ag 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.   Thank 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 Hageman and Representative Flood.  As I've often noted, the agencies in our bill conduct vital work that touches the lives of every single American every day.   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 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.  Representative Hagerman, you're recognized.
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 interstate.  Ending 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 November 5, 2024, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's final rule, use of electronic identification ear tags as official identification in cattle and bison, went into effect.  The 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.   For 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 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 and $1.9 billion.  Yet USDA estimates that the current rule would cost just $26.1 million annually.   This sleight 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 EID system.
They 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 U.S.  ranchers from the cost burden of this rule by providing $15 million to the agency for implementation.  Unfortunately, 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.  Throughout 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 backorder 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.  Tag 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.   The 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 form of enforcement possible, which is denying access to the interstate cattle and bison markets.
thereby essentially forcing bankruptcy for noncompliance.  For this very reason and others, the rule is under an active legal challenge.  These policy shortcomings are a result of a regulatory development malpractice.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up